RUTHLESS DICTATOR LIKES OBAMACARE

Sometime you don’t need to do a lot of analyzing before deciding which candidate to vote for. I know I could be pretty confident that I was making the right choice without hearing one speech or reading one columnist’s analysis . And I could make my decision five minutes before polls closed.

Sometimes I wonder why I spend so much time reading about politics. I could save myself a ton of agravation by asking one really simple question:

Who’s Rosie O’Donnell voting for?  Then vote for the other guy. You will have made the right choice.

Who’s Barbra Streissand voring for. Again. Vote for the other guy.

Sean Penn’s voting for whom? Put me down for the other guy.

I kind of feel the same way about Fidel Castro, a guy who should have been assassinated at least 49 years ago.

Ruthless, murdering dictators have been big fans of government controlled health care because they know that once they’re in charge of doling out health care, they can use the threat of  withholding heslth servies  to force citizens to comply with their stupid laws.

Fidel Castro is down with Obamacare.

  • Chris

    I feel like our conversation is just going in circles, so let me try to take this conversation in a new direction to try to get to the larger overall issue here. With your interpretation of the constitution none of the government assistance programs would be constitutional. So let’s go with this. Say tomorrow every one of these programs was declared unconstitutional and ended, no SS, no Medicare, no unemployment compensation, no public education and no health care.

    If this were to happen do you believe the types of people I have mentioned earlier, hard working people down on their luck, and children who have no control over their situation should receive any type of assistance from anywhere? If so where would this assistance come from? If we left this up to individual charitable donations would the donations come anywhere close to meeting the need?

    Also, other than the programs I mentioned above what other aspects of government do you feel fall into this unconstitutional category?

    I’ll understand if you don’t have the time to answer these questions, it’s probably a lot to ask, but I am curious.

    • http://justwatchthegame.com JohnSteigerwald

      State and local governments…if allowed by their laws…could help. Obviously you couldn’t end those programs now. Not after people have paid into them and depend on them, but everyone you mentioned could be done by private companies. SS only came into existence 60 years ago and Medicare 45 years ago. How did people surpvive for 150 years without them?

      • chris

        Prior to 45 or 60 years ago life expectancy was a lot less than it is now, so SS and medicare type assistance was not as important. Medical care was not as advanced so people simply died from curable illnesses. And those that didn’t plan well for retirement simply lived in poverty. Even presidents like U.S Grant ended up this way, he spent his dying years writing his autobiography so his wife would have money after his death.

        • http://justwatchthegame.com JohnSteigerwald

          The constitution didn’t allow th govt to force people to pay for Grant’s stupidity then and it doesn’t allow for it now.

  • Will

    Those are great rules. I’ve got one too:

    Who’s John Steigerwald voting for? Run, don’t walk, to the other guy.

  • John

    Hey John are you old enough to be a victim of one of these “death panels”? I suppose you believed that too, eh birther? LOLOL

    • http://justwatchthegame.com JohnSteigerwald

      Not quite there yet but there will be decisions made based on your age. It happens in every country that has socialized medicine.

      • John

        Really John? How about a link to death panels in countries with socialized medicine.

        • http://justwatchthegame.com JohnSteigerwald

          You said death panels. I didn’t.

          • Joe Spivak

            It’s called “End of Life Counseling” and it is in the bill. You can call it what ever you want, as long as you recognize it for what it is…

          • http://justwatchthegame.com JohnSteigerwald

            It’s going to be about supply and demand. There will be a point when “quality of life” decisions will be made and a choice will have to be made between spending X-amount on a 45 year old person and x-amount on an 65 year old. Who do you suppose will be the loser there?

          • TB

            Actually health care is currently rationed by insurance Co’s with maximum profit as the motive. It seems a blend of government regulation and corporate interest might be the best thing. Also you asked above if food was a right also………. foodstamps

          • http://justwatchthegame.com JohnSteigerwald

            Saw a list last week of 215 moswt profitable industries. Insurance was 88th with something like 3% profit margin. This just in:We have the most succesful country in the history of the planet because of people seeking PROFIT. So, you’re saying I have a RIGHT to free food? What about the people whose money is forcibly taken from them to pay for that “free” food? The federal govt. shouldn’t be in the food business.

          • Chris

            So if insurance companies only see a 3% profit where is all of this money going?

