If Health Law Is Overturned, What Will Liberals Do?

Mar 28, 2012 | Posted by: JCKS Editor | Full story: thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com

If the Supreme Court strikes down all or part of President Obama 's health care law , it will have unraveled a legislative compromise that many liberals had viewed with suspicion from the beginning.

In one of the ironies of recent politics, Mr. Obama was a late convert to the merits of the individual mandate that now appears to be in danger of being declared unconstitutional.

But the presidentís embrace of the mandate ó and his willingness to abandon a so-called public option to get a health care deal ó was a hard pill to swallow for many of his Democratic supporters.

The Affordable Care Act promises to provide health insurance to millions who lacked it. But it also stops far short of the idea that health care is a basic right for everyone living in the country. And it embraces the market-based system of private health care delivery that has long existed in America.

Comments (Page 81)

Showing posts 1,601 - 1,620 of4,941
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
frank

Oakland, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1747
May 10, 2012
 
xxxrayted wrote:
<quoted text>
The question is not how, but why? He granted those waivers to businesses that would face serious economic troubles because of Obama Care. In other words, he didn't want the house of cards to fall down on his watch. I guess he assumed he would be a one-termer.
Why are you such a whiner, did you expect Obama to finally give you that pony you always wanted or that plastic rocket ship for your birthday? It really is pathetic how right-wingers are seemingly oblivious to the history of universal healthcare efforts in the US. I suspect you do know, itís just that you canít stand the fact that someone finally achieved that long and arduous goal but why does have to be Obama the man you love to hate? The campaign for universal government-lead health care has stretched for nearly a century in the US. On several occasions, advocates believed they were on the verge of success; yet each time they faced defeat. The evolution of these efforts and the reasons for their failure make for an intriguing lesson in American history, ideology, and character. Interestingly, it started out as a conservative idea the first president to support it was Theodore Roosevelt with insurance companies opposing it.
xxxrayted

Beachwood, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1748
May 10, 2012
 

Judged:

1

frank wrote:
<quoted text>
Why are you such a whiner, did you expect Obama to finally give you that pony you always wanted or that plastic rocket ship for your birthday? It really is pathetic how right-wingers are seemingly oblivious to the history of universal healthcare efforts in the US. I suspect you do know, itís just that you canít stand the fact that someone finally achieved that long and arduous goal but why does have to be Obama the man you love to hate? The campaign for universal government-lead health care has stretched for nearly a century in the US. On several occasions, advocates believed they were on the verge of success; yet each time they faced defeat. The evolution of these efforts and the reasons for their failure make for an intriguing lesson in American history, ideology, and character. Interestingly, it started out as a conservative idea the first president to support it was Theodore Roosevelt with insurance companies opposing it.
It's quite simple. Our country has been on the constant decline because of larger government and more handouts. Now if we had some kind of history of success in this country with government involvement of healthcare, that's one thing. But because of governments failure with healthcare, it's clear we certainly don't need to extend it even further. Why not fix the existing programs that are failing first?

The truth is in order to have reliable, stable, dependable government healthcare at the level we have today for private insured citizens, it would cost us so much that we would spend ourselves into bankruptcy. Since the introduction of Obama Care, the numbers have been manipulated over and over again to come out with different forecasts on what this is actually going to cost us.

The problem is less the delivery of healthcare than what the costs are. There are nearly a dozen ways to address costs, but most with political ramifications for those who attempt to actually fix the problem. So the Democrats brilliant idea is to ignore the rising costs, and just pass those costs to others.

Like most all government programs, in the end, what it means is taking money from one group of people and giving it to another, particularly those who don't work nor contribute to it. This is not to mention the fact that this is the first time in history the federal government has ever forced people to purchase something on the market that they either don't want or can barely afford.

