An open letter to the people who hate Obama more than they love America

[CuteOldGuy]

I read your link, and that was ONE meeting in March, 2010. It was passed in December 2010. Where were the deliberations, the give and take? Nowhere. In fact, certain Senators had to be bribed to vote for the damn thing. Don't even try to tell me this debate was open and above board, and that everyone knew what they were voting on. Not even Obama believes that.

[nevergaveitathought]

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

Where were the meetings and discussions? Hell, most of them didn't even read the damn bill before they voted on it. It was crammed down their throat. Even Pelosi admitted she didn't know what was in it, but wanted to pass it so they could find out. Meetings and discussions. Bullshit.

there was a meeting at the white house....

john mccain was there...filmed by the c span...went something like this.... john mcain, "mr. president, i feel that there are several issues we need to discuss and...".... obama snaps, "the election is over john!" and he goes on to talk forever about his talking points


lamar alexander, "mr. president we have these concerns, we have discussed issues with many governors and....".... obama chuckles, " the bill on the floor that my friend Lamar is lamenting here has significant input from the Republicans." and he goes on to talk forever about his talking points

paul ryan, "mr. president, one reason Democrats are saying their bills will reduce the deficit is because they put in a separate piece of legislation the very costly idea of fixing the formula by which Medicare pays doctors and hospitals. If you add that in, this bill would not even be close to deficit neutral." obama dodging, "we disagree about the numbers and now about Medicare Advantage....." and he goes on to talk forever about that

various repubs, "mr. president...." obama without patience. "its not time for your talking points" and he goes on to talk forever about his talking points


it went eerily like the above and is a paraphrase but fairly close

[Munchmasterman]

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

I read your link, and that was ONE meeting in March, 2010. It was passed in December 2010. Where were the deliberations, the give and take? Nowhere. In fact, certain Senators had to be bribed to vote for the damn thing. Don't even try to tell me this debate was open and above board, and that everyone knew what they were voting on. Not even Obama believes that.

I proved what I said. Since you can't take a hint or don't have a clue, why would I try to convince you?
You see there is one meeting, maybe you could look for more yourself.
You knew there were no meetings. You were wrong.
Now without any research, you know a lot more. Wrong again.

Let's cover bills one more time for the slow ones.
Since Herman Cain dropped out, you won't see all bills as 3 pages or less.
A bill needs to be as long as it needs to be. As an attorney, I guess I thought you would know all the legalities, the stipulations, etc., etc., etc.
Because the second a bill is published, there are thousands of real lawyers combing through it, looking for loopholes or omissions, etc., etc., etc.
And surprise! The Congress folk don't read the bills. They haven't for many Presidents. They come up with the concepts Why would a non-lawyer congressman read 2000 pages of lawyer speak that describe and protect the actual bill and etc., etc., etc.

How can you not know that?

The staff or "worker bees" take care of the details.

In the words of Don Henley and Bruce Hornsby

But "happily ever after" fails
And we've been poisoned by these fairy tales
The lawyers dwell on small details
Since daddy had to fly

[Munchmasterman]

Originally Posted by nevergaveitathought

there was a meeting at the white house....

john mccain was there...filmed by the c span...went something like this.... john mcain, "mr. president, i feel that there are several issues we need to discuss and...".... obama snaps, "the election is over john!" and he goes on to talk forever about his talking points


lamar alexander, "mr. president we have these concerns, we have discussed issues with many governors and....".... obama chuckles, " the bill on the floor that my friend Lamar is lamenting here has significant input from the Republicans." and he goes on to talk forever about his talking points

paul ryan, "mr. president, one reason Democrats are saying their bills will reduce the deficit is because they put in a separate piece of legislation the very costly idea of fixing the formula by which Medicare pays doctors and hospitals. If you add that in, this bill would not even be close to deficit neutral." obama dodging, "we disagree about the numbers and now about Medicare Advantage....." and he goes on to talk forever about that

various repubs, "mr. president...." obama without patience. "its not time for your talking points" and he goes on to talk forever about his talking points


it went eerily like the above and is a paraphrase but fairly close

Your version is eerily like bullshit.
Here is a link to the video that proves your version is bullshit.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/health-care-meeting/bipartisan-meeting

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2010/feb/24/fact-checking-obama-bipartisan-health-care-reform-/

Paraphrasing + lack of links= bullshit.

Or am I wrong? Do you have any links that back your version?

Chirp, chirp

[Laz]

The "bipartisan" meetings they had on the health care law were put on for show. They had no intention of making any significant compromise.

[CuteOldGuy]

LIve happily in your own little world, Munch.

[nevergaveitathought]

Originally Posted by Munchmasterman

Your version is eerily like bullshit.
Here is a link to the video that proves your version is bullshit.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/health-care-meeting/bipartisan-meeting

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2010/feb/24/fact-checking-obama-bipartisan-health-care-reform-/

Paraphrasing + lack of links= bullshit.

Or am I wrong? Do you have any links that back your version?

