Obama responds to Hillary's fear mongering over national security

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Can she OWN herself?

LOL....PWND by Clinton herself.

[HAL 9000 96]

The art of self-flagellation only goes so far when an electorate has the collective memory of an untrained mouse.

[mawilson 2,133]

I do believe that health care is much, much cheaper than squandering billions per week in the desert.

The billions per week squandered in the desert are borrowed money (which must be repaid over time, with interest.)

Universal health care, on the other hand, will pull billions of dollars from the federal budget.

[HAL 9000 96]

I do believe that health care is much, much cheaper than squandering billions per week in the desert.

The billions per week squandered in the desert are borrowed money (which must be repaid over time, with interest.)

Universal health care, on the other hand, will pull billions of dollars from the federal budget.

To make people healthy. Versus squandering it away. Big difference to me there- to live a little versus kill a lot. I do believe once preventative medicine grabs a hold of all of us, costs will go down. Wars, however, be it presently funded or funded by our grandkids, rarely go down in price...

[simple_male 1]

I do believe that health care is much, much cheaper than squandering billions per week in the desert.

The billions per week squandered in the desert are borrowed money (which must be repaid over time, with interest.)

Universal health care, on the other hand, will pull billions of dollars from the federal budget.

To make people healthy. Versus squandering it away. Big difference to me there- to live a little versus kill a lot. I do believe once preventative medicine grabs a hold of all of us, costs will go down. Wars, however, be it presently funded or funded by our grandkids, rarely go down in price...

46-million uninsured people would appreciate the universal healthcare. It won't be easy to do, but the insurance should be affordable to everyone, if one is not able to pay for it, the govt/state should help that individual.

[mawilson 2,133]

To make people healthy. Versus squandering it away. Big difference to me there- to live a little versus kill a lot. I do believe once preventative medicine grabs a hold of all of us, costs will go down. Wars, however, be it presently funded or funded by our grandkids, rarely go down in price...

No, all I'm saying is that healthcare must be budgeted. You can't build a healthcare system

by borrowing X amount of money once or twice - healthcare is not a one-off job. Borrowing

money all the time to balance the budget is not an option either.

[HAL 9000 96]

Of course it should be Marc. If we lead ourselves down the blank check business with healthcare, I'm sure lobbyists will find a way to turn the insurance industry into something profitable. The difference between that system, costing taxpayers a guaranteed flow of taxes, vs the current system we have in effect now, costing taxpayers a guaranteed flow of private company premiums, is that the taxation would be more representative NORMALIZED to the entire taxpaying population.

Hence, instead of paying a $200,000 hospital bill for an operation, the cost is distributed and regulated for all to pay- do the math... it becomes quite silly to think of oneself as our neighbor's keeper under the current system since the value system in effect these days tends to emphasize more of a screw thy neighbor existence. Too bad what I think would be a great plan sounds too communistic for others that fail to see the logic in keeping our citizens healthy.

Then of course, there is education to be addressed as well... that with preventative medicine do wonders to keep costs down and lets us more effectively deal with actual health emergencies.

[metta 0]

Obama responded to Clinton's ad in a speech to veterans in Houston today, according to prepared remarks. He accused her of playing on fear, and echoed his staff's retort that she's had, and blown, her red phone moment:

Now before we open this up for conversation, I just want to take a moment to respond to an ad that Sen. Clinton is apparently running today that asks, "Who do you want answering the phone in the White House when it's 3 a.m. and something has happened in the world?"

We've seen these ads before. They're the kind that play on peoples' fears to scare up votes.

Well it won't work this time. Because the question is not about picking up the phone. The question is — what kind of judgment will you make when you answer? We've had a red phone moment. It was the decision to invade Iraq. And Sen. Clinton gave the wrong answer. George Bush gave the wrong answer. John McCain gave the wrong answer.

...

And I'll never see the threat of terrorism as a way to scare up votes, because it's a threat that should rally this country around our common enemies. That's the judgment we need at 3 a.m. And that's the judgment that I am running for president to provide.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/020..._red_phone.html

Oh yes! The question is: when that red phone rings, is he going to render the "we must not go into Iraq" kinda decision (decide to bloviate like zillion other Americans with no charged responsibility) or the "bone-headed" kinda decision he made when he accepted the "friendly help" from Rezko?

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Oh yes! The question is: when that red phone rings, is he going to render the "we must not go into Iraq" kinda decision (decide to bloviate like zillion other Americans with no charged responsibility) or the "bone-headed" kinda decision he made when he accepted the "friendly help" from Rezko?

That's about the silliest, nonsensical thing I've read here in awhile (since Boo-yah last posted).

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Obama responded to Clinton's ad in a speech to veterans in Houston today, according to prepared remarks. He accused her of playing on fear, and echoed his staff's retort that she's had, and blown, her red phone moment:

Now before we open this up for conversation, I just want to take a moment to respond to an ad that Sen. Clinton is apparently running today that asks, "Who do you want answering the phone in the White House when it's 3 a.m. and something has happened in the world?"

We've seen these ads before. They're the kind that play on peoples' fears to scare up votes.

Well it won't work this time. Because the question is not about picking up the phone. The question is — what kind of judgment will you make when you answer? We've had a red phone moment. It was the decision to invade Iraq. And Sen. Clinton gave the wrong answer. George Bush gave the wrong answer. John McCain gave the wrong answer.

...

And I'll never see the threat of terrorism as a way to scare up votes, because it's a threat that should rally this country around our common enemies. That's the judgment we need at 3 a.m. And that's the judgment that I am running for president to provide.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/020..._red_phone.html

Oh yes! The question is: when that red phone rings, is he going to render the "we must not go into Iraq" kinda decision (decide to bloviate like zillion other Americans with no charged responsibility) or the "bone-headed" kinda decision he made when he accepted the "friendly help" from Rezko?

Not that what you bring up here has any relevance in the context provided but I thought I remind you quickly that the Clinton campaign may be rather ill advised to try and bring up issues of "bone-headed" decisions regarding real estate dealings.

Edited February 29, 2008 by Mr. Big Dog

[metta 0]

Not that what you bring up here has any relevance in the context provided but I thought I remind you quickly that the Clinton campaign may be rather ill advised to try and bring up issues of "bone-headed" decisions regarding real estate dealings.

Now , now, that 'bone-headed" thing is BO's self-description Rheinhart. How come Barackis' are so touchy when it comes their "messiah"

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Not that what you bring up here has any relevance in the context provided but I thought I remind you quickly that the Clinton campaign may be rather ill advised to try and bring up issues of "bone-headed" decisions regarding real estate dealings.

Now , now, that 'bone-headed" thing is BO's self-description Rheinhart. How come Barackis' are so touchy when it comes their "messiah"

The day you post something that shows that you're not so neck deep into Sen. Clinton to where you can see her do no wrong and you can see Sen. Obama doing nothing right, will be an enlightening moment for all of us.

[Peikko 1,575]

Woah, Steven, that's a bit thick!

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Woah, Steven, that's a bit thick!

It's dead on. Anyone who can't say something positive about one candidate and also has nothing negative to say about another is highly suspicious of being detached from reality.

[Peikko 1,575]

Detached from reality? Ok, your view, I don't share it.