          • http://justwatchthegame.com JohnSteigerwald

            35% of it goes to the highest corporate tax in the world, for starters.

      • Ochotexto

        Who did Pat Robertson/Glenn Beck vote for ?
        Put me down for the other guy.

        • Khalifa

          Obama was elected by the people…he will also not be reelected by the people in 2012…
          Nothing like putting the country in bankruptcy…Pushing health care that the people who voted him in don’t want.. and of course still no jobs…
          But he’s black..so he gets a free pass..If we talk bad about him, we must be racial…
          Obama is a total fraud…

          • Ochotexto

            Not as bad as you were a shortstop !
            And I think we’re all “racial”; of some race; no ?

          • The_Game

            Most people who don’t like Obama don’t like him because he’s black. Admit it Khalifa, you’re a redneck racist.

          • http://justwatchthegame.com JohnSteigerwald

            If more people think like you Obama will be our last black president (he’s biracial, by the way) because white voters will find that they’re not allowed to disagree with or criticize a black president without being racist.

  • John

    So it’s true! John is a BIRTHER. ROFL, LOLOLOL. Steigerwald has ZERO credibility. Birther? AHAHAHAHA

    http://2politicaljunkies.blogspot.com/2008/07/john-steigerwald-spreads-rumor.html

  • Ken

    In a recent Harris poll, 40% of respondents believed that Obama is a socialist.

    Apparently, 60% of the people either cannot define the term or think it has to do with Paris Hilton’s nightlife.

    • Go Obama Go

      Haha, Paris Hilton, huh? Now who’s being clever Kenny?

      That’s the biggest problem in our country, just because someone disagrees with you does not mean they are a moron. That’s why I can’t stand any of the political shows, far too much arrogance.

      It’s amazing how every single issue in this country is divided down party lines and how it makes for imperfect legislation. I think there are some good things and some bad things in the bill. I also things the Republicans had some good ideas that I would have liked to see included in the bill. Unfortunately both parties were more interested in playing politics than doing the right thing. The Republicans were only interested in defeating “Obama’s bill” to decrease he chances of getting reelected. And the Democrats knew that if they didn’t get this bill passed at this time they would not have any chance of getting a bill passed, and would therefore decrease their chances of getting reelected.

      • http://justwatchthegame.com JohnSteigerwald

        I didn’t refer to Obama as a dictator. I said a ruthless dictator–Castro–was down with Obamacare. LBJ declared the “War of Poverty” in 1964. Guess what we got. More poverty and the welfare state. Now we’re up to over 60% of black babies are born out of wedlock. LBJ gave us medicare and it ended up costing NINE TIMES what they said it would cost.

        • Go Obama Go

          Yes, you are always very careful with your words, you don’t call anyone names (except Ben Roethlisberger, and let’s face it he deserves every name you call him), but you do your best to imply the name calling.

          But it’s like me saying “feeble minded dim wits don’t like this health care bill.”

          I certainly didn’t say “John Steigerwald is a feeble minded dim wit”, but you know I was calling you that.

          And for the record I’m not calling you a feeble minded dim wit, and I’m sure you wouldn’t care if I did.

          • richardchristy

            Why do you follow or care about this blog if you disagree with everything? Just wondered. Also, was industry do you work in?

          • Go Obama Go

            Actually I came to this blog to follow sports, I agree with a lot of what John says about Sports. I just hot sucked into the politics because of the over the top comments in the headlines of his posts.

            I’ve got no problem with anyone disagreeing with the health care bill or any other of Obama’s policies, I certainly don’t disagree with them all. But comparing giving someone health care to giving them Steeler season tickets, or blaming Obama for higher gas prices while ignoring that gas prices is higher under Bush or implying that Obama is a dictator is over the top and ridiculous.

            Rather than inflammatory posts I’d love to see John make a detailed post on how he’d run health care in this country. He has some ideas that certainly seem to make sense. I’d be interested in reading that and having some debate that doesn’t involve name calling (or at least implied name calling.)

            And besides what fun would a blog be if everyone had exactly the same ideas? Every post would be “Yeah John, you’re right.” The only way you’re going to learn anything in life is by taking in other’s points of view.