This has nothing to do with healthcare anyway. Democrats realized long ago that the more government dependents they can make, the more likely Democrat votes they will bring in. Obama Care is just another liberal program specifically designed to make people more dependent on the federal government thus insuring their power in the future.
drink the hive

New York, NY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1749
May 10, 2012
 

Judged:

1

Not Quite - Certain Type' Of Cancer' Come 2 Mind And Also Political Stress Due 2 Overcrowding - I'm Sure There's Plenty More...

http://i859.photobucket.com/albums/ab157/besh...

Since: Apr 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1750
May 10, 2012
 
elmo wrote:
<quoted text>
Really, that explains what side of the antiamerican agenda your on. Everything that whack said years ago would happen if government was allowed to continue the way it did has happened. You must be a proud parrot
Ron Paul is a nut.

Since: Apr 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1751
May 10, 2012
 
xxxrayted wrote:
<quoted text>
The question is not how, but why? He granted those waivers to businesses that would face serious economic troubles because of Obama Care. In other words, he didn't want the house of cards to fall down on his watch. I guess he assumed he would be a one-termer.
http://factcheck.org/2010/12/health-care-law-...

Q: Has the Obama administration allowed corporations to "opt out" of the new health care law?

A: No. The government has granted more than 200 waivers, but these merely give companies a temporary delay before being required to improve the coverage of cheap, bare-bones plans they currently offer.

Since: Apr 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1752
May 10, 2012
 
"But, as of Dec. 3, the federal government had approved a total of 222 one-year waivers that allow the insurance plans at companies like McDonaldís, Jack in the Box and Ruby Tuesday, and unions, to ignore the requirement on annual limits.

Far from being "Obamaís buddies," as the Internet post claimed, the restaurant industry, through the National Restaurant Association, opposed the legislation."

The GOPOX cannot figure out if Obama is a friend to capitalists or a communist LOL. Of course, they cannot figure out if Mutt Romputz is a severe conservative or a Massachusetts liberal either.

The GOPOX is very confused when real people cannot be put into boxes for easy consumption by the semi literate trailer trash.
xxxrayted

Beachwood, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1753
May 10, 2012
 
OregonSUX wrote:
<quoted text>
http://factcheck.org/2010/12/health-care-law-...
Q: Has the Obama administration allowed corporations to "opt out" of the new health care law?
A: No. The government has granted more than 200 waivers, but these merely give companies a temporary delay before being required to improve the coverage of cheap, bare-bones plans they currently offer.
Thank you for the post. It's not often an adversary provides links to prove my point. As I said, the waivers were granted so that the house of cards did not fall while DumBama was in office. From your link:

"in premiums, according to an Oct. 6 New York Times article. AHIPís Zirkelbach told us the regulation could cause seasonal, part-time or temporary workers that are typically covered by limited-benefits plans to lose all of their coverage.

The companies that have been approved for the waivers must reapply for them next year. Waivers are available until 2014."

So waivers are allowed until DumBama is out of office. But this is such a great bill for Americans. Of course DumBama did not want more people--particularly part-timers and lower income to lose what health insurance they had because of his Communist plan. Let Romney deal with that when he gets in office.

But the liberals tell us Commie Care was not designed to wipe out private insurance. "If you like your healthcare plan--keep it" DumBama said. So once again, from your post:
"And the annual limit provision isnít the only aspect of the law that companies with mini-med plans have protested. Beginning next year, insurers also will be required to spend 80 percent to 85 percent of premiums on medical care, and no more than 15 percent to 20 percent on administrative costs. This ratio is called a medical loss ratio, or MLR. Businesses with mini-med plans said those policies couldnít possibly meet the MLR requirements."

So what this is telling us is that the federal government will now micromanage private insurance companies into nonexistence. No company can survive for any extended period of time on DumBama's business plan. DumBama has absolutely no experience in business which is why our country is a failure today. What he does know I'm sure is that insurance companies don't operate like government. When government gets your money, they stuff it under a mattress until it's needed. When private industry receives your premiums, they invest it which requires "administrative" employees to not only oversee such investments, but to detect and prosecute fraud--something the government is very weak on.

