Skip to comments.White House Weekly Address: 'Well on Our Way' to Finalizing Obamacare
Posted on 08/17/2013 4:40:04 AM PDT by txrangerette
Link to Breitbart tv
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...
I ain’t buyin’ Obamacare. Come and get me, assholes.
Hey it’s just a lesser evil. If we elect more of it we’ll get ...
Mire of it.
Yup. Lets elect more of that. It has worked so well over the past 2 decades.
The Democrats now , with obamacare, control what was once the medical profession. And the pimple faced veneral disease carriers , parasites, traitors, and self hating Whites that voted for him are shrieking with orgasmic glee. And once the Democrtats get the "immigration reform" Act, they will have politically taken control of the Nation.
They already have. With the gull cooperation and assistance of the GOP that so many insist we continue empowering.
I know that they have. I also believe that the Democrats will regain control of the House in ‘14. And from this point in time forward, the only Republican that will win an election is who the Democrats want. We, by the will of a majority of voters, are now a Socialists Nation. Working our way to a Communist Nation. Working our way to a destroyed Nation. All this is with the willing consent of “We the Traitors”.
I believe in “stepping up to the historical moment” and in doing so correctly, not errantly.
Mark Levin is doing an exceptional job of that with his book and commentary calling for a large group of states to convene and take back Constitutional government.
With that call he’s looking at the larger problem we face and responding correctly.
Meanwhile he’s supporting the current call to deFUND obamacare, while remarking on how the “status quo” Republican party of hand-wringer-do-nothings has made itself USELESS to us as our nation is “transformed” and lost to history.
Which is also appropriate for him to be doing.
He fights on all fronts at once. And tries to choose the correct response for each one. The correct response is important - not merely the urge and will to respond. Each historical moment presents its own facts and dynamic to us.
In the 2010 off-year vote, the tea party did absolutely the correct response to those circumstances. In the 2012 presidential vote, the correct response would NOT have been to sit home, refuse to vote, and damn all Republicans. I will tell you, as a proud Texan, IF that had been followed by Texas Republicans and Independents, Barack Obama would have won the state of Texas and its electoral votes would today sit in the Obama column. In fact, Obama would’ve swept the entire country.
It was a terrible dilemma, because of who Obama’s opponent was and especially in light of Romneycare and Obamacare. On another thread I posted that, nevertheless, voting en masse for Elmer Fudd would have been preferable to letting Obama voters have Texas. What a duo of placeholder candidates, eh? Romney and FUDD?? How appropriate...
Bad choices, but the best course in that specific situation was NOT to let Obama take the entire nation into his column. As it was, those who stayed home or voted hopeless candidates instead of choosing between the top two, gave Obama 4 more years and the nation new reason to weep, and to cry out in raging, righteous anger.
By all means, explain finally how it is that electing a pro gay, abortion funding, healthcare/amnesty pushing liberal instead of a a pro gay, abortion funding, healthcare/amnesty pushing liberal benefits America.
In detail. Without excuses.
Good post; we should be openly ridiculing the GOP, not sending them money..
Yup. And there si much to ridicule. Including their supporters who demand that we slit our own throats again and again.
Last time, they waited until the election was close to spout their RINO supporting crap. This time, seeing the growing backlash, they want to get out in front of it. And as we see on this very thread and most like it, the excuses begin, conditioning us to again accept the inevitible GOP RINO. Because the Dem is worse.
Well the dem is always worse. Each new one is Satan and as time goes by their evil only grows. Thing is, same goes for the GOP
So anyone with a brain would stop the bleeding.
Nope. Not the sycophants. They want more capitulation and they want us to adopt yet another layer of situational ethics to empower it.
The supporters are every bit the problem as the RINOS they demand we vote for.
