...Obama did not lie. But read the politifact explanation more thoroughly for a realistic understanding of the issue.

In effect the Obamas plan specifically does not insure illegal aliens, how fukkin' dumb would you have to be to specifically insure illegal aliens? On the other hand Medicaid does cover illegal aliens, never mind. The relevant fact is that since language was stripped from the bill that required proving US citizenship in order to get an insurance card, illegal aliens will in fact be able to get coverage under the plan.

So technically a lie? No.

Does a person have reason to be pissed off if they don't want illegal aliens to acquire coverage under any new plan and there is nothing in the bill to prevent that? Yes.

Because Obama danced around the issue do they have the right to think he is a lying sack o potatoes? Yes.

I am failing to see the compelling parts of Obamas vision. Actually like the stimulas package I see a complete lack of vision. Unless it is considered visionary to do "something" and just never mind what it is. Vision has a long term strategy and long term goals. Mr ADD in the White house is just looking to check this off his list so he can move on to the next ADD rattled initiative. God only knows what that is.

What would have been compelling was if the White House did some freakin minimal due diligence in comparing different approaches to health care in totality. Only focusing on the pay end of the system (now private insurance companies) (oh excuse me in Obama speak, it's the evil private insurance companies) and completely ignoring the delivery aspect of health care is not change, it is not reform, and certainly not visionary.

There are many models on paying for and delivering health care in the world - and they all have pros and cons. In our country we have three different models for paying for health care delivery. Why were none of these discussed in substance? Did Mr. ADD ever discuss that Switzerland and the Netherlands use only private insurers and costs are kept much lower, because they didn't focus on the pay end of the system but instead focused on the delivery end? Fuk no. Why would he do that when he'd find his re-election war chest suddenly becoming much lighter.

Sorry Joan, nothing personal, but compelling vision my ass.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,548827,00.html

The GOP are exquisitely sleazy, but you gotta admit that they are disciplined in their malice. -- kreoth

Acorn employess give "helpful tips" on how to run an underage prostitution ring and it is the GOP that are exquisitely sleazy? Not the Acorn staffers who should have immediately reported the conversation to the police?

Partisanship should really be defined as a mental illness.

The reality is every stupid fuk in that chamber is a liar. Which leads to the much more important question; when a liar calls a liar a liar, who is the liar?

In terms of civility, I don't know, the Obamas and many people posting here evidently support Van Jones calling republicans assholes. I don't know maybe calling someone an asshole is more high-minded then calling them a liar? Except Obama likes to call people liars too and did so again in his speech. Which leads to the question again; when a liar calls a liar a liar, who is the liar?

In terms of assholes, anyone who can reach this level of self-aggrandizement and self-delusion,

“I am not the first president to take up this cause, but I am determined to be the last.” has got to be the asshole.

That when a person agrees with CP she is an astute and brilliant observer, but when a person disagrees with her, CP then is obviously a slut racist, underserving of being published.

Of course in this article she slams both sides, liberals and conservatives as being at best incompetent, hypocritical fools. Which I guess then makes her an astute brilliant slut racist observer.

Whatever, what the responses to CPs articles really prove is that the two major political parties apparently cannot survive without child robots as their members.

CP calls them like she sees 'im, too bad the rest of the electorate isn't capable of doing the same.

...to compete with Andrew Leonard. As long as I get to make up the rules of the competition and have final judgement as to who wins.

Why don't we have one team in MLB, where the coaches act as the umpires? Even in the heat of competition they'll be fair, right?

What part of you can't be a competitor in the health care industry and regulator of the health care industry is so difficult to grasp. I am in favor of single payer but calling it competition is just stupid.

Assignments they rewrote when they realized how dumb-ass they had been.

When the first George H.W. Bush gave a speech to schools, Democrats went nutzo and forced an investigation into the use of federal money.

FORCED AN INVESTIGATION.

Sorry for the caps, but sometimes I don't think liberals and conservatives in their partisan hazey stupor realize how foolish politicians are. Spending federal money investigating how GWB spent federal money in giving a useless speech similar to Obamas useless speech to school children? Wonderful. Thank goodness for politicians.

I am waiting to vote for the first politician that starts giving speeches as to how useless they are, and who promises to not spend any federal money on being useless, unlike other politicians who spend tons of federal money on being useless.