In other words, this law (as your link points out) is set to eventually dismantle all health insurance companies in the United States. Private insurance can't run like government. That's why insurance companies are a success and government is a failure in medical provisions. To further my point, I use your link once again:

"Instead, workers who have these limited plans now will be able to buy their own coverage through state-based exchanges. And low- and mid-income individuals (earning up to 400 percent of the federal poverty level) can receive premium credits and subsidies to help them do that. Plus, in 2014, the law expands eligibility for Medicaid so that those under the age of 65 earning up to 133 percent of the federal poverty level ó thatís $14,400 in 2010 for an individual ó will qualify for coverage."
More government dependency. Just as I stated in my earlier post.

But thanks again for the link. I will keep it in my browser to support my points to others who challenge it in the future.:-)
frank

Oakland, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1754
May 10, 2012
 
xxxrayted wrote:
<quoted text>
It's quite simple. Our country has been on the constant decline because of larger government and more handouts. Now if we had some kind of history of success in this country with government involvement of healthcare, that's one thing. But because of governments failure with healthcare, it's clear we certainly don't need to extend it even further. Why not fix the existing programs that are failing first?
The truth is in order to have reliable, stable, dependable government healthcare at the level we have today for private insured citizens, it would cost us so much that we would spend ourselves into bankruptcy. Since the introduction of Obama Care, the numbers have been manipulated over and over again to come out with different forecasts on what this is actually going to cost us.
The problem is less the delivery of healthcare than what the costs are. There are nearly a dozen ways to address costs, but most with political ramifications for those who attempt to actually fix the problem. So the Democrats brilliant idea is to ignore the rising costs, and just pass those costs to others.
Like most all government programs, in the end, what it means is taking money from one group of people and giving it to another, particularly those who don't work nor contribute to it. This is not to mention the fact that this is the first time in history the federal government has ever forced people to purchase something on the market that they either don't want or can barely afford.
This has nothing to do with healthcare anyway. Democrats realized long ago that the more government dependents they can make, the more likely Democrat votes they will bring in. Obama Care is just another liberal program specifically designed to make people more dependent on the federal government thus insuring their power in the future.
You're talking around in cirles

Since: Apr 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1755
May 10, 2012
 
xxxrayted wrote:
<quoted text>
Thank you for the post. It's not often an adversary provides links to prove my point. As I said, the waivers were granted so that the house of cards did not fall while DumBama was in office. From your link:
"in premiums, according to an Oct. 6 New York Times article. AHIPís Zirkelbach told us the regulation could cause seasonal, part-time or temporary workers that are typically covered by limited-benefits plans to lose all of their coverage.
The companies that have been approved for the waivers must reapply for them next year. Waivers are available until 2014."
So waivers are allowed until DumBama is out of office. But this is such a great bill for Americans. Of course DumBama did not want more people--particularly part-timers and lower income to lose what health insurance they had because of his Communist plan. Let Romney deal with that when he gets in office.
But the liberals tell us Commie Care was not designed to wipe out private insurance. "If you like your healthcare plan--keep it" DumBama said. So once again, from your post:
"And the annual limit provision isnít the only aspect of the law that companies with mini-med plans have protested. Beginning next year, insurers also will be required to spend 80 percent to 85 percent of premiums on medical care, and no more than 15 percent to 20 percent on administrative costs. This ratio is called a medical loss ratio, or MLR. Businesses with mini-med plans said those policies couldnít possibly meet the MLR requirements."
So what this is telling us is that the federal government will now micromanage private insurance companies into nonexistence. No company can survive for any extended period of time on DumBama's business plan. DumBama has absolutely no experience in business which is why our country is a failure today. What he does know I'm sure is that insurance companies don't operate like government. When government gets your money, they stuff it under a mattress until it's needed. When private industry receives your premiums, they invest it which requires "administrative" employees to not only oversee such investments, but to detect and prosecute fraud--something the government is very weak on.
In other words, this law (as your link points out) is set to eventually dismantle all health insurance companies in the United States. Private insurance can't run like government. That's why insurance companies are a success and government is a failure in medical provisions. To further my point, I use your link once again:
"Instead, workers who have these limited plans now will be able to buy their own coverage through state-based exchanges. And low- and mid-income individuals (earning up to 400 percent of the federal poverty level) can receive premium credits and subsidies to help them do that. Plus, in 2014, the law expands eligibility for Medicaid so that those under the age of 65 earning up to 133 percent of the federal poverty level ó thatís $14,400 in 2010 for an individual ó will qualify for coverage."
More government dependency. Just as I stated in my earlier post.
But thanks again for the link. I will keep it in my browser to support my points to others who challenge it in the future.:-)
There is, dummy, no house of cards so there is nothing to fall.

