Archive for Monday, September 21, 2009

Obama: Health mandate isn’t tax increase

September 21, 2009


— President Barack Obama says requiring people to get health insurance and fining them if they don’t would not amount to a backhanded tax increase. “I absolutely reject that notion,” the president said.

Blanketing most of the Sunday TV news shows, Obama defended his proposed health care overhaul, including a key point of the various health care bills on Capitol Hill: mandating that people get health insurance to share the cost burden fairly among all. Those who failed to get coverage would face financial penalties.

Obama said other elements of the plan would make insurance affordable for people, from a new comparison-shopping “exchange” to tax credits.

Obama faces an enormous political and communications challenge in selling his health care plan as Congress debates how to pay for it all.


situveux1 8 years, 7 months ago

If it's not a tax increase then what is it?

Flap Doodle 8 years, 7 months ago

If it walks like a duck, swims like a duck and quacks like a duck, then it probably isn't a Rosebreasted Grosbeak.

imastinker 8 years, 7 months ago

How dense do you guys have to be to see that this isn't a tax?

Besides - Obama know what to do with you money better than you do! How dare you question him! You must be racists!

bankboy119 8 years, 7 months ago


I think stinker was all sarcasm....I hope.

And yes, this is a tax increase.

tbaker 8 years, 7 months ago

"Tax" seems to be the word everyone uses when ever the government does something that ends up costing each of us more of our money. Consequently, politicians don't use the word to label what they are doing which gives them the ability to (technically) say they aren't raising taxes. Thankfully, the vast majority of people are smart enough to see through this nonsense, which explains much of the resistance to the President's plan.

imastinker 8 years, 7 months ago

I thought I was pretty clear about the sarcasm. There are people out there that nutty though - so I suppose I need to be more clear!

Speaking of bozo......

Satirical 8 years, 7 months ago can prove anything even remotely true with facts. - Homer Simpson

Satirical 8 years, 7 months ago

“Mr. Obama: 'No, but—but, George, you—you can't just make up that language and decide that that's called a tax increase.'

'I don't think I'm making it up,' Mr. Stephanopoulos said. He then had the temerity to challenge the Philologist in Chief, with an assist from Merriam-Webster. He cited that dictionary's definition of 'tax'—'a charge, usually of money, imposed by authority on persons or property for public purposes.'

Mr. Obama: 'George, the fact that you looked up Merriam's Dictionary, the definition of tax increase, indicates to me that you're stretching a little bit right now… .' “

Jimo 8 years, 7 months ago

Doh! I was going to renew my auto insurance today but spending money on my own benefit is a "tax" and I wouldn't want to do that!

bankboy119 8 years, 7 months ago


I would spend less money per year by paying for expenses on my own than what I pay for insurance. I'm covered because I have a family. If people don't want to pay for health insurance they shouldn't have to. It is taxing them. (And technically is taxing me but it's my choice)

Satirical 8 years, 7 months ago


Actually, you currently are not paying taxes, by paying for health insurance. You would be paying taxes if the government required you to get insurance (unlike car insurance, where you don't have to pay if you don't own a car) for the "public good." Currently you choose to pay for health insurance, there is no government imposed penalty for not having it, and your money is pooled within a company it is not given to the government. This would all change under ObamaCare.

SettingTheRecordStraight 8 years, 7 months ago

And for the 10 million healthy Americans who choose not to purchase health insurance, a new government fee/tax/mandate will be very unwelcome news.

bankboy119 8 years, 7 months ago


I get this. I'm saying it's a self-imposed "tax" on myself :) Obviously, I can't tax myself. It was poor joke.

ralphralph 8 years, 7 months ago

waddle, waddle, waddle ... "Quack!" ... waddle, waddle, waddle ... "Quack!"

Can I get a "You Lie!"?

georgiahawk 8 years, 7 months ago

Just so that I understand, any money that goes to the government is a tax and all taxes are bad.

