Skip to comments.Democrats: Americans Who Dislike ObamaCare Are Stupid
Posted on 02/24/2012 5:06:49 PM PST by Kaslin
Health Care: Democrats used to say the more people knew about ObamaCare, the more they'd like it. Well, the public has had almost two full years to soak it in, and more want it repealed than ever.
A Quinnipiac University poll last week found 52% of Americans want ObamaCare scrapped. That's up from 44% last May. Meanwhile, just 39% want to keep it, down from 45%. Even one in five Democrats now says Congress should repeal the law.
That hasn't kept liberals from calling ObamaCare foes idiots, which is what Democratic party head Debbie Wasserman Schultz did when asked about the poll.
Americans only oppose ObamaCare because they "didn't know" about its many benefits. "The pieces of health care reform, when you ask Americans about them, they overwhelmingly support them," she said.
Democrats have fed a credulous media that line since they shoved the law down our throats in 2010.
Obama pollster Joel Benenson promised "once reform passes, the tangible benefits Americans will realize will trump the fear-mongering rhetoric opponents are stoking today."
David Axelrod said that "health care, over time, is going to become more popular."
(Excerpt) Read more at news.investors.com ...
People on both sides of any argument assume the other side is stupid. At most, only one of them are.
...at most, two of them are. At best only one of them are.
“Americans” who LIKE Obamacare AREN’T Americans. They’re socialists.
Show your anger.........at the ballot box
Liberals are teenagers...they can't see the truth because they either haven't achieved maturity...or they refuse to grow up.
If Odumbocare is so damn awesome, why are there more than 1000 waivers given in the past 2 years?
Forcing somebody else to pay YOUR bills has always been "popular".
See, that proves Democrats are ignorant/stupid -- they can't even spell "like"!
Maybe, but somehow I’m still not convinced.
You can’t get rid of Obamacare until you get rid of Obama
Well, don't expect Romney to do it! He's the author of it all!
Romneycare and Obamacare are vastly different. Ann Coulter told me so.
If you destroy a Democrat in reasoned argument, what it eventually devolves into is that you are either stupid or a `hater’ or both: a stupid hater.
Here’s the way these things often go, a classic example of arguing with the Dems `Sherri and Terri’:
Clinton really screwed the pooch didn’t he?
Clinton did nothing wrong in the Oval office.
Well, he had surreptitious sex with a youthful intern.
No, he didn’t.
She says he did. He admits it she was there on many occasions under unusual circumstances.
But it wasn’t sex. He said so himself.
He could have been blackmailed. Setting aside legalities, it was imprudent and he lied about it.
She just did. She had the remarkable foresight to save and produce a dress with his DNA on it. Suppose she had held this over his head and national security had somehow been compromised.
Again it wasn’t sex. And it was consensual.
Back to the question—it was wrong. He was wrong.
Sherri: You’re stupid and you just hate him.
Terri: You’re just a stupid hater.
Bart: Bite me.
Reminiscent of "Invasion of the Body Snatchers."
The democrat party should be declared a seditous organization, and the nazi freak Axelroad should be hanged from the nearest lamppost.
OK fine, I’m stupid but that doesn’t negate my rights.
Yer move Chavez.
She’s gone right off the deep end. Her defense of Romneycare, and Romney in general is laughable.
With Romney...it's always about money...and, ultimately, about his church!
If there is one person in this world who has no business calling anyone else stupid or an idiot, It is Debbie Wasserman Schultz.
Like her father Sgt. Shultz used to say. “ She Knows Nothing.”
I wonder why he says that you can’t beat Obamacare without beating Obama. A vetoproof Senate and House could do it. SCOTUS could do it, although a glitch has been sighted now.
And remember this? http://www.examiner.com/conservative-in-spokane/newsweek-dumb-photo
Magazine, AP, newspaper and alphabet networks have got their noses so far up his a** they forget that we’re keeping score.
Everything about socialism is sham and affectation. - 23.11 Ch23 Evil; Economic Harmonies; Frederic Bastiat 1801-1850
Americans who dislike Hillarycare/Romneycare/Obamacare/TOTALITARIANCARE are freedom-loving, life-affirming patriots.
Is that the mean, vile and nasty Debbie Syphilis-Test from the DNC?
Another Dummycrat calling us stupid. How repetitive of them.