Go ahead and live without government. There are many places like Afghanistan where there is no government. Why aren't you living there like a soaring eagle without bounds, limits or shackles?

I am laughing now.
Churmudgeon

Horseshoe Bend, AR

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1756
May 10, 2012
 
AnnAgain wrote:
<quoted text>
Not exactly inform yourself - please!
After the counstitional convention. A woman asked what kind of goverment have you wrought us Dr Franklin? To wich Benjarman Franklin answered a republic madam if you can keep it!

“Dump Brownback ”

Since: Oct 10

Junction City KS

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1757
May 10, 2012
 
Churmudgeon wrote:
<quoted text> After the counstitional convention. A woman asked what kind of goverment have you wrought us Dr Franklin? To wich Benjarman Franklin answered a republic madam if you can keep it!
Citizens United made that much more difficult.
Steve

Kalamazoo, MI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1758
May 10, 2012
 

Judged:

2

1

1

starringuandi wrote:
Hopefully they'll all move to the "Utopia" that is Europe. After all, that is what they want for this country all of them, from the top socialist their president, down to the stars of the Cops shows!(and I don't mean the cops)....
Americans complain about Obama being like a socialist, like a capitalist is better. lol Capitalists are why we got into the bad economic times we're in. Capitalism supports the rich and makes the poor poorer.
So which is better:
socialism: caring about other people and helping them
capitalism: caring about yourselves, and making more and more money off the lower and middle classes.
Most Americans choose capitalism. lol
That's why we need to fix this education system, so that Americans get smarter.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1759
May 11, 2012
 
Steve wrote:
<quoted text>
Americans complain about Obama being like a socialist, like a capitalist is better. lol Capitalists are why we got into the bad economic times we're in. Capitalism supports the rich and makes the poor poorer.
So which is better:
socialism: caring about other people and helping them
capitalism: caring about yourselves, and making more and more money off the lower and middle classes.
Most Americans choose capitalism. lol
That's why we need to fix this education system, so that Americans get smarter.
your right what you are saying about Socialism. In socialism, society comes before the individual where as in capitalism the Individual comes before Society. Your right too about the education system because it has taught people and dumbed Americans to believe the United States is truely based on Capitalism which its not its mixed economy more socialism than anything just a new doctrine that is controlled by the so called Capitalist which are Socialist themselves because they are influencing the Government economical policy.

here is an article that explains capitalism: its roots, principles and effects, benefits and shortcomings and explains how capitalism compares to the alternative method of doing business. Incidentally, the United States doesn't actually practice capitalism. No one does these days.