          • http://justwatchthegame.com JohnSteigerwald

            It would help if you wouldn’t totally miss what I said. I didn’t equate giving someone health care to someone with giving someone Steelers tickets. I said we don’t have a RIGHT to healthcare anymore than we have a RIGHT to Steelers tickets. I could have said three square meals a day or a Toyota. This country was founded on the idea that we are born with certain rights that only govt. can take away. Free speech. Freedom of association. Private property. We come out of the womb with those rights. We have liberals running around saying health care should be a right. FDR wanted a second Bill of Rights 70 years ago. It’s not a right. If you think healthcare is right than how can food and shelter not be a right. Those are things that the government has to GIVE to you. You are born with the other rights and govt. can only take them away.
            See the difference?
            And the govt. can’t give anybody anything unless it TAKES it FORCIBLY from someone else.
            I didn’t blame Obama for high gas prices. I wondered why he wasn’t being blamed for gas approaching three dollars a gallon and I made the point that NO PRESIDENT has anything to do with how much we pay for a gallon of gas.
            I enjoy your posts because I enjoy the debate. Keep ’em comin’.

          • Chris

            I definitely see the difference between free speech and health care. I agree with you there. However, I would put health care, food, clean water, shelter, and education in a different category than a Toyota or Steeler tickets.

            You can live without Steeler tickets or a Toyota. You can’t live without food, shelter or health care. And an education is the single most important thing anyone can have to raise their status in life.

            I used to be an elementary school teacher in (almost) inner city Washington, DC. My students had many, many issues. But the greatest of their issues was their parents. Many of the parents had no idea how to take care of themselves, and definitely didn’t know how to raise children. And many of them were living off of the government. I hated the fact that the parents who had no interest in keeping a job were living off the government, but that wasn’t the children’s fault. They had no control over who their parents were. What they were receiving from the government, including the education they were receiving was the only thing they had going for them, and the only hope they had of rising out of the cycle of poverty.

            Life is inherently unfair. Some are born to rich parents, and some to poor. Some are born to good parents and some to bad. Government programs like education and now health care is a way to help even this out. It’s a way to give those kids born to bad situations a fighting chance to better themselves in life. Yes, it’s no entirely fair to take from the rich(er) and give to the poor, but very little in life is fair.

          • http://justwatchthegame.com JohnSteigerwald

            I can’t believe you still think that I believe Steeler tickets are as important as food, shelter and education. My point is that no citizen has the RIGHT to any of those things. He has the right to PURSUE those things. (Pursuit of happiness). I don’t care if something is fair or unfair when it comes to this stuff because different people have different interpretations of what is fair. That’s why we have a constitution and James Madison–the guy who wrote it–said he couldn’t find a clause in there anywhere that gave the federal government the right to take money from its constituents for the purpose of benevolence. As that great American Barry Goldwater said., “The first question should not be is it a good idea. It should be is it constitutional.”

          • Chris

            John, I do not believe that you think Steeler tickets are as important as food, and I’m sorry that I have not been clear enough in stating this. But hey, you’re the one that put Steeler tickets together with health care. if you didn’t want to associate those two things then don’t put them together in the post. Just say “people do not have the right to free health care from the government.” I wouldn’t even argue this statement. I believe in giving those who are down on their luck, or those that have no control over their situation some help to improve their situation. I do not believe this is a right. I just believe it is the right thing to do.

          • http://justwatchthegame.com JohnSteigerwald

            You’re right. We should all be willing to help people people imp[rove their situation. I just don’t think we should be FORCED to do it by people like Obama who gave about 12 dollars a year to charity before he ran for president. Now he expects to be put on Mt. Rushmore for being charitable with MY money. I still think it was a good comparison with the Steeler tickets. It’s just as ridiculous for someone to think they have a right to healthcare as it is for them to think that they have a right to ANYTHING that requires somebody being FORCED to give it to them.

          • chris

            Geez, back to the Steeler tickets again! You brought it up this time, not me! I already agreed with you that I don’t think health care is a right, but I don’t think health care can be compared to Steeler tickets.

            You’ve made your point quite clearly here though and I was trying to move this along a bit. I was asking where you think money to help hard working people who are down on their luck or children who have no control over their situation should come from. Would enough money simply be raised through charity? If not what would happen to these people? Would we simply ignore them?