Unfortunately for my fellow mooching Dummycrats it is not true.
All those who pay taxes, have paid for hospital care. Similarly, especially lately, we have all paid for physicians' care. With the government paying with other people's money, the costs just keep on escalating, 'cause the money's there to pay the bill.
The tiny bit of Ron Paul ('cause I'm a physician) in me says, "Get the government out of health care!"
He's right. As long as government pays the bill, our taxes for this entitlement will grow exponentially until the money's gone.
It's a typical, Liberal-designed scheme to provide the benefits for the votes and send an ever-expanding price tag to us.
It's a good plank for the Platform: "Free-Enterprise, and not economic slavery, for Health Care for all!"
But as far as the democrats go, it's not just that they're stupid to want Obamacare. At the core of it is the evil called greed.
“Americans only oppose ObamaCare because they “didn’t know” about its many benefits.”
The last I heard, those in the upper echelons of Obama’s administration of government have not included themselves in Obama care. If Debbie Wasserman Schultze hasn’t informed them of Obamacare’s many benefits, how could she expect the rest of us to know about them?
Do you hate sin? Yes.
Have you sinned? Yes.
You are just another rightwing hypocrite.
"My friends, I must tell you that a Socialist policy is abhorrent to the British ideas of freedom. Although it is now put forward in the main by people who have a good grounding in the Liberalism and Radicalism of the early part of this century, there can be no doubt that Socialism is inseparably interwoven with Totalitarianism and the abject worship of the State. It is not alone that property, in all its forms, is struck at, but that liberty, in all its forms, is challenged by the fundamental conceptions of Socialism.
"Look how even to-day they hunger for controls of every kind, as if these were delectable foods instead of war-time inflictions and monstrosities. There is to be one State to which all are to be obedient in every act of their lives. This State is to be the arch-employer, the arch-planner, the arch-administrator and ruler, and the archcaucus boss.
"How is an ordinary citizen or subject of the King to stand up against this formidable machine, which, once it is in power, will prescribe for every one of them where they are to work; what they are to work at; where they may go and what they may say; what views they are to hold and within what limits they may express them; where their wives are to go to queue-up for the State ration; and what education their children are to receive to mould their views of human liberty and conduct in the future?
"A Socialist State once thoroughly completed in all its details and its aspects and that is what I am speaking of could not afford to suffer opposition. Here in old England, in Great Britain, of which old England forms no inconspicuous part, in this glorious Island, the cradle and citadel of free democracy throughout the world, we do not like to be regimented and ordered about and have every action of our lives prescribed for us. In fact we punish criminals by sending them to Wormwood Scrubs and Dartmoor, where they get full employment, and whatever board and lodging is appointed by the Home Secretary.
"Socialism is, in its essence, an attack not only upon British enterprise, but upon the right of the ordinary man or woman to breathe freely without having a harsh, clumsy, tyrannical hand clapped across their mouths and nostrils. A Free Parliament look at that a Free Parliament is odious to the Socialist doctrinaire. Have we not heard Mr. Herbert Morrison descant upon his plans to curtail Parliamentary procedure and pass laws simply by resolutions of broad principle in the House of Commons, afterwards to be left by Parliament to the executive and to the bureaucrats to elaborate and enforce by departmental regulations? As for Sir Stafford Cripps on Parliament in the Socialist State, I have not time to read you what he said, but perhaps it will meet the public eye during the election campaign.
"But I will go farther. I declare to you, from the bottom of my heart, that no Socialist system can be established without a political police. Many of those who are advocating Socialism or voting Socialist to-day will be horrified at this idea. That is because they are short-sighted, that is because they do not see where their theories are leading them.
"No Socialist Government conducting the entire life and industry of the country could afford to allow free, sharp, or violently-worded expressions of public discontent. They would have to fall back on some form of Gestapo, no doubt very humanely directed in the first instance. And this would nip opinion in the bud; it would stop criticism as it reared its head, and it would gather all the power to the supreme party and the party leaders, rising like stately pinnacles above their vast bureaucracies of Civil servants, no longer servants and no longer civil. And where would the ordinary simple folk the common people, as they like to call them in America where would they be, once this mighty organism had got them in its grip?