http://money.howstuffworks.com/capitalism.htm
Churmudgeon

Ash Flat, AR

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1760
May 11, 2012
 
Steve wrote:
<quoted text>
Americans complain about Obama being like a socialist, like a capitalist is better. lol Capitalists are why we got into the bad economic times we're in. Capitalism supports the rich and makes the poor poorer.
So which is better:
socialism: caring about other people and helping them
capitalism: caring about yourselves, and making more and more money off the lower and middle classes.
Most Americans choose capitalism. lol
That's why we need to fix this education system, so that Americans get smarter.
and yet with all of the evil capitalism.There are many folks in the USA who by their own efforts become wealthy. And compared to many country,s the poorest folks in the USA are wealthy by compaasion. The fact is everyone isnt equal we are all different and life isnt fair. Implementing socialism & communism wont help to make folks equal or fair. Education dont make anyone smarter or dumber. Most highly educated folks are merely brainwashed & indoctorinated. By and large work requiring college degrees are parasitic in nature. Personally I dont want or need the Goverment or anyone else to feed me,house me,keep me safe, or provide free health care. When this current world wide economic system fails. It will become survival of the fittest. Just what are the Liberal it takes a village gimmie types gonna do?
frank

Oakland, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1761
May 11, 2012
 
Churmudgeon wrote:
<quoted text> and yet with all of the evil capitalism.There are many folks in the USA who by their own efforts become wealthy. And compared to many country,s the poorest folks in the USA are wealthy by compaasion. The fact is everyone isnt equal we are all different and life isnt fair. Implementing socialism & communism wont help to make folks equal or fair. Education dont make anyone smarter or dumber. Most highly educated folks are merely brainwashed & indoctorinated. By and large work requiring college degrees are parasitic in nature. Personally I dont want or need the Goverment or anyone else to feed me,house me,keep me safe, or provide free health care. When this current world wide economic system fails. It will become survival of the fittest. Just what are the Liberal it takes a village gimmie types gonna do?
Why the defeatist attitude? Our friends the GOPers have been hard at work to turn our Constitutional Republic into a Capitalist Republic where youíre either wealthy or lazy, everything is privately funded. Following legislation by the t-baggers, taxes would be outlawed with a new amendment to the Constitution.
Pamela

Citrus Heights, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1762
May 11, 2012
 
Churmudgeon wrote:
<quoted text> and yet with all of the evil capitalism.There are many folks in the USA who by their own efforts become wealthy. And compared to many country,s the poorest folks in the USA are wealthy by compaasion. The fact is everyone isnt equal we are all different and life isnt fair. Implementing socialism & communism wont help to make folks equal or fair. Education dont make anyone smarter or dumber. Most highly educated folks are merely brainwashed & indoctorinated. By and large work requiring college degrees are parasitic in nature. Personally I dont want or need the Goverment or anyone else to feed me,house me,keep me safe, or provide free health care. When this current world wide economic system fails. It will become survival of the fittest. Just what are the Liberal it takes a village gimmie types gonna do?
Every single rich person has 5-8 years of higher education. Most every politician is a lawyer, so they have 4 years of college and 4 years of law school. Mitt Romney has two degrees from Havard, one in business and a law degree from Harvard. Obama has a law degree from Harvard. Mark Zuckerberg went to Havard. Bill Gates went to Harvard and his father was a lawyer. Tell me ONE billionaire or even millionaire who hates college and who didn't go to college?

The days of non-college jobs are over. If you don't go to college, you won't be able to make a living. The non-college manufacturing jobs have moved to China. We don't have any. All you can get is a minimum wage service job.

This country lost out on 5 million jobs it was offered in engineering and in computer science because our people did not go to college, so we are left with high unemployment and a lot less income tax money coming in, a lot less money being paid into Social Security and into Medicare because of this. We are importing engineers and computer scientists from India and China because of Americans not attending college. We are now 25th worldwide in education. Your idea is to repeat Fox saying you don't need no stinking college. It's just evil socialism. This is the problem with this country.