Satirical 8 years, 7 months ago

Georgiahawk… “any money that goes to the government is a tax”

Again, refer to Merriam Webster’s dictionary. Most states draw a distinction between “fees” and “taxes,” and impose different requirements for the use of such funds. However, I am not aware if there is such a distinction at the federal level (or if it is relevant to our discussion).

“all taxes are bad” – georgiahawk

All taxes are not bad. Too much taxation is bad. Increasing taxes in a poor economy is bad. Excessive government bureaucracy is bad.

Lying is bad (Breaking a campaign promises that no one making under $200k a year would be taxed is bad.)

Hope that helps!

Satirical 8 years, 7 months ago

I think we need a new dictionary in this country. We should abandon Merriam-Webster and instead use the Obama-Pelosi-Reid dictionary. Who is with me!?!

tkeagleblog 8 years, 7 months ago

"tax" "fee" what ever they call it. I pay for my families' insurance. Don't want to pay for someone else's no matter what they call it.

georgiahawk 8 years, 7 months ago

Thank you for clearing up the fact that a fee on the local level is not a tax but it is a tax on the national level. So, if all taxes are not necessarily bad, then when is a tax good and when is it bad?

blindrabbit 8 years, 7 months ago

Obama haters out in force; Tom, Barry, rightwinger, on and on!!!! Do you remember the huge deficits that began with Reagan, and continued under Bush 1 and The Shrub.

That and Reagan's "trickle-up" fiscal program. The "wells" got "weller" under that. Keep the less fortunate oppressed.

Also, Shrub's wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and the hugh non-budgeted mandates that have happened because of them.

Why do taxes so repel you and yet you are willing to sell your souls to oppressive deficits???

bankboy119 8 years, 7 months ago


That's the whole debate. My take, if higher taxes were good, then communist countries would be the most wonderful places on earth. As it is, less government interference in my life is better.

KS 8 years, 7 months ago

The liar in chief, lies again. Where is Joe Wilson when you need him?

blindrabbit 8 years, 7 months ago

Barry: You reference Darwin on occasion! Darwin was not only noted for his work on Evolution, but also on Natural Selection! Based on trends in population dynamics in the US as well as the results of the last election; I would guess your views may be headed for an eventual extinction.

SettingTheRecordStraight 8 years, 7 months ago


If you can understand the following, you will see why most fiscal conservatives do not favor a government takeover of health care.

*Taxes at every level are already too high.

*Government is bloated, bureaucratic and (sometimes) corrupt.

*Government has a poor track record managing its affairs, e.g Iraq, the Post Office, the DMV, the VA, Hurricane Katrina, Bernard Madoff, etc.

*Special interest groups always find a way to manipulate the government into benefitting themselves at the expense of others.

*While the government has an important role in providing services that the private market cannot provide for itself, e.g. the military, infrastructure, the courts, police, fire departments, Big Brother has neither the right nor the responsibility to meddle in society the way it does today.

Stuart Evans 8 years, 7 months ago

I would bet that if people had a choice to check yes or no next to every line item they're taxed on, we'd see a whole lot less government spending.

Flap Doodle 8 years, 7 months ago

Next April 15, just write "Rangel rule" on your 1040 & send it in otherwise blank.

Stuart Evans 8 years, 7 months ago

quite frankly, i'd like to see an in depth investigation of the legality of filing an income tax at all.

blindrabbit 8 years, 7 months ago

The BOWMP's are out in force having yapped the moderates out of the GOP!!

jobohe 8 years, 7 months ago

Now I understand why it seems normal to have a treasury secretary who cheats on his taxes.

This all depends on what the meaning of the word is is.

I will join others in exercising my free speech rights outside the House chamber while I still have them: The president is a liar.

blindrabbit 8 years, 7 months ago

an acronym: Bitter Old White Men's Party

labmonkey 8 years, 7 months ago


So if the deficits under Reagan and the Bushes were bad, why would a much bigger deficit be better? According to projections, Obama's best deficit year will still be worse than W's worst year. That's what I don't get about people who shout "Obama inheirited this mess,"... If all the spending under Bush was bad, why would even more spending under Obama be better?

