Clint Eastwood Talks 'Empty Chair' Speech, Says Obama Is 'Greatest Hoax Ever Perpetrated on American People': Agree or Disagree?

Death panels! Slashing medicare! KENYA!!!!!!

Death panels. You mean the part of 0bamacare theat puts a panel of unelected beurocrats in charge of administering people health coverage? Guess what, they make those decisions based on certain factors. If that panel of beurocrats has reason to believe that a person is likely to die anyway, they wont spend the money to cover them. If a person's illness is brought on by substance abuse,like smoking, the panel will likely deny them coverage based on liability.

I could go on and on. The bottom line is that 0bamacare puts a bunch of pencil pushers in between a patient and their doctor, and turns people into numbers.

"Slashing medicare!"

Well, what does it mean when you take 700 billion out of a program to fund another program? Seems like "slashing" to me.

What about Kenya?

{Death panels. You mean the part of 0bamacare theat puts a panel of unelected beurocrats in charge of administering people health coverage?}

Yep, that imagination.

{Well, what does it mean when you take 700 billion out of a program to fund another program? Seems like "slashing" to me.}

Certainly a funding cut, though not to medicare. Medicare part D is not part of Medicare, despite the name.

If it wasnt part of medicare, what was 700billion dors doing sitting in the program?

"Yep, that imagination."

Read the bill.

{If it wasnt part of medicare, what was 700billion dors doing sitting in the program? }

It wasn't. It was part of Medicare part D, not Medicare.

{Read the bill.}

Are you a lawyer?

It doesnt take a lawyer to read.

"It wasn't. It was part of Medicare part D, not Medicare."

First off, if it wasnt a part of medicare, it wouldnt have been called MEDICARE D. Secondly, if 700 billion was sitting in a medicare program that alleged by you, "had nothing to do with medicare", what was the money there for? what did medicare D do?

Laws are typically written in legalise. It can be difficult or impossible for a lay person to read.

{First off, if it wasnt a part of medicare, it wouldnt have been called MEDICARE D.}

That's not correct. Part D was called Medicare (even though it isn't) for propaganda reasons. Bush wanted to tack onto the incredible popularity of Medicare.

{Secondly, if 700 billion was sitting in a medicare program that alleged by you, "had nothing to do with medicare", what was the money there for? what did medicare D do?}

Medicare part D was a handout to wealthy seniors and insurance companies. It was a subsidy for anyone who wanted to purchase less-efficient private insurance on top of their regular Medicare. It wasted billions.

How about reading Bob Woodward's most recent book........? This POTUS
has no desire to work in a bipartisan way to get this country moving. He rather
just keep blaming the GOP for being obstructionists..... and keep his "my
way or the highway" attitude. How many time has he said, I am the POTUS and
your aren't. He just repeated it at the DNC convention.

That's the opposite of true. Obama's early problems were largely caused by his needless, unhelpful obsession with bipartisanship. In my opinion, he should have passed all the policy he wanted with fifty senators and the VP tie-break, like a Republican would have.

Nobody gets fed by bipartisanship. Noone's medical care is provided by bipartisanship. The job of politicians is to achieve things.

Read the book before you spew such propaganda and talking points!

It's neither propaganda, nor talking points nor an opinion. Obama was obsessed with bipartisanship, and the Republicans bit the hand he tried to shake theirs with.

Really?
Can you cite the date where Obama called for a meeting with the Republicans for bipartisan discussions on policy?
The only one I was aware of was the meeting on ObamaCare where Obama was schooled by Paul Ryan.

Okay, how many times did previous presidents (such as Bush) meet with Congressional opposition?

So, you admit what you said was wrong.
Thank you.

It is safe to say then, Obama hasn't bothered leading this nation in a bipartisan way.

By the way, the first time he met with Republicans, the extent of his 'bipartisanship' was "elections have consequences - I won."
Not exactly a diplomatic approach for fostering bipartisan cooperation.
And in his first two years, he didn't need Republicans to get what he wanted.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/j...

If you define 'bipartisanship' as the number of times a President meets with a minor opposition party, Obama was not particularly bipartisan (though why a President needs to be in a formal meeting with a group of Republicans in an event planned by the President is questionable). But I don't think that happens often anyway, so by that standard Obama may well be the most bipartisan president ever.

Of course, if we include a willingness to compromise policy in the name of needless assent by the opposition, Obama has been highly bipartisan.

Obama hasn't been bipartisan by any standard of measurement.
We've already come to that conclusion by the lack of any effort for bipartisanship.
YOu could not supply one piece of evidence of it.
In fact, it was I who told you of the two meetings where Obama was anything but bipartisan.
But if fantasy is the basis for making that claim, by all means Obama is bipartisan in his mind and apparently yours.
In reality, there is no evidence whatsoever for making that claim.