"I stand for the sovereign freedom of the individual within the laws which freely elected Parliaments have freely passed. I stand for the rights of the ordinary man to say what he thinks of the Government of the day, however powerful, and to turn them out, neck and crop, if he thinks he can better his temper or his home thereby, and if he can persuade enough others to vote with him.
"But, you will say, look at what has been done in the war. Have not many of those evils which you have depicted been the constant companions of our daily life? It is quite true that the horrors of war do not end with the fighting-line. They spread far away to the base and the homeland, and everywhere people give up their rights and liberties for the common cause. But this is because the life of their country is in mortal peril, or for the sake of the cause of freedom in some other land. They give them freely as a sacrifice. It is quite true that the conditions of Socialism play a great part in war-time. We all submit to being ordered about to save our country. But when the war is over and the imminent danger to our existence is removed, we cast off these shackles and burdens which we imposed upon ourselves in times of dire and mortal peril, and quit the gloomy caverns of war and march out into the breezy fields, where the sun is shining and where all may walk joyfully in its warm and golden rays."
Winston CHURCHILL, The First Conservative Election Broadcast, 4 June 1945. Quoted in CAPET, CHARLOT & HILL, p. 201-2
America's Founders preferred liberty for individuals, and their principles made America a desired destination for millions for over 200 years.
"To preserve [the] independence [of the people,] we must not let our rulers load us with perpetual debt. We must make our election between economy and liberty, or profusion and servitude. If we run into such debts as that we must be taxed in our meat and in our drink, in our necessaries and our comforts, in our labors and our amusements, for our callings and our creeds, as the people of England are, our people, like them, must come to labor sixteen hours in the twenty-four, give the earnings of fifteen of these to the government for their debts and daily expenses, and the sixteenth being insufficient to afford us bread, we must live, as they now do, on oatmeal and potatoes, have no time to think, no means of calling the mismanagers to account, but be glad to obtain subsistence by hiring ourselves to rivet their chains on the necks of our fellow-sufferers." --Thomas Jefferson to Samuel Kercheval, 1816. ME 15:39
"Were we directed from Washington when to sow and when to reap, we should soon want bread." --Thomas Jefferson: Autobiography, 1821. ME 1:122
From the Liberty Fund Library is "A Plea for Liberty: An Argument Against Socialism and Socialistic Legislation," edited by Thomas Mackay (1849 - 1912), Chapter 1, excerpted final paragraphs from Edward Stanley Robertson's essay:
"I have suggested that the scheme of Socialism is wholly incomplete unless it includes a power of restraining the increase of population, which power is so unwelcome to Englishmen that the very mention of it seems to require an apology. I have showed that in France, where restraints on multiplication have been adopted into the popular code of morals, there is discontent on the one hand at the slow rate of increase, while on the other, there is still a 'proletariat,' and Socialism is still a power in politics.
"I have put the question, how Socialism would treat the residuum of the working class and of all classesthe class, not specially vicious, nor even necessarily idle, but below the average in power of will and in steadiness of purpose. I have intimated that such persons, if they belong to the upper or middle classes, are kept straight by the fear of falling out of class, and in the working class by positive fear of want. But since Socialism purposes to eliminate the fear of want, and since under Socialism the hierarchy of classes will either not exist at all or be wholly transformed, there remains for such persons no motive at all except physical coercion. Are we to imprison or flog all the 'ne'er-do-wells'?
"Freedom is the most valuable of all human possessions, next after life itself. It is more valuable, in a manner, than even health. No human agency can secure health; but good laws, justly administered, can and do secure freedom. Freedom, indeed, is almost the only thing that law can secure. Law cannot secure equality, nor can it secure prosperity. In the direction of equality, all that law can do is to secure fair play, which is equality of rights but is not equality of conditions. In the direction of prosperity, all that law can do is to keep the road open. That is the Quintessence of Individualism, and it may fairly challenge comparison with that Quintessence of Socialism we have been discussing. Socialism, disguise it how we may, is the negation of Freedom. That it is so, and that it is also a scheme not capable of producing even material comfort in exchange for the abnegations of Freedom, I think the foregoing considerations amply prove." EDWARD STANLEY ROBERTSON
So-called "intellectuals" from Chicago, from academia, media, entertainment, and other assorted power groups, combining their efforts to "change" America from her foundations in constitutional protections for freedom for individuals display arrogance and provinciality in their commitment to already failed ideas.
The ideas of liberty are those of enlightened and informed persons.