To make an analogy, it's like marrying someone with $20K credit card debt and upside down on their car payment...yet you decide to buy a house you cannot afford, a boat to go to the lake on credit and of course a new SUV to pull that boat, on credit. Instead of doing the smart thing and insist upon reigning in the spending and pay your debts off and wait until you can afford to spend, you decide to try to "make things better" by spending more while complaining you inherited the previous debt.

Satirical 8 years, 7 months ago


“a fee on the local level is not a tax but it is a tax on the national level.”

That’s not what I said. Please re-read what I wrote.

“So, if all taxes are not necessarily bad, then when is a tax good and when is it bad”

Each individual has their own opinion on when taxes are good or not. Many people have a healthy distrust for most taxes, dating back the colonial times. I am less skeptical of taxes when they are truly for the “public good” (as that phrase is used in the economics sense).

To put it another way: How about you give me 5% of your income starting next week. I will buy something with your money (after administrative costs and a little waste). I will decide what I buy for you, but you can give me suggestions. Then every week, increase the amount you give me by 5%.

Once you believe you are giving me too much of your money, don’t like what I am giving back to you because as you give me more I will listen less to your suggestions, or dislike how I waste substantially more with every payment increase, then you will know when taxes are good vs. bad.

puddleglum 8 years, 7 months ago

here is not an analogy. Bush/Cheney took all your money and gave it to all the war-profiteers and all repubs think that is okay? take a glance a Iraq..... that's where all your money went, and a lot of it came back in the hands of halliburton and BP

Satirical 8 years, 7 months ago

Snap_pop_no_crackle & AreUNorml….

Amendment XVI to the U.S. Constitution: “The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration.”

I suggest paying your income taxes. Courts have upheld the income tax numerous times.

Stuart Evans 8 years, 7 months ago

seems kinda racist to make a comment like that rabbit. if not racist, at least ignorant. should we call the democrats Bitter old biddies and wimpy men that bow down party?

blindrabbit 8 years, 7 months ago

Labmonkey: I am a fiscal conservative and have absolutely no problem with reigning-in spending and Government in general. My problem is that the so-called conservatives who faun over Reagan/Bush/Shrub and their "trickle-up" economics are fooling themselves thinking that those policies are "conservative".

If you theories about Obama are proven correct then I'll apologize to you; but keep in mind they are your theories only. But, I do know what happened under the most recent 3 Repubs. with huge deficits that occurred under the "Conservative" mantra.

Not picking on you, but many posters here want what benefits them personally, but do not want those advantages to those less fortunate than themselves. I am no bleeding heart, but let's at least attempt to level out the game.

Stuart Evans 8 years, 7 months ago

however, Satirical, the amendment was never ratified by all the states. and by the way it's written, they can tax us at 100% and there's nothing we can do about it? I have a major problem with they way they are spending the money that they extort from me.

Satirical 8 years, 7 months ago

Does anyone else find it humorous that when liberals can't counter an argument, they reply with "but, but Bush...."

Nice try puddleglum & blindrabbit, but logical fallacies will not protect you from the truth.

ralphralph 8 years, 7 months ago

A president, of any flavor, who lies to us with a straight face and a wagging finger, is bad. The current one promised not to raise taxes on people making less than $250k per year. If you let him define taxes, then he can empty your wallet for fees, penalties, disincentives, etc., and act like he kept his promise ... which was, possibly, the most stupid promise since elder Bush told us to read his lips. We read his lips, he raised our taxes, and he got it shoved deep and hard right where he deserved it. Will the current prez be exempt from like consequences?

Satirical 8 years, 7 months ago


I have heard the argument before, that it was never ratified. Trust me, it is constitutional and has been upheld by the courts. I have friends who tried to avoid paying income taxes (using that argument and many others) and are being audited by the IRS.

And yes, unfortunately the federal government has the authority to tax us at 100% of our income. Tax deductions are a matter of “legislative grace.”