          • http://justwatchthegame.com JohnSteigerwald

            If local govt wanted to pass laws tro force people to help them, fine. How abouit having thr cops drop byt your house and demand that you contribute 20 dollars to pay for the birth of your neighbor’s child and you were told you had no choice? That’s what happens to all of us every day. If you don’t like your local laws you can move. There’s no place to go if the feds are sticking it to you. The severity of the problem doesn’t change the constitutionality or the morality of the solution. And once again you feel a need to point that therew is a difference bertween health care and Steelers tickets. They have one thinbg in common. We don’t have a RIGHT to either of them. It can’;t be this complicated.

          • Chris

            You know John I think we may have a routine here:

            John: You have no right to Steeler tickets or heath care!
            Chris: Healthcare and Steeler tickets are not the same thing!
            John: Don’t compare those two things they’re not the same!
            Chris: But you just compared them?
            John: Yes, you can compare them because you don’t have a right to either!
            Chris: Who’s on first?

            And if the feds are sticking it to you, there are plenty of places to go, Canada, Mexico, etc. Back when Bush was president I heard many Republicans say something like “Bush was elected president of our country and if you don’t like it here then leave!” but now that the shoe is on the other foot they’re all saying “We’ve got to take back our country.”

          • http://justwatchthegame.com JohnSteigerwald

            John: We have certain inalienable rights….to free speech…freedom of religion …free association…health care is no more an inalienable right than Steelers tickets.

            You can’t possibly be so stupid that you interpret that as my suggesting that Steelers tickets and health care are equal in importance.

            There are a few inalienable rights and EVERYTHING ELSE is not an inalienable right including health care, steelers tickets, tockets to the circus, ipods.

            Thanks for making my point about the importance of following that pesky 10th amendment that was supposed to give all power to the states except those powers specifically granted to the feds. That’s the idea. Don’t have a one size fits all constitution. Let people make laws that apply to their local interests and don’t give them only the option of leaving the country. Your country –love it or leave it—is moronic no matter who’s saying it.

          • chris

            “Your country –love it or leave it—is moronic no matter who’s saying it.”

            I agree with this completely, but for those that endlessly complain about where our country is headed they always have the option to leave, just like the have the option to vote against whoever is in power in the next election, or run for office themselves. I’m not telling you or anyone else to leave, that’s ridiculous, I’m just saying there are always options.

            Just remember to criticize those Republicans that spout the “love it or leave it” line when the Republicans are next in power.

            I’m just messing with you about the Steelers/Healtcare thing at this point. I agreed several posts ago that neither Steeler Tickets nor health care are rights. Happy?

          • http://justwatchthegame.com JohnSteigerwald

            Whew.

          • Go Obama Go

            Oh, and also Richard, I’m in the software field, specifically I work for a healthcare company. Why does it matter?

      • http://justwatchthegame.com JohnSteigerwald

        Medical savings accounts. Let people keep their money and buy high deductible policies. Let people pay cash for non-catastrophic care and they’ll start asking how much a procedure is going to cost. I had four knee surgeries. I asked every imaginable question except one–How much is it going to cost. I didn’t care. It was covered by my insurance, If, instead of paying 12% of my income for medicare throughout my working life, I had put that money in a medical savings account, I wouldhave had 100,000 dollars to shop around with. The doctors would know that I had the ability to pay cash and they would know that :how much” was going to be one of my first questions. It would be the immediate end of the $50 aspirin.

  • Ken

    I certainly don’t condone violence and this post shouldn’t be interpreted as any sort of recommendation of it. The scattered threats and acts of vandalism against various representatives should be condemned.

    But when the government acts against the will of the people, as with this healthcare “reform,” it eventually will result in violence. It always has,

    It isn’t just Fox News that says the health care bill is unpopular. Every opinion poll from CNN, Rasumssen, Gallup, Zogby, etc. shows that a large majority of people opposed this legislation. They want health care reform, but not like this. And their government forced it down their throats anyway.

    • http://justwatchthegame.com JohnSteigerwald

      CBS Poll was 62-29 in favor of republicans challenging the bill.

    • Go Obama Go

      Forced it down their throat? Healthcare reform has been discussed since the 60’s. It was voted for once in the 90’s and things have gotten progressively worse since then. if the Republicans knew how to do this right why didn’t they do anything about it when they were in power?