For instance, Obama pre-compromised much of his legislation with the intention of winning Republican support. When he did not receive it, he further watered down legislation in order to get Republican support. This was, for example, true of the stimulus and health insurance bills- and despite not needing Republican support.

What legislation did he 'water-down'?

The stimulus?
Don't kid yourself . . . because you're not kidding me.
The stimulus was pork-barrel spending plain and simple.
It was all about bringing home the bacon for the representatives writing the legislation on how the money was to be spent . . .
with Obama tossing the dice on unicorn energy.
Hardly any thought went into maximizing the return on revenue dollar or maximizing the creation of jobs.

It was plain and simple . . . a spending orgy by the Democratic Congress for locking up their rule of both the Legislative branch and Executive branch.

Health-care?
It was only watered down to get his own Party to vote for it . . .
not the Republicans.

But it's interesting to read where you rewrite history to suit your interpretation of reality.

{The stimulus?}

Correct. The stimulus was far smaller than it should have been. Obama deliberately restricted its size in order to win Republican support. He also added billions of dollars in tax cuts.

{Health-care?
It was only watered down to get his own Party to vote for it . . .
not the Republicans.}

Not correct. Obama also had to negotiate with traitorous members of his own party- but he also deliberately watered it down in order to win Republican support. For instance Olympia Snowe said she would support the bill if Obama did X; Obama did X; Olympia Snowe voted against the bill.

Oh really, what about locking out Republicans from the meeting with Big Pharma, what about his comment that Republicans could go to the back of the bus, What about his comment "We Won" and "Elections have Consequences." Funny how he didn't say that after 2010 Congressional elections.

Are you suggesting that elections do not have consequences?

That's the same question Obama asked G W Bush when he called Bush for instructions on how to get OBL. I understand it took 4 phone calls before Empty Chair got it right.

Okay, so you reject reality and substitute your own.

Look, you don't have to accept Republican propaganda. You can think for yourself. It's possible.

Obstruction my ass. He had huge majorities in the senate and the house for two full years. He got everything he wanted for two years. And that drove the country into the ground.

For about a year and a bit, not two years (until Ted Kennedy's death in early 2010).

Obama hardly used his majority at all. He affirmatively did not ram through huge amounts of policy in the twelve months given him. He largely sat on his laurels, or tried to convince Republicans to vote for his policy (for whatever reason). I think that is the key wasted opportunity of Obama's presidency.

Of course, Obama DID NOT drive the country into the ground. The US was already in recession when Obama took over; Bush drove the country into the ground. Did Obama do enough to cure the economy? Was the stimulus big enough? No, of course not. But he didn't create the problem in the first place.

What are you talking about? Obama pushed through on a party line vote his stimulous package (that didn't stimulate) that cost almost a trillion dollars within four months of taking office. You don't know what you're talking about.

Obama did a lot of outreach to the Republicans on his stimulus bill (that did stimulate). Ultimately, the Republicans vote against all Democratic legislation including the stuff they support.

And what would that outreach be? You have connections on inside information? Or do you just swallow politician's lines? Obviously no Republican voted for it. So the outreach was either ineffective (like most of Obama's efforts) or a ploy for suckers..

For instance, the stimulus bill was largely tax cuts- which Republicans support.

No. 40% of stimulus was tax cuts.

Well let me see how you understand math. If 40% were tax cuts then 60% were not, so how could it be "largely" (your word) tax cuts? You need to go back to grade school. And what they classified as "tax cuts" are not really tax cuts. Giving a discount to solar panels is not really a tax cut. I know I saw no tax cut in my pay. None!

{Well let me see how you understand math. If 40% were tax cuts then 60% were not, so how could it be "largely" (your word) tax cuts?}

What do you think 'largely' means? Do you think it means 'mostly'? Because it doesn't. A large section- 40%, nearly half- of Obama's stimulus was pure Republican policy, tax cuts. 'Largely'.

{And what they classified as "tax cuts" are not really tax cuts. Giving a discount to solar panels is not really a tax cut.}

Cutting income tax is, however.

Largely means more than the others. "A large section" is not using the word in the same manner. And no one got income tax cuts. I didn't and I'm not rich.

Largely does not mean mostly. It means a large portion.

Obama's presidency has been a model of incompetence with a focus on cronie-ism and abject moral and fiscal bankruptcy. The only holding pattern is his time in office waiting to come to an end.

The most divisive POTUS EVER, cannot be given any quarter concerning his complete failure and putrid deliberate drive to undermine the Constitution.

Most divisive President ever! EVEN MORE than Lincoln!

LOL....you're a hoot. I do not take an Australians assessment of our past Presidents with any validity when they make inane statements like that.

You're absolutely right. Lincoln's presidency only caused a civil war that killed hundreds of thousands of people. Obama's BLACK.