Not saying I agree with it, just saying that is the way it is.

labmonkey 8 years, 7 months ago


When you talk of leveling the game, you are by no means a fiscal conservative. Again I ask you...if the Reagan and Bush deficits are bad, then why aren't the even bigger debts that will be caused by Obama not? Answer that for me if you are a fiscal conservative.

bearded_gnome 8 years, 7 months ago

posted this yesterday, before the article above this thread:

not much difference between a "tax" and a compulsory confiscatory artificially high set of premiums.

jumpin_catfish 8 years, 7 months ago

Obama is a liar and now intends to steal the wealth of Americans to "level" the playing field between the haves and have nots which will make us all poor. 1217 days until Nobama!

blindrabbit 8 years, 7 months ago

labmonkey: I'm sure that before Willy took office back in 2000, the so-called conservatives following Reagan and Bush 1 doomed and gloomed us to death about tax increases. It did not happen and we were all the better for it; if you were an investor during that time, you probably never had it so good. No big deficits, no major tax increases, no ill-conceived wars, a balanced budget. But Willy made a mistake with a young aide , and that became his albatross and defined his presidency.

Now here we go again, Shrub darned near wrecked us and everyone is out for Obama taxing us to death. Same old song, different singer.

If I did not make my point as you suggested earlier, what can I say. As Jack Webb as Sgt. Friday said on Dragnet years ago, "Nothin but the Facts".

tbaker 8 years, 7 months ago

Lets examine the performance of past government programs and use that as a predictor of future performance. Sound reasonable?

How about cash for clunkers? How'd that pan-out when all was said and done?

For every $8 dollars in deficit spending on this program, we realized about $1 dollar in crude oil savings. 8:1 isn't so bad when you examine the track record of other government programs, and this one was only $3 billion.

Since cash for clunkers was so small and short-lived, and the health care reforms being considered cost vastly more money, will that mean the program will work a lot better?

KS 8 years, 7 months ago

Right on Pilgrim2 - BTW, the bill itself refers to this as an "excise tax". Another example of folks in Washington NOT reading what is in front of them. BO thinks everyone is part of the "3D" group he is used to working with. Dumb, dependent and democrat. One thing about a liar is that their memory is not good enough to remember which lie they told last. It will catch up with him.

tbaker 8 years, 7 months ago

Satirical is right - the 16th amendment gives the federal government the power to take under threat of force money from private citizens in whatever amount the congress decides. The original constitution forbade this, which is why the 16th amendment needs to be repealed and the FairTax needs to be passed.

tbaker 8 years, 7 months ago

Amen Pilgrim. You nailed it.

In the case of the FairTax though, nothing is exempt. Everyone gets a monthly "prebate" check from the government to reimburse people for the taxes paid on the essentials of life. I had a hard time with this idea until I got on the website and thoroughly researched it. Its the only way to stay revenue neutral. If you start exempting things, it's a slippery slope and pretty soon you don't collect enough to equal current tax receipts (revenue neutral). The poor effectively pay no taxes, the rich actually pay a little more than they do now. Everyone in the middle pays about the same. Illegal aliens pay, as well as the criminal element who operates in the cash world.

One of my favorite aspects of this idea is the fact there are 12-14 Trillion US-held dollars presently not in our economy. They are off-shore in tax-friendly environments. What happens to all that money when the US suddenly becomes the most favorable tax environment in the world? Talk about economic stimulus. Talk about importing jobs. Wow...

georgiahawk 8 years, 7 months ago

Okay, sorry I have not been here to respond to my questions and your answers but I had work to complete and then I went to the bar for a drink.
Settingtherecordstraight, don't treat me as a dumba$$ with your "If you can understand the following", it is demeaning and totally uncalled for. If you want to convince me that you are right you had better start our conversation differently. Your points are (excuse me for paraphrasing): Taxes are too high. Based on what? Other countries? what you feel you are getting in return? Does this apply to all areas of taxation? Personally I don't know what I should be getting in return for my highway dollars. What should I be getting in return for my military dollars?

Government is too big. In general I would agree. I do not trust big government anymore than I trust big business.