America has 80 percent of its people without a 4-year college degree, yet it has to compete globally for jobs with other countries that are highly educated, with large, intelligent populations. Americans are uneducated, fat, lazy and hyper-religious. Half of our people are obese now, and this goes hand in hand with low intelligence and with lack of higher education. So does being hyper-religious. If everyone is stuck on made up religions they all believe made up gods do everything for them. They don't take classes, so they have no clue about real things. They don't know anything. If you take humanities classes, you will find out when men made up which religions and why and how we ended up with people believing in the three sky god religions. If you take science classes, you find out how we got here, how and when we evolved, you find out yes, global warming is real. Everyone who learns real things know that. Everyone knows it except Fox says it's not real cause Fox works for the oil companies.

This idea that a nation wants to stay uneducated, that it's people cheer on being uneducated, is pathetic. It renders this nation dead. If you all want no college so you can't take jobs offered to you, so your tax base shrunk and you can't comnpete with other countries, soon the 3 billion people in China and India will have your white collar jobs too. Do you have a clue how smart East Indian people are?? Do you have a clue how smart Chinese people are?? There are 1.4 billion Chinese and 1.3 billion Indian people who want your jobs. Americans had better toughen up, wake up, get educated and learn how to fight back. You can't all sit here and hate education and all be obese and pretend that this nation can stay standing. It's going under from lack of higher education and from obesity from laziness.
Pamela

Citrus Heights, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1763
May 11, 2012
 
It's such a convoluted message. Glenn Beck told these people that they don't need any higher education, which is the exact opposite of the truth. Same as he told them a communist scare is the real problem, which is the exact opposite of the truth too.

The idea is they don't need any stinking college, they don't need to stop being obese, they don't have to do one thing. Big daddy government will give them everthing, create jobs for them, pay them big bucks for knowing nothing and doing nothing. It is a complete and total dependence on big daddy government, while at the same time they all claim they want smaller government and say they don't need the government.

However, the idea that they don't any education and they don't need to work hard at things, they don't need to read one book, they don't need to exercise, they don't have to do one difficult thing ever because the country is rich and the politicians will provide for them, is nuts. It's completely nuts. If you can't take 5 million good paying jobs because of lack of college education and not one American will even ever discuss this, then you have a dead society, a dead country. Their idea about things is hide from the fact that we lost 5 million good paying jobs from lack of higher education, just ignore it and it will somehow go away, and Fox says that Mitt Romney will give them all high paying jobs for no reason with no education. This is total dependence on the government. The idea is they never have to do one thing and that the government will somehow provide them with high paying jobs.

Even Romney said on the air, in Iowa, he said "you people can't expect to have everything in this country for nothing. You all need to go to college or go to trade schools." He sees a super dumbed down public, he sees how fat and lazy and stupid everyone is, and he hears them all asking him for Social Security and Medicare and Medicaid, so he told them the truth. He's telling the people that you can't just back and be lazy and do nothing and think that politicians can somehow get you high paying jobs with no effort on your part.

The government is not responsible for gettting everyone educated enough to be able to get good paying jobs. People are responsible for that. They don't want to take any responsibility for themselves.

I see all of these people who think that if only Repubs get back in that they will all be handed 60K a year jobs with NO education at all. They live in a dream world. How can Romney pay you 60K for having no education if people from India will come here and work as engineers for $10 an hour? If you are not an engineer, then you will be worth a lot less than minimum wage. You can't expect politicians to magically get you high paying jobs for no reason. It's not their job. You are all competing with these other countries for good paying jobs and this is WHY your manufacturing jobs are gone.
Pamela

Citrus Heights, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1764
May 11, 2012
 