Chirp, chirp

Dear Munchmasterman

thanks for the exchange. i think that an open exchange with truth as the goal and candor and goodwill the medium is enlightening and mind expanding.

now as to my post that you copied and remarked upon:

elements of what makes a post true or perhaps a better phrase is "more true than not", in other words what makes a post not bullshit as you say mine is, are more than, in this case, exact words of a meeting being quoted.

first there is the context of your exchange with COG.:

His point was along the lines that health care etc was not bipartisan and i think he did say there weren't meetings. you were adamant there were.

now the truth is, there was technically a meeting but it was sham in nature. both sides knew it was, it was political. the repubs went knowing it was worthless but they had to go because all before they were lamenting that the process should be bi-partisan and they should have input, so obama gave them a meeting and to not go , well they would be crucified by the media and made to seem mere obstructionists.

have you ever gone to a meeting and you get there, and you realize there had been a behind the scenes meeting already and everything that the meeting was supposed to be about had already been decided beforehand by those who were in cahoots? well i have. this meeting was very similar to that but even more so, it was for rubes and partisans and water-carriers to be excited about.

so the truth of whether there had or had not been a meeting is, technically yes, substantively, no. I think COG wins that round even if just by spirit rather than the letter.

my post was an attempt to convey that in what was supposed to be a humorous yet sarcastic way and short enough to read easily to drive home the idea the meeting was pointless. it was never meant to be verbatim but to accurately convey the sham nature of the meeting.

As to having to post a link to not make a post bullshit:

well granted you don't realize my uncanny memory (lol) and dont trust my recall like i do, but to post some however many hours of a link to support the point of my post was worthless. to have you or any reader of my post, scan through pages of transcript or watch hours of video, well all they would come away with is, yes there was a meeting and wasnt it nice. the smarmy imperiousness of obama at the meeting would be lost. the object of his to merely fill up time until the meeting was over would be lost. the dismissiveness and short shriftness of obama would be lost. now i had watched the meeting as it transpired, well as much as i could take, and my recall is fairly accurate. the conversations i typed weren't meant to be exact nor complete, but those words, the meaning i typed, were said in substance.

as to your link proving what i said was bullshit, well thats your opinion and to be honest, i havent clicked on your link. i seldom click on any link nor read long paste and copies in here. its just too much, i keep up with things on a more than casual basis and i do have a good memory, thats not to say i cant make a mistake and i certainly can be wrong, just ask WTF. but instead of reading or watching links, id rather read something someone posts for an understanding of the heart of the person and their world view and to address that in what i would consider a logical manner.

Now you may be most interested in whether any of the exchanges, where granted i took literary license to make a point, i posted, as between John McCain and obama, or Lamar Alexander and obama, or Paul Ryan etc, were ever said or nearly said, or conveyed in essence a real exchange between the parties.

You force me to wander through pages of transcript and then copy those exchanges and paste them to prove it to you. to get to the meaning i posted, and i didnt type or try to type or try to even recall every word sentence or paragraph Lamar Alexander may have said for example (but i just gave a few words for an understanding of what they were saying), i'd still have to edit their words down to a select few in my paste and copy that matched what i typed. As to obama's responses to these men, they are almost verbatim and copying and pasting his responses are more easily accomplished without editing down to make them succinctly match my post.

So now i'm off to find a transcript to paste and copy the exchanges i referred to.

[Cpalmson]

I do not hate Obama. I hate his politics and worldview.

I do not hate gays; I just wish they would go back into the closet and stop demanding to be considered normal or mainstream. They are neither. If they want to be butt-pirates, fine. I just don't want to know about it or more precisely my kids to know about it.

I do not hate labor unions; I just think they have out-lived their usefulness and are now nothing more than corrupt pieces of garbage more akin to organizes crime than organized labor.

I do not hate women; I just think that an unborn US citizen should have the same Constitutional rights as a born US citizen. Women need to get over it when they say it is their body and they have a right to do as they please. No, it is not JUST their body. It is also the host for the body of another living human being.

Now, I do hate Muslims (in general). 19 Muslims attacked us on Sept 11th and the Muslim world celebrated. I can never forgive that. There were very few Muslims who publicly condemned the attacks. Those that sat in silence were giving their tacit approval for the attacks. Much like the German nation had to pay a huge price for Hitler's atrocities because the German people did nothing, the same can be said for the Muslim population.

[anaximander]

Could not have said it better.

[Jackie S]

I long for those good ole days, actually just a few years back, when George W Bush was in Office, when the President was treated with repect by the opposition Party and all of their like thinking compadres.

[CuteOldGuy]

Yeah! What Never said!