      Violence is certainly not the answer here. Despite the title of John’s post Obama is not a dictator. He was voted in by the people. If the people don’t like him then he’ll get voted out. And don’t try to tell me “and that’s exactly what will happen.” A lot can change between now and 2012. If you had told me even two years ago that a black man would be president I would have called you a lunatic.

  • Ken

    How does a person get to the point where they believe that they’re entitled to things that have to be paid for by someone else’s hard work?

    • Joey

      Hey Ken, you are paying for it one way or another. I work in a business that routinely deals with other folks’ medical issues. It is shocking how many people don’t have insurance and resort to ER care as their basic health care. Who pays for that? It is far easier to deny them coverage than deny them care. Until you do the latter, the situation where you pay for others will always exist.

      • http://justwatchthegame.com JohnSteigerwald

        Charity hospitals used to take care of that but the govt. put the charity hospitals out of business. Politicians don’t get votes from people who are given medical care by charities. The more people that the politicians can get to be dependent upon them the longer they stay in power.

  • Khalifa

    john- sounds like u would like to see Ron Paul as much as i would..

    GoObamaGo- and GayBastard Barney Frank had nothing to do with the housing collapse either..
    Obama is pathetic…a liar..a fraud…

  • Go Obama Go

    Wow, overreact much?

    Maybe if your statements were a little more realistic they would be worth arguing.

    Next thing you know you’ll be comparing health care to Steelers tickets. Oh wait you already did that!

    • http://justwatchthegame.com JohnSteigerwald

      Of course, only a moron would take what I wrote to be claiming that health care is as important as Steelers tickets

      • Ken

        He thinks that he’s very clever John, using “Go Obama Go” as his username, thinking that you’ll get all ruffled about it.

        He doesn’t realize that you’re a lot more mature and not as thin-skinned as our illustrious president.

        • Go Obama Go

          Don’t know if I’d use the word mature, after all he’s the one that’s name calling here. And yes he’s going to claim that he didn’t call me a moron, he just said he said I was a moron if I believed it.

          And after reading your posts I don’t think I’m as clever as you seem to think you are.

      • Ladies Love Steigy

        Steigerwald resorts to name calling. What a surprise. Stay classy, John Boy.

      • Laura

        Put a fork in this country, John. is done. I just read where the bill has “Emergency Health Army” What the Heck? Section 5210 of HR3590

        Looks like 1939 all over again.

  • ivan

    It’s virtually the same plan Romney enacted in Mass. Let me guess, if the state institutes it, it’s ok?

    The government will not be “doling out” healthcare. They are requiring and assisting people to get insurance. If you don’t want it, you should sign a waiver not to be treated or be forced to pay in advance.

    • http://justwatchthegame.com JohnSteigerwald

      Not the same and…by the way…costs have gone UP in Mass. And yes it is always better if the state sticks it to you because you have the option of moving to another state. Crazy concept I know. United STATES of America.

      • ivan

        Where have costs gone down? Repubs could have gotten tort reform included in the bill, but were more interested in “Obama’s Waterloo” then in governing.

        Look, if you want to treat healthcare like a commodity fine, but don’t force providers to provide services.

        • http://justwatchthegame.com JohnSteigerwald

          The republicans tried for tort reform and were laughed at.

          • Joey

            They deserved to be laughed at. Tort reform is meaningless and only designed to placate the consitituency of the right. CBO knocked this down years ago with a report indicating a savings of one half of one percent per year. Not enough to limit people’s constiutional rights, don’t you think?

          • Davey Jones

            The problem with the insurance industry is that the gov’t got involved in the first place. If they didn’t restrict interstate commerce amongst the insurance providers, there would be enough existing competition that the cost of care would be far more affordable. So, instead of removing the gov’t from the equation….the geniuses that got elected somehow became experts in healthcare (though they likely never studied a single day in their life about it) and are going to regulate EVERYTHING now. Nice work, fellas.

          • Joey

            I agree to an extent. The problem with permitting Insurance companies to compete over state lines is that certain states will not benefit. Which insurance company want to write polices in Mississippi, Louisiana, West Virginia or Kentucky where the health statistics for those residents are so poor? It would lead you right back to the same problem, cherry picking by the insurers. They only want to insure the most healthy and historically want to get rid of people in need of services, like those with pre-existing conditions.