We were set up to lose; the GOP is in cahoots with the gay, muslim, usurper. The last GOP general elections were slapstick, and at the very least demonstrate their inability to read the tea leaves. Dump the consultants, listen to the base, and get rid of the Mccains, Lindsey Graham’s, Rubio’s, and they will win handily..
Watching Rubio push for la raza told me that the GOP in its current for has gone the way of the do-do..
And mark my words, once the amnesty thing ends, one way or the other, Rubio will begin the process of image rehab with ‘conservatives’ saying we have to get over it because, drum roll please, (say it with me folks) The Dems are WORSE!!!”
Place your bets early and win big.
Perry being hailed as a conservative after his TTC/border fence/STD forced vaccines is a pretty good indicator.
After the election.
WHITE HOUSE LIES
I stand with Levin. He has THE ANSWER!
re: “By all means, explain finally how it is that electing a pro gay, abortion funding, healthcare/amnesty pushing liberal instead of a a pro gay, abortion funding, healthcare/amnesty pushing liberal benefits America. In detail. Without excuses.”
You see, you equate Romney with Obama. You equate them as being exactly the same not only in political ideology, but also in degree of commitment to issues you listed. I think that’s an unsound analysis.
Yes, the republican choice sucked, and yes, Romney had some problems in the four areas you mentioned, but you think Romney was as much pro-abortion as Obama (who supported post-birth abortion)?? You think Romney would have pushed the gay agenda, obamacare and amnesty to the same reckless, whole-hearted degree as Obama??
Maybe another question would be: Explain how voting for Romney would have put the country in the same exact or worse position it is now economically, militarily, in our foreign policy, and yes, even morally under B. Obama?
By degree, which candidate demonstrated more respect for our economy, foreign policy, our military readiness, our Constitution and self-government? Romney or Obama?
Voting always involves voting for more good and less evil. One of the two candidates is going to be, by degree closer to what you believe than the other one. Sometimes the better candidate is only 40% or 50% of what you want or 60% of what you want, while the other one is 0 to 2% of what you want.
Which one do you vote for? It’s a no-brainer.
For your question to be valid, as I said previously, you would have to believe that Romney and Obama are EXACTLY the same in belief and degree of commitment to the gay agenda, abortion, socialized medicine, and amnesty.
If you actually believe that then no answer will satisfy you.
My greater concern now is how the republican party seems completely whipped since the election. Excepting for a few republicans who have spoken out, the majority have acted with no backbone at all. It’s as though they think it’s over. Why fight it? Thus, they have not, except on a rare occasion or two, acted as an opposition party.
I think part of the reason is because of the loss of the presidency in 2012. I think everyone thought Obama was going to lose and lose big. He should have. But, Obama’s people (alive and dead, legal and illegal) showed up big time to vote and conservatives didn’t. Now. Here we are.
Are we better off or worse?
“You think Romney would have pushed the gay agenda, obamacare and amnesty to the same reckless, whole-hearted degree as Obama??”
The man who said he would be ftter for the homos than Ted Kennedy? The man who had illegals working at his house and only ditched them because he got caught?
And that complete and total idiocy is why the rest of his record mirrors Obama.
When you compare the two, Romneys was far worse than Obama’s before Zero ascended. That’s a died in wool/carved in stone fact. So if every other example in history is anything to go by, he would have been just as bad, perhaps in different ways. But if that’s all you got to hang your hat on, it just proves them mess this is.
Voting for evil gets more of it. Period.
re: “Voting for evil gets more of it. Period.”
But, you see, that’s just the point. Every candidate is evil to a certain extent. That’s the “degree” part I spoke of. So, you are always voting for what you perceive to be “less evil” in a candidate.
Of the republican candidates or independent candidates who ran for president in 2012 - which one was not evil in your opinion?
And, a follow-up question, at what point do you decide a candidate is not “evil” enough to avoid voting for them?
We are on our own. I am anyway, I live in the People’s Republic of Illinois..
Follow that logic to it’s conclusion and you get to be a card carrying member of the situational ethics club. And then anything goes.