Government has a poor track record. Yes they have in the past, but three of the instances you provided as an example were things that happened under Bush and the neocons and they were out to prove to us all that government could not do the job. When success is also defined as making a profit (as in business) and a program does not make a profit it is defined as a failure, I am not sure I agree with that as a model for a government program. Special interest groups are not to be trusted. I agree, that is one of the reasons that big government is necessary, to control the greedy. The government has an important role in providing important services. I agree, doesn't my health fall into that category?

Satirical, I also have a distrust of big government, but I also have a distrust of big business. I am pretty sure that the insurance companies do not want what is best for me over profit for them. How do we balance the two for our best outcome? If I keep all of my money for myself, how much of that will go to keeping myself secure from the bad elements of society that are desperate from shear need?

beatrice 8 years, 7 months ago

I wonder how much of the cost of healthcare would be covered if pharmacuetical companies weren't allowed to write-off their advertisement expenses? Yep, our taxes get to pay for all those drug company advertisements we see on television and in print -- So ask your senator if this tax exemption is right for you! (It probably is right for his bank account, however.)

tb and pilgrim, with a national sales tax, will this effect business tax laws? Will everyone be driven to purchase items on-line from overseas in order to avoid paying taxes? Interesting ideas, I'm just curious exactly how it work in the real world.

I also must say that it sure is a lot nicer arguing over whether or not our taxes will go up when all are given access to healthcare instead of arguing about whether or not we should go to war with a nation that didn't attack us or whether or not the wealthiest of the wealthy should be given massive tax cuts at a time of war.

beatrice 8 years, 7 months ago

Love it or Leave it. Is that the same as "You are either with us or against us"?

notajayhawk 8 years, 7 months ago

blindrabbit (Anonymous) says…

"Based on trends in population dynamics in the US as well as the results of the last election; I would guess your views may be headed for an eventual extinction."

Someone hasn't been watching the polls.

georgiahawk (Anonymous) says…

"Government has a poor track record. Yes they have in the past, but three of the instances you provided as an example were things that happened under Bush"

Hawk, are you saying that if Obama does the same thing as those 'neocons' (e.g. increases the size of the deficit to record numbers), that's okay? It's only bad if Republicans do it?

beatrice (Anonymous) says…

"I wonder how much of the cost of healthcare would be covered if pharmacuetical companies weren't allowed to write-off their advertisement expenses?"

Advertising is a legitimate cost of doing business, bea. If you mow lawns or babysit for a living, you get to deduct the cost of the flyers you put up on the supermarket's bulletin board. Is there some particular logic to saying the pharmaceutical companies shouldn't be allowed to do what every other business in America can?

By the way, bea - how much do you think hospitals like KU med get to deduct from their taxes for those commercials with Tom Skerritt? But that's okay, right?

How about all those new commercials for Obama motors? That's not just a reduction in taxes that the rest of us have to make up, bea, those commercials are being paid for directly by money taken out of our pockets. But that's okay, right?

"I also must say that it sure is a lot nicer arguing over whether or not our taxes will go up when all are given access to healthcare"

Except that's not what we're arguing about, bea.

Those who drew the comparison to mandatory car insurance are forgetting that neither Kansas nor, to my knowledge, any other state requires you to carry comprehensive insurance, only liability. I.e., you are only required to insure against damages you cause to someone else. While it may be a good idea to insure against your own losses (though single-car accidents, theft, vandalism, etc.), that's your choice.

Under the Liar-in-Chief's proposal, that choice is being taken away from me. I'd no longer have the right to assume the financial responsibility for my healthcare myself. If I try, the government is going to take my money to make your insurance cheaper (supposedly cheaper, as it will not in fact accomplish that). I'm not being taxed to give me access to healthcare, I'm being taxed to (supposedly) reduce the cost to someone else.

But once again, that's okay, right? It's okay for you to object to paying taxes because you didn't support the war, but it's not okay for us to object to paying taxes for this abomination of a healthcare 'reform' package?

Sunny Parker 8 years, 7 months ago

why don't you answer the questions beatrice?

you want to sit back and chant 'but bush....but bush....