          • http://justwatchthegame.com JohnSteigerwald

            So normal people in Pennsylvania should suffer because of people who live on Doritos and Pepsi in Mississippi?

          • Cherry Cola

            If the residents are “so poor” in the areas you site, they would qualify for medicaid. By absolutely restricting interstate commerce for insurance companies, you eliminate any possibility of competition. So, we’ll never really know if your theory is true, because 1) they restrict interstate commerce and 2) instead of lifting that ridiculous restriction, the gov’t has decided that they should run the entire healthcare system instead.

          • Cherry Cola

            I misread–you said health statisitcs are poor. I thought you were saying that the people there are poor.

            So, if the people are poor, they likely qualify for medicaid. If they’re not poor, then they shouldn’t have to worry about buying insurance (and insurance providers wouldn’t be afraid to sell them policies. At some point, people need to be responsible for themselves. Instead of demanding that, our government now has two polar opposite holidays: July 4th–Independence Day. and what, March 25th–Dependence Day.

      • Go Obama Go

        Couple of differences between here and Cuba that you might want to take note of though…..

        You can leave this country any time you want, and you don’t even need to sneak off on a boat in the middle of the night.

        Obama and every one of the people who voted for the healthcare bill were elected by the people.

        If Bush and the rest of the Republicans hadn’t done such a horrible job when they were in charge the Democrats wouldn’t have such a large majority in both houses. After our country being attacked, getting into an unnecessary war and being responsible for the greatest recession in a generation it was past time for a change in power.

        • Ken

          The democrats do have large majorities in both houses on Congress.

          Does that mean that the tens of millions of people who did not vote for them should be ignored? That votes changing 17% of U.S. GDP should happen on straight party line votes?

          A lot of people who think like you do will mention the “Bush’s war.” “Bush’s war” and the authorization to use force was voted on by a majority in the Senate, including people like Hillary Clinton and John Kerry. The UN approved the use of force in resolution 1441. After the fact, the democrats and the US both tried to claim that their votes meant something else besides force, but that simply wasn’t true. At the time, everyone knew that those votes likely meant war.

          Wasn’t Obama supposed to be a new kind of politician? The “post-partisan” president? That’s what he and the media wanted us all to believe, though if you knew anything about this man at all, you knew that he would govern from the extremist left.

          • http://justwatchthegame.com JohnSteigerwald

            Bush was/is the only guy on the planet who doesn’t get to second guess the decision. Everybody else got to play Monday morning quarterback.

          • Go Obama Go

            Let’s face it John, history will remember Bush for two things.

            1. Sitting there with a dumb look on his face and “My Pet Goat” in his hands when he was told the second tower had been hit. it was clear he had NO IDEA what to do. How could he not at least suspect it was an act of war after the first tower?
            2. Standing on an aircraft carrier declaring “Mission Accomplished” when the mission had not been accomplished (we didn’t find any wmd) and still hasn’t been accomplished to this day. (Iraq is still a mess.)

          • Go Obama Go

            Oh come on now Kenny, now don’t tell me for a second that if this were a Republican cause, and the Republicans had a majority in both houses that you would have any problem with a vote straight down party lines.

            And yes, many Democrats voted for the Iraq war because we were lead to believe there were “weapons of mass destruction”, which we all know were never found.

            So either one of three things happened:

            1. We were lied to, there weren’t any weapons and they knew it.
            2. There was total incompetence on the government’s part. They were certain there were weapons, but there were none.
            3. The weapons were there, but they were taken out of Iraq.

            Regardless of these three scenarios the war was a failure and thousands of American lives, and billions of American dollars were wasted.

          • http://justwatchthegame.com JohnSteigerwald

            I don’t think a survey of the Iraqi people, who are now actually allowed to take part in surveys, would call it a failure. I’m sure you’ve seen the quotes from everybody from John kerry to Bill & Hillary Clinton, who were syaing he had WMD before GW even thought about running for president. So did every intelligence agency for every one of our allies.

          • Go Obama Go

            Oh come on now, you and I both know we didn’t go to war to “free the Iraqi people”. We could argue if it was for WMDs or oil, or both, but freeing the people was not at the top of the list. And it’s still not guaranteed that the people will be better off when this is all over.

            And it doesn’t matter who was wrong about WMDs, whether it was Dems or Reps or both, the fact is regardless of whether they were there or not it was a failure, either they were there and we didn’t get them or they were never there at all.

