Health Care BS

Comments 10

1. Ed Sodaro MD wrote:

   A taxpayer funded GOVERNMENT AGENCY spying on political opponents and tracking “personal information about interest group leaders, such as their home phone numbers, addresses, biographies, analysis of credibility in the media, and known relationships with Congresspeople” for “intelligence gathering and opposition research.”

   Nice. Real nice.

   The Clintons are an abomination. G-d help us if these monsters ever regain power.

   Posted 19 Jan 2008 at 11:27 pm ¶
2. spike wrote:

   Oh my God. Cataloging publicly available information. Will the nightmare never end???

   There is a big difference between oppo research and bugging phone lines illegally. Your naivete is showing.

   Posted 21 Jan 2008 at 10:30 am ¶
3. Matt Horn wrote:

   Oppo research tells me they would rather target the individuals proposing the ideas rather than the ideas. Fine when running for office, but very suspect when proposing policy.

   Posted 21 Jan 2008 at 11:08 am ¶
4. Rich wrote:

   Matt,

   You took the words right out of my mouth.

   Posted 21 Jan 2008 at 2:58 pm ¶
5. smartdoc wrote:

   Spike: Wow, a Stasi supporter! I though you guys were all in jail. The Clintons were caught with 700 illegally obtained FBI records as part of their “opposition research.’ And my tax dollars are spent to persecute and spy on political opponents.

   Posted 21 Jan 2008 at 7:36 pm ¶
6. spike wrote:

   “smart”doc, this quote may interest you:

   The matter was investigated by the Whitewater Independent Counsel, who found in 2000 that there was no criminal activity by anyone in the matter, and that there was no credible evidence that senior White House figures or the First Lady had requested the files or had acted improperly or testified improperly regarding Livingstone’s hiring.

   Your tax dollars were spent to investigate a series of baseless charges against the Clintons throughout the Whitewater investigation.

   I’m no huge fan of the Clintons. However, every administration in the past 50 years has done exactly these kinds of things. What President Bush has done is unique in its sheer disregard for the law. So yes, Hilary Clinton can easily speak out against the abuses of the Bush Presidency without valid accusations of hypocrisy being leveled against her.

   Posted 21 Jan 2008 at 10:56 pm ¶
7. Marc Brown wrote:

   I find it astonishing that anyone could prefer the total disaster of the Bush era (both father and son) to the Clintons.

   Posted 22 Jan 2008 at 12:30 pm ¶
8. Matt Horn wrote:

   Yep Marc, tells you how bad the Clintons were.

   Posted 28 Jan 2008 at 10:39 am ¶
9. Marc Brown wrote:

   ‘tells you how bad the Clintons were’

   Bill Clinton ended his presidential career with a 65% approval rating, the highest end-of-term approval rating of any President since Dwight Eisenhower.

   Hillary Clinton is hated by you right wingers basically because she is a successful woman. I hope she becomes president.

   Posted 28 Jan 2008 at 1:04 pm ¶
10. Matt Horn wrote:

    Marc, even the dems are distancing themselves from ol slick, saying he is dishonest and can’t be trusted. Shoot, the liberal standard The Nation just did a piece on that. Approval ratings just mean your a populist, nothing else. I have always maintained that I would love to have slick as a poker or golf buddy, but I sure wouldn’t let him borrow my car or any cash. As for the other half, she brings nothing to the table. Except maybe the Rose law firm billing records, no wait, thats not it.

    Posted 28 Jan 2008 at 4:33 pm ¶

Post a Comment