[nevergaveitathought]

the research must await, i have been indisposed and remain so

[Munchmasterman]

Originally Posted by nevergaveitathought

Dear Munchmasterman

thanks for the exchange. i think that an open exchange with truth as the goal and candor and goodwill the medium is enlightening and mind expanding.

now as to my post that you copied and remarked upon:

elements of what makes a post true or perhaps a better phrase is "more true than not", in other words what makes a post not bullshit as you say mine is, are more than, in this case, exact words of a meeting being quoted.

first there is the context of your exchange with COG.:

His point was along the lines that health care etc was not bipartisan and i think he did say there weren't meetings. you were adamant there were. You think? Your handle sums things up.

now the truth is, there was technically a meeting but it was sham in nature. both sides knew it was, it was political. the repubs went knowing it was worthless but they had to go because all before they were lamenting that the process should be bi-partisan and they should have input, so obama gave them a meeting and to not go , well they would be crucified by the media and made to seem mere obstructionists.They had a meeting. It was stated in the beginning that no one's point of view would change. It was a meeting to compare the 2 sides different ideas. It was never a meeting to decide anything or held up as such. That's what congress does.

have you ever gone to a meeting and you get there, and you realize there had been a behind the scenes meeting already and everything that the meeting was supposed to be about had already been decided beforehand by those who were in cahoots? well i have. this meeting was very similar to that but even more so, it was for rubes and partisans and water-carriers to be excited about.Why would they give you a say? You don't like to read long things. This example has nothing to do with the subject. Nothing was going to be decided and no one ever said there was.

so the truth of whether there had or had not been a meeting is, technically yes, substantively, no. I think COG wins that round even if just by spirit rather than the letter. The truth is that you have given your opinion and nothing more.

my post was an attempt to convey that in what was supposed to be a humorous yet sarcastic way and short enough to read easily to drive home the idea the meeting was pointless. it was never meant to be verbatim but to accurately convey the sham nature of the meeting.Your handle speaks again. You have said you didn't read the transcript or watch the videos because they were too long. You portrayed the President as constantly interrupting, being disrespectful to the repubs, and speaking the vast majority of the time. No one interrupted anyone. Everyone was courteous. Your version was completely wrong, in spirit, in every aspect.

As to having to post a link to not make a post bullshit:

well granted you don't realize my uncanny memory (lol) and dont trust my recall like i do, but to post some however many hours of a link to support the point of my post was worthless. to have you or any reader of my post, scan through pages of transcript or watch hours of video, well all they would come away with is, yes there was a meeting and wasnt it nice. the smarmy imperiousness of obama at the meeting would be lost. the object of his to merely fill up time until the meeting was over would be lost. the dismissiveness and short shriftness of obama would be lost. now i had watched the meeting as it transpired, well as much as i could take, and my recall is fairly accurate. the conversations i typed weren't meant to be exact nor complete, but those words, the meaning i typed, were said in substance.Such a detailed description by someone with a 3 sec attention span.

as to your link proving what i said was bullshit, well thats your opinion and to be honest, i havent clicked on your link. i seldom click on any link nor read long paste and copies in here. its just too much, i keep up with things on a more than casual basis and i do have a good memory, thats not to say i cant make a mistake and i certainly can be wrong, just ask WTF. but instead of reading or watching links, id rather read something someone posts for an understanding of the heart of the person and their world view and to address that in what i would consider a logical manner.
You don't know anything about debate and since you don't read, you don't expand your mind much.
Now you may be most interested in whether any of the exchanges, where granted i took literary license to make a point, i posted, as between John McCain and obama, or Lamar Alexander and obama, or Paul Ryan etc, were ever said or nearly said, or conveyed in essence a real exchange between the parties.I know they didn't. But don't take my word for it. Read the links. Oh, your handle again.

You force me to wander through pages of transcript and then copy those exchanges and paste them to prove it to you. to get to the meaning i posted, and i didnt type or try to type or try to even recall every word sentence or paragraph Lamar Alexander may have said for example (but i just gave a few words for an understanding of what they were saying), i'd still have to edit their words down to a select few in my paste and copy that matched what i typed. As to obama's responses to these men, they are almost verbatim and copying and pasting his responses are more easily accomplished without editing down to make them succinctly match my post.
I force you? Your uncanny memory doesn't remember where you saw them in the first place to provide the basis in fact needed for sarcasm? How about your browser history? It OK. We know you made it up on the fly.
So now i'm off to find a transcript to paste and copy the exchanges i referred to.

I don't copy and paste my ideas or arguments. I copy and paste outside information that supports or backs up my claims. You know, I say something and show proof.
Funny that you lack the smallest appearance of conducting something like "i think that an open exchange with truth as the goal and candor and goodwill the medium is enlightening and mind expanding."

It's like I said.

You are full of shit.

[Munchmasterman]

Originally Posted by Laz

The "bipartisan" meetings they had on the health care law were put on for show. They had no intention of making any significant compromise.

A bipartisan meeting was offered and accepted. Nothing was said agreeing to a bipartisan decision. No president has ever agreed that bills must be bipartisan.

The repubs didn't ask for or offer up any compromises.

They had alternatives completely different from the dem's ideas.

When the majority party puts forth a deal and the minority party won't negotiate with them and only holds up their version, the results are very predictable.

The repubs didn't seek a bipartisan agreement to make Obama a one term President. It's obvious that America isn't on their focused agenda.

[CuteOldGuy]

Remember 2010