Quote:
Originally Posted by MMM
I didn't say it should, I said it can be. the VA, Medicare, Medicaid...all government programs.
I think many people are against it just because Obama is president. If his administration had declared to abolish national health care the same people would be against it, too.
Debating and disagreeing are fine, no one would deny that. But even in this thread alone you have said he is an "a-hole three times over", and should have been 205 on the list of 205 nominees without even knowing who the other nominees are. That isn't debate or disagreeing, that's just blind disdain.
|
There was a smiley face after the first one, and I was quoting you saying "He's an A-hole" 3 times. It was a joke.
And unless there were other pointlessly political nominees that had done absolutely
nothing at all for world peace among the other 204 nominees, he really should have finished 205th. If all the others are like the few named ones we know about, who did things to really help people, I don't see how anyone can really disagree with that. This was a purely, 100% political choice, without an ounce of credible achievement or merit behind it. Period. That isn't knee-jerk hatred, it's a fact. Tell me how can anyone reasonably claim Obama is more deserving than someone who built schools for poor kids in Afghanistan, or a Chinese dissident, or the Prime Minister of Zimbabwe who has been the principle opponent to Robert Mugabe, or a women's rights advocate in Afghanistan and the Sudan, or a group that runs orphanages in 132 different countries and tries to help children get adopted? Can you REALLY say that Obama is more deserving than all of these, or any of them? I can't. Of the dozen or so nominees I know of (they won't release the full list for 50 years, for some reason), every one was far more deserving than Obama, and I'm pretty confident the rest (or the vast majority of the rest) were too.