And this is WHY both Europe and the U.S. went under. China took all of the jobs. It's a global work force now. People can't sit back and say - well, the U.S. used to be a rich country so somehow someone can give us high paying jobs without any higher education cause we are Americans, we say so. We are so used to being so entitled, we say so." NO one cares. If you were still number one in education, people would care. You are 25th in education. If you had a big GDP, if you traded things and didn't have a huge trade deficit, if you had a strong manufacturing base, a strong economy, you could bargain for jobs. YOu can't have no real economy except borrowing money and buying stuff from China, have a super undereducated population and demand high paying jobs. NO one cares. The world doesn't care what Americans want. This country is bankrupt, it has no real GDP and it's about to collapse. The idea that everyone will be handed a high paying job if only Mitt Romney is elected is nuts. People are responsible for their level of education and that determines their earning capacity. It has nothing to do with the government, other than the government needs to help people to get trained in engineering and in computer science as that is where the jobs are. As long as there is public education, the government is responsible for making sure our education system is number one, not number 25. But the government is NOT responsible for giving uneducated people high paying jobs.
JBH

Richmond, Canada

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1765
May 11, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

WARNING----20000 Americans Convert To ISLAM Each YearWhy Islam? Fastest Growing Religion in America Forums: Spirituality And Religion, Religion, America, Islam, Quran Email this Topic a Print this Page firdaus REPLY Thu 13 Nov, 2003 06:33 pm Being that so many Americans are opposed to Islam, calling it evil, as I've seen several times on this site...I'm curious why would so many Americans convert to ...

<>>>>>> >>>>><> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>

The reason ISLAM AND MUSLIMS ARE GROWING IN US is because of Obama's association with Muslims and invitation to Islam, to grow this population to eventually throw away the Christian faith and other faith of many others.

Obama is the most dangerous and unwanted radical at this critical time and must be thrown away from whatever it takes, IN ORDER TO not LET A CHRISTIAN COUNTRY usa FALL APART.

You have not any other choice but to choose Christians, than Islam and Muslims , for they wlll accumulate potential dangerous terrorism and tearing down your society and culture.

By backing and electing the great man Romney will do the job FOR YOU TO stop the future disaster, as that is all it takes from required obigation requiring YOU THE all people to do so = You the Winner = Romney 2012.

It is needed right now, to stop the rapid rise of Islam and Muslims, otherwise it will be too late because you will have many gloomy tomorrows if you don't do it right now.

“Dump Brownback ”

Since: Oct 10

Junction City KS

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1766
May 11, 2012
 
JBH wrote:
WARNING----20000 Americans Convert To ISLAM Each YearWhy Islam? Fastest Growing Religion in America Forums: Spirituality And Religion, Religion, America, Islam, Quran Email this Topic a Print this Page firdaus REPLY Thu 13 Nov, 2003 06:33 pm Being that so many Americans are opposed to Islam, calling it evil, as I've seen several times on this site...I'm curious why would so many Americans convert to ...
<>>>>>> >>>>><> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>
The reason ISLAM AND MUSLIMS ARE GROWING IN US is because of Obama's association with Muslims and invitation to Islam, to grow this population to eventually throw away the Christian faith and other faith of many others.
Obama is the most dangerous and unwanted radical at this critical time and must be thrown away from whatever it takes, IN ORDER TO not LET A CHRISTIAN COUNTRY usa FALL APART.
You have not any other choice but to choose Christians, than Islam and Muslims , for they wlll accumulate potential dangerous terrorism and tearing down your society and culture.
By backing and electing the great man Romney will do the job FOR YOU TO stop the future disaster, as that is all it takes from required obigation requiring YOU THE all people to do so = You the Winner = Romney 2012.
It is needed right now, to stop the rapid rise of Islam and Muslims, otherwise it will be too late because you will have many gloomy tomorrows if you don't do it right now.
What a crock. Guess what, Dumbass, our Constitution protects freedom of religion. If people want to be Muslim, that's their business, and not yours.

"Great Man Romney"? No wonder this coward never gives the source of his spam. It's all other reality-challenged poor deluded creeps like himself.

It wasn't a Muslim who assassinated Dr. George Tiller in Wichita - it was a homegrown, whitebread terrorist such as you are dabbling at becoming. It is people like Tiller's assassin and you who are the danger to America, not Muslims.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 1,601 - 1,620 of4,941
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

•••
•••