If you can knowingly vote for a guy that personally funds the Gonsels of the world, then don’t complain about the other guy who does now in office. Same for the gay thing and the rest.
I’m good with Reagan’s 80 percent standard of purity. Did Romney break 50? No. 40? no. So how low are you willing to go? How much evil? Do the words of the founders who specifically said NOT to do that mean anything or do you feel like one freeper told me, ‘that’s just John Wayne talk”?
I have literally told my daughter I am sorry for bringing her into this world. I doubt I am alone in having done that.
re: “Im good with Reagans 80 percent standard of purity. Did Romney break 50? No. 40? no. So how low are you willing to go? How much evil?”
I vote for as much good as possible and less evil as possible between two choices.
I’m willing to vote for less evil even if candidate A is only 1% less evil than candidate B. I always vote for less evil and more good.
If I “opt-out” and don’t vote at all, I’ve permitted the greater evil to have the greater chance at winning.
I’m not voting the the evil that candidate A does (and candidate A may be very evil in comparison to God’s standards), no, I’m voting for their “less evilness” or “greater goodness” as opposed to candidate B’s greater evilness and less goodness.
re: “Follow that logic to its conclusion and you get to be a card carrying member of the situational ethics club. And then anything goes.”
I think this is crux of the matter. You think that voting for a candidate that supports issues you deem evil, even though it may not be to the degree of the other candidate, somehow makes you complicit in that evil. I think that’s a mistake.
In my opinion, opting out of voting for candidate A (because he supports the same evil of candidate B, though not in the same degree) allows the greater evil the greater chance of winning - and, that DOES make us complicit with allowing the greater evil to win.
On the other hand, if we do vote for candidate A, even though he supports the same evil of candidate B, but to a lesser degree, this gives the greater good, though it a small greater goodness, a chance to defeat the greater evil.
I think our motives are what count with God. We are not supporting candidate A BECAUSE of the evil he supports. No, we support candidate A because he promotes more goodness and less evil than candidate B.
If candidate A wins because of our support, then we work to move him/her toward greater good and away from evil. That may or may not work. But, it’s the only chance we have for good to begin making a come-back in this life. We live in a fallen, sinful world with fallen, sinful people. It stinks but that’s the way of the world we live in. Only God can (and will) fix all the evil one day. In the meantime, we work for all the greater good that we can.
I dont deem anything evil. I was taught the difference between good and evil real young.
If you vote for a guy who backs abortion, you empower and assist in killing children. That’s evil
If you vote for a guy that thinks he’s the Lincoln of homosexuality, you empower evil.
This ain’t rocket surgery. Evil is pretty easy to spot. Disagreeing with someone does not make them evil. Disagreeing with someone doing evil is pretty much a no brainer for anyone with a basic set of morals.
Hillary and Obama are separated by more than a percent ov evil. If one runs as a Repub, which do you vote for and not get evil elected? And that’s not a straw man as some here seem to trot out. Because Romney has a history of evil in office greater than Obama’s before his assension. And despite the FACT that his record of evil closely tracked Obamas while IN office, people said OK to it.
And then wonder why the GOP moves ever leftward every election.
re: “Hillary and Obama are separated by more than a percent ov evil. If one runs as a Repub, which do you vote for and not get evil elected?”
One of those two is less evil than the other. If they were the choices, opting out of the choice makes one complicit, in my opinion, with allowing greater evil to win.
I see we are just not going to agree. I understand that you are doing what you think best and I respect you for it, though I think it leads to greater evil. I know that is not your intent.
I know you see my thinking as a compromise with evil, but I see it as slowing or stopping greater evil and attempting to move us away from the precipice.
I pray for our nation as I think it is already too far gone. God can work miracles, but our national sins I fear are too great.
Anyway, thank you for the cordial discussion. I enjoyed it as it helped me to clarify my thoughts.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.