NM Democratic Party names new chairman

Good old boy politics at it's best. Javier Gonzales must be a dues paying democrat or a criminal like the rest of the NM leading demcrats. Just saying.

NO OBAMA!!

Eltorro wrote:

Good old boy politics at it's best. Javier Gonzales must be a dues paying democrat or a criminal like the rest of the NM leading demcrats. Just saying.

You're accusing him of being a criminal, without even knowing anything about him other than he's the new chair of the Democratic Party of our state? Geeze.

You shame yourself and your own Party.

Citizen Jane wrote:

NO OBAMA!!

Hey "Citizen Jane" hate to tell you this, but he's our President -- You lost -- suck it up or find another place to be -- LMAO

Hey, dpb. I hear and see all the Obama car stickers coming off real fast these days being replaced with NObama! Duh! Of course he's our President, and I will always respect him while he's in office; but I sure can seeee and hope for a different future in politics.

NM democrat party names new chairman. Hammer and sickle remain the same.

How can the party operate without their colon?
Something smells.

Citizen Jane wrote:

Hey, dpb. I hear and see all the Obama car stickers coming off real fast these days being replaced with NObama! Duh! Of course he's our President, and I will always respect him while he's in office; but I sure can seeee and hope for a different future in politics.

You're right, we should elect someone who can fire a gun and see Russia from their back porch, but has no clue about any other political issues.

Isaac C wrote:

<quoted text>
You're right, we should elect someone who can fire a gun and see Russia from their back porch, but has no clue about any other political issues.

Lol, we have one now who's well versed in politics Chicago style but doesn't know squat about the economy or what people really want/need, other than the entitlement crowd and those wishing to redistribute the wealth because they are jealous.

Our country has become Obamatized and Pelosified!

CornDaddy wrote:

<quoted text>
Lol, we have one now who's well versed in politics Chicago style but doesn't know squat about the economy or what people really want/need, other than the entitlement crowd and those wishing to redistribute the wealth because they are jealous.
Our country has become Obamatized and Pelosified!

I thought Obama won because he knew what people wanted. He made a promise for getting universal health care in effect, and he's doing that. The economy would NEVER turn around in 8 months regardless of what President was in office. As I said before, other than the spending which McCan't was going to do anyways, just not as much Obama has been doing a fair job. I'm sure he won't meet every promise that he made, which is typical for a President, nor do I expect every President to do. Although he made the promise to get health care out there and it's happening, I think most Rep/Cons are mad because he is holding up his promises.

Isaac C wrote:

<quoted text>
I thought Obama won because he knew what people wanted. He made a promise for getting universal health care in effect, and he's doing that. The economy would NEVER turn around in 8 months regardless of what President was in office. As I said before, other than the spending which McCan't was going to do anyways, just not as much Obama has been doing a fair job. I'm sure he won't meet every promise that he made, which is typical for a President, nor do I expect every President to do. Although he made the promise to get health care out there and it's happening, I think most Rep/Cons are mad because he is holding up his promises.

No argument over McCain, for me he was the lessor of the two evils. And I agree, no matter who is Pres, the economy will take awhile to come back. Yet I'm not in the least impressed on the methodology used so far.

The Obama made a promise of UHC, however it appears that this is not what at least 50% of the public wants, at least in its ever morphing form anyway. When you couple that with our economy & our ability to print worthless money due to our spiraling debt and how good we are at bailing everyone out w/ little oversight, we have a master plan for disaster.

We'd be better off if we scrapped the UHC plan and started over, taking a chunk at a time and building from there. Although I'm pleased with my HC provider, I'm open to some rational discussions that are not Pelosified along with her other minions. 50% is simply not good enough!

CornDaddy wrote:

<quoted text>
No argument over McCain, for me he was the lessor of the two evils. And I agree, no matter who is Pres, the economy will take awhile to come back. Yet I'm not in the least impressed on the methodology used so far.
The Obama made a promise of UHC, however it appears that this is not what at least 50% of the public wants, at least in its ever morphing form anyway. When you couple that with our economy & our ability to print worthless money due to our spiraling debt and how good we are at bailing everyone out w/ little oversight, we have a master plan for disaster.
We'd be better off if we scrapped the UHC plan and started over, taking a chunk at a time and building from there. Although I'm pleased with my HC provider, I'm open to some rational discussions that are not Pelosified along with her other minions. 50% is simply not good enough!

Very well put and I very much agree... surprisingly. I think McCain was the lesser of two evils, till his decision to make Palin VP, which was a smart move doing the whole Female thing Obama was thinking about doing with Hilary, but a bad idea due to it was Palin.

I do wish they would scrap the proposed idea and start from scratch, but I don't think the opposing side will ever come to an agreement with any plan for Universal Health Care. I myself also have alright coverage but think that I am paying more than it's worth.

Isaac C wrote:

<quoted text>
Very well put and I very much agree... surprisingly. I think McCain was the lesser of two evils, till his decision to make Palin VP, which was a smart move doing the whole Female thing Obama was thinking about doing with Hilary, but a bad idea due to it was Palin.
I do wish they would scrap the proposed idea and start from scratch, but I don't think the opposing side will ever come to an agreement with any plan for Universal Health Care. I myself also have alright coverage but think that I am paying more than it's worth.

I didn't have a problem with Palin, even though I know it was to appeal to the female voters.

I think there is a lot they can do to refine and steamline HC so that the vast majority of the people can be comfortable with it and that it can become a model system. BUT, it will take time and tweaking, and also letting free enterprise carry much of the load. A sweeping bill(s) like what is proposed is way too much to swallow at one time, and as is always the case, anything this large and sweeping has a tendency to bite us on the butt over and over. Thus my assertion it needs to be done piecemeal, debated, discussed and voted upon.

I'm not comfortable allowing the politicians to totally set this all up w/o votes from the people since it is a system designed for us, not them (so far anyway). Somehow there has got to be a lot of dialog and interaction between the two groups if real change is to be achieved. Therein lies the biggest hurdle though - the clash of egos and politicians feeling they are entitled to make major decisions for us as we're not bright enough.