Looser...get a job! Pay for your own health care and stop believing the successful owe you something!

beatrice 8 years, 7 months ago

sunny, why should I answer any questions? Once people start calling the President of the United States of America the "liar in chief," then the conversation is over. Then it is just about trading insults, which is just dull because I'm generally much better at it than others.

By the way, I have a great job and good insurance. Thanks for confirming exactly what I already knew ... your whole concept of what is good for our country is the idea of "I got mine, so you get yours."

That is, until you get sick and lose your job and insurance.

Oh, and the word is "loser" not "looser." (Thanks for the laugh.) So, here is a little Beck for you so you won't forget.

notajayhawk 8 years, 7 months ago

And by the way, bea dearie, why didn't the Democrats do anything about healthcare the last time they had the chance?

Or, for that matter, right now? As you're so fond of pointing out, the Republicans are not currently in power. What's your excuse for the ineffectiveness of the administration and legislature to pass a reform package, dearie?

Perhaps there are at least a few Democrats who, unlike you, are smart enough to realize that America doesn't want this cr*pola? Or maybe you're just stupid enough to believe that nice 'unbiased' NBC poll about the opposition being caused by people being mislead about the current proposal's contents and 'fear-mongering'?

"sunny, why should I answer any questions?"

The last desperate gasps of someone who has no answer.

And for your information, dearie, the Liar-in-Chief' label is a truism, not an insult. I don't think calling any politician a liar is considered an insult. It's only the kool-aid drinkers like your dear little self that think their chosen one is any different.

notajayhawk 8 years, 7 months ago

TomShewmon (Tom Shewmon) says…

"I'd be willing to bet if I actually took the time, I could archive some equivalent statements about W from you, beatrice. Should I even bother?"

Here, Tom, let me help:

"it's 2007 and we haven't even caught Osama bin Hidin'! It is all the fault of our lying, good for nothing President!"

"Liar, liar, pants on fire + President Bush = flaming Bush!"

"Amazing how some people lost their minds over the lies Clinton told about his willy and “that woman,” but now want to gloss over the lies by Bush that led us into war."

"Clinton lied to get out of a mess, while Bush lied to get into one."

"But those in congress, and the American people they report to, were being fed a pack of lies by the Bush administration on which they based their decision."

There're more, but I do have better things to do with my time than to prove bea to be a little disingenuous.

notajayhawk 8 years, 7 months ago

Well, at least porch_pinhead's latest moronic rant proves two things:

He still hasn't learned how to read.

And Mommy wouldn't shell out for premium cable.

beatrice 8 years, 7 months ago

All comments taken out of context, of course, and not in a single one have I demonstrated disrespect for the office by calling anyone "Liar in Chief," or by calling the President anything other than his actual name. I did point out, however, that President Bush did lie in order to get us into a war. So, if not actually disrespecting the office of the President of the United States is what qualifies as a "Bush-basher," then I guess us Bush-bashers aren't so bad after all.

Again, who is Barry Joe?

notajayhawk 8 years, 7 months ago

beatrice (Anonymous) says…

"All comments taken out of context, of course"

I provided links to every quote, dearie. And by the way - when you said "It is all the fault of our lying, good for nothing President!”, what context should we have taken that in so as not to show disrespect for the office of the President of the United States?

"I did point out, however, that President Bush did lie in order to get us into a war."

Ah, yes, I forgot your convenient shade of reality, dearie. When a Republican analyzes the available intelligence and draws a conclusion, they're 'lying.' When a Democrat analyzes the exact same intelligence and draws the same conclusion, they were 'lied to.' How tidy you have the little world you live in arranged.

In the infamous words of a departed poster, preserved for posterity in one of bea's own posts:

Fool me once, shame on you. "Fool me 935 times, why, I must be a Democrat."

bea, dearie, one would think that, what with all the pharmaceutical advertising you've been subjected to, you might have heeded their advice and asked your doctor for some help by now. Some of the newer atypical antipsychotics have worked miracles with people like you, dearie.