          • http://justwatchthegame.com JohnSteigerwald

            Objective: Regime change and democratization of Iraq.
            Mission accomplished.
            Yeah. They might have been better off with a president who was having people thrown off of buildings and whose sons were putting people in shredders and feeding them to dogs as entertainment. How many mass graves have been created in the last couple of years. You have to be kidding.

          • Go Obama Go

            I’m sorry I refuse to believe that you actually believe that. The objective was to get him before he got us, and based upon the evidence at hand he wasn’t capable of getting us.

            The American people supported the war at first because they believed Saddam was going to attack us, not because they wanted him to stop killing his own people.

            If it was simply a regime change how come we’re not going after every other evil dictator in the world?

          • http://justwatchthegame.com JohnSteigerwald

            Have you ever seen any of the comments from Bill Clinton, Al Gore, John Kerry et al about WMDs and the threat from Hussein that wre made two years before Bush thought about running for president. They all would have done the same thing that Bush did based on the information available to them. And creating a democratic fgovt in Iraq was a huge part of it.

          • Chris

            Ok, I’ll drop Go Obama Go and move back to my first ID.

            Once again I’m not laying this issue completely at the Republicans feet. There were certainly Dems that were for the war. Heck based upon the info the public was given at the time I was for the war.

            My point is the primary objective was to get the WMDs, and that didn’t happen. Either the info was bad, the info was a complete lie, or we missed them. If the info was bad, or we missed them then that’s the fault of everyone involved. If the info was a lie then I would definitely pin that on Bush and the Republicans.

            Certainly bringing democracy to Iraq was part of the objective, but a small part. Taking down any dictator is a good thing. I have doubts that it’s going to stick, but I hope it does.

          • The_Game

            John, the war was all about oil and nothing more.

            You and the rest of the sheep need to stop listening to Rush, Hannity, and Glenn, and start thinking a little more independently. Free your mind, man.

          • http://justwatchthegame.com JohnSteigerwald

            Let me see if I have this right. Anybody who supports conservsative ideas is a sheep and anybody who bought into Hope and Change is just a deep thinker. Ever seen the makeup of Obama voters? Ever seen any of the exit polling that showed the cluelessness of the majority of Obama voters. Give me a break on the sheep routine.

    • Matt M

      “If you don’t want it”? you got it wrong… “if you don’t want it” one of 16,000 new IRS agents will track you down and make you pay a fine. I bet those new agents will be worth the money – NOT! Will be more tax payer money wasted. Want to know what Obamacare will be like, head over to your local DMV office – there is real efficiency!

  • Cro-mags

    Who’s John Steigerwald voting for? Then vote for the other guy. You will have made the right choice.

    • Go Obama Go

      I’ll agree with that one. John can you list who you’re voting for in the next election, it’ll make my life easier, and I won’t have to do any of that pesky research.

      • http://justwatchthegame.com JohnSteigerwald

        Whoever is in favor of reducing the power of the federal govt. the most.

        • bru

          John, Dubbya increased the power and invasiveness of the fe(de)ral government more than any prior president… and I’m CERTAIN you voted for that dillweed. And things like tort reform ARE in the bill… you and the Repubs are just too lazy and too desiring of failure to even read the damn bill… As with Clinton, when a Democrat adopts a Republican position and actually does something about it, the Repubs move even further to the right and say he’s not doing enough.

          • http://justwatchthegame.com JohnSteigerwald

            I agree Dubya wasn’t nearly conservative enough. The republicans are paying the price now for trying to be too accommodating and for trying to get approval from the media. I voted for Dubya in 2004 only because of the closeness of the election in 2002 I still think he’s a better man than Bill Clinton could ever dream of being but he became too “moderate’ for me. Instead of No Child Left Behind he should have been as bold as Obama has been about whathe wants and abolished the dept of education. He should have pushed harder for private SS accounts. The repubs caved and that’s why they’re where the are now and they deserve every bit of it.

  • JMS

    I can’t wait for Hugo Chavez to vioce his approval. Kim Jong Il will follow to complete the trifecta…

    • http://justwatchthegame.com JohnSteigerwald

      I’m sure Hugo’s already on board. He’s doing a nice job down there–showing how wonderful it can be when the govt. comes to “help”.