Cooky_the_Cook 8 years, 7 months ago

Porch man, where is all the "(laughter)" coming from? Is that you laughing, or is it more like a laugh track on a sitcom? Is it supposed to be me laughing while reading your post? Is it the laughter of others reading the post at the same time I am? I don't get it. Is it like the transcript of a speech? I never see any "(applause)". Is it just supposed to indicate condescension?

beatrice 8 years, 7 months ago

nota, like a good little doggie you went and played fetch. How sweet. And you had to go back to 2007 to find a quote in which I still referred to the President as "President," and that is the best you got? Gee, you really got me on showing the office of the President disrespect with that one. Now, try researching Tom's posts to see what real disrespect for the office is all about. For me to find far worse coming from you or any of your fellow gang of "loosers," I just have to read this thread. Thanks for taking the time to prove my point.

Again, I know others wrote awful things about our past president, but despite being accused of doing so myself, I simply didn't take part in that form of character attack. I chose not to, and yes, it is out of respect for the office. You could try and do the same.

So, who is Barry Joe?

notajayhawk 8 years, 7 months ago

Awww, poor widdle bea, I think we hurt her widdle feewings.

No, bea, I didn't have to go back that far. There were actually over 60 posts by you including the words 'lied' or 'liar' with Bush. I just didn't bother to post them all, as your words are difficult enough to read without laughing the first time 'round.

I'm sure you didn't mean the words “It is all the fault of our lying, good for nothing President!” in a disrespectful way, hon - it's a term of endearment, I'm sure, just as when I call you 'dearie.' No offense intended, of course.

Funny thing, though, sweetie - Bush wasn't the former president who had to surrender his license to practice law because he perjured himself, was he? For all your babyish whining about how Bush lied, it seems the world (outside of Oz) doesn't agree with you. But stick to your derangment, dearie - lord knows you won't have much else to comfort you.

beatrice 8 years, 7 months ago

Hurt my feelings because I threw a bone and you went and played fetch? Um, okay.

Yep, the world thinks Bush told the truth. Well, at least that 24% who thought he was doing a heck of a job. Quite the bunch of "loosers" you guys are.

Again, when I said he lied, and that he was a good for nothing President, at least I was recognizing his title and position. Not sure if he was the worst President ever, but he was certainly the worst in modern history. At least I called him "President," which is far, far more than you can say for yourself. You have no respect for the office, period.

(And if my whining about Bush lying was babyish, what do we call your whining about Obama? Manliness? Sure, that's it, sweetums, it is manliness.)

So who is Barry Joe?

labmonkey 8 years, 7 months ago

Holy crap....a non-sarcastic post from R_I. What is the world comming to?

Soon, there will be a post from Tom that doesn't involve a political opinion and an actual, non-pasted post from Merrill.

labmonkey 8 years, 7 months ago


Maybe you can lose 40 lbs like LenDale White.

notajayhawk 8 years, 7 months ago

beatrice (Anonymous) says…

"Hurt my feelings because I threw a bone and you went and played fetch? Um, okay."

It was a joke, bea, dearie. Anyone familiar with your posts can see you have no feelings, let alone a sense of humor. You are, however, an endless source of amusement for others - “It is all the fault of our lying, good for nothing President!” is a show of respect! That one's just never going to get old, sweetcheeks.

beatrice 8 years, 7 months ago

Ouch, nota picked on me on these interwebs. That hurts soooo badly. I think I'm gonna cry.

You keep repeating a single post from two years ago in which I still called George Bush "President." He was a piss-poor President, no doubt. He did lie about what he knew of WMDs in order to get us into a war, and he was good for, well, perhaps not "nothing," but certainly good for very little. Nevertheless, I still used the title "President." I still called him "George Bush," and perhaps sometimes shortened it to W. because that is something he also used. It is still about respecting the office, which I fully understand you don't get at all. Your posts just on this thread show you have no respect for the office of the President of the United States.

So who is Barry Joe, and how does using this name show respect for the office of the President? (and are you trying to make a pass at me with all your sweet talk? Does your wife know you try to sweet talk strangers on the interwebs? Please stop, because I'm just a thirteen year old girl and I don't take kindly to advances from old men.)

Blog entries

Commenting has been disabled for this item.