Robin Roberts of ABC News and Good Morning America is recovering from breast cancer. We wish her well. No doubt, Robin has had a positive impact and has encouraged other women and breast cancer patients and survivors. However, Robin has chosen to make her medical condition the platform for universal health care. Being part of the liberal elite, effete establishment means that Robin has to have a one-dimensional cause that will endear her to the public and therefore, protect her job. One article even states that Robin is echoing Michael Moore and his ridiculous unproven assertions in his latest mockumentary, SiCKo.
Shame on Robin Roberts
August 26, 2007 · 24 Comments
Categories: Liberal Nonsense
24 responses so far ↓
Tom // August 26, 2007 at 1:11 pm
Yes, it would be absolutely terrible, that here in what is supposedly the greatest, wealthiest, most compassionate nation on earth, that everyone would have access to affordable health care. How un-American, how un-Christian. We should continue to pour millions or is that billions of dollars into Iraq and ignore the health concerns of the citizens who are footing the bill. MORE FOR THE WAR, less for the people who are paying for it! I say that we do away with all government health plans… no more medicare, medicaid, no more free health care for the President, the VP, members of Congress they can afford to buy their own, and if not, too damn bad, why should they get something that I don’t? Let’s do away with government supported police and fire protection too. How about no more government funding of roads and bridges? If you wanna drive, then you pay tolls to use the roads and bridges, why should people who walk have to pay for the people who drive? Then there’s education, talk about a bloated system that’s reeks of socialism, people should have to pay for their children’s education, why should tax payers who don’t have kids have to pay to educate someone else’s? If you can’t afford to educate them, then don’t have them, or give them away to someone who can. Screw this helping the less fortunate, it should be every man for himself. No more LOVE THEY NEIGHBOR AS THY SELF or DO UNTO OTHERS AND YOU WOULD HAVE THEM DO UNTO YOU. That kind of thinking is for suckers.
julie hall // August 26, 2007 at 2:30 pm
i am a conservative, but I have been a fan of Good Morning America for years, I have been a part of the studio audience numerous times, and you would not want to find two nicer women than Diane Sawyer and Robin Roberts, they spend time with the audience, they make you feel special. Liberal or not, these are two classy ladies.
Thespis // August 26, 2007 at 3:10 pm
Regardless of how nice she is, she is using her health care dilemma to further a liberal cause. Health care is not a constitutional right. Neither are bridges or schools, but we came together collaboratively to fulfill those missions.
We are all free to help each other. There are churches and non-profit organizations. However, you can not redistribute wealth to make a POOR health care system universal for all. We have the greatest health care in the world. Let’s not ruin that too.
Tom // August 26, 2007 at 3:44 pm
Why does health care in this country have to be a liberal or conservative issue? Why shouldn’t it just be a human issue of compassion and doing the right thing? We only have the greatest health care system in the world (which is debatable) for those who can afford it. For those who can’t, it doesn’t matter how great it is if you don’t have access to it.
“We are all free to help each other.” And that’s really working out well isn’t it? Tell that to the person who can’t afford treatment for either himself or his family. I thought the this was a country full of compassionate conservatives, where’s the compassion? If you always depend upon the other person to do the right thing, chances are the right thing will never get done.
Thespis // August 26, 2007 at 8:41 pm
“Why shouldn’t it just be a human issue of compassion and doing the right thing?”
You need to ask that question of all those responsible for the constitution. The buzz phraseology of “access to health care” means redistribution of wealth. We have had enough social experiments in this country that have failed miserably. The “war on poverty” has been going on for more than forty years, and we lost that one big time.
Hillary, John, and Barack want to do for health care what the government has done for poverty. NO THANKS!
Tom // August 26, 2007 at 10:41 pm
“You need to ask that question of all those responsible for the constitution.” We the People are responsible for the Constitution. Even the framers of the Constitution couldn’t anticipate the needs of the People 200 odd years later. That’s why the Constitution is a living document that can be changed. The Bill of Rights came four years after the Constitution was ratified, which shows that even those who were closely involved in it’s authorship weren’t flawless. I don’t believe that access to health care is a constitutional problem. There’s nothing in the constitution that would not allow it.
“…access to health care means redistribution of wealth”. No, access to health care means access to health care. It’s not going to make the poor rich and it’s certainly not going to make the rich poor. I could easily say that “redistribution of wealth” is also buzz phraseology promoted by those who are more interested in the status quo and their stock portfolios than they are in what is moral and just. How can you rationalize that people not having access to the best health care is a good thing for this country? Let alone the moral issues involved?
“We have had enough social experiments in this country that have failed miserably.” Yup, that civil rights thing was a real bust, along with women’s suffrage, ending slavery, equal protection and due process, damn those social experiments!
Thespis // August 27, 2007 at 6:27 am
Yes, liberals always see the constitution as a “living document.” Generally, over the last sixty years, they have depended upon their buddies at the Supreme Court to make the constiution alive to all the things that are rejected by voters.
They “found” a right to an abortion. They “found” a right to make race the determining factor in where students attended school. \
If univeral health care is such a great thing, let’s CHANGE the constitution to make health care a right. It will be a right that all the working people fund. Many people will choose not to work when their health care is “free.” Like Michael Moore, you seem to think that there truly is “free” health care.
That’s enough to make your comments laughable. Sad, but laughable.
Tom // August 27, 2007 at 8:28 am
“That’s enough to make your comments laughable. Sad, but laughable.”
I feel that your comments are much more laughable than mine, this one for instance. “Many people will choose not to work when their health care is “free.” People are going to stop working because they’re health care is free? Really? How will they clothe their families, or pay their mortgages or rent, or put food on the table, or buy gas for their cars? Do you really think that people will stop working because they have free health care? That is truly laughable.
”It will be a right that all the working people fund.” Just,like they fund education, fire and police protection, transportation, the military, faith based initiatives, etc. You have no problem with those do you? Why is it that health care to you is a privilege, but public education seems to be a “right”? It’s not in the constitution that the government should educate the people, and no one has stopped working because their families get free education.
“Yes, liberals always see the constitution as a “living document.” Several years ago the conservatives were working pretty hard on a constitutional amendment to ban “gay marriage”, did that suddenly make them liberal, because they wanted to change the constitution? Does the constitution only become a “living document” when the conservatives want to change it? Your arguments are so twisted that you contradict yourself at every turn.
Thespis // August 27, 2007 at 8:43 am
While I am not expressing a personal view on this matter, I think that the conservatives were clarifying the orginal intent of the constitution. You have heard of originalists, haven’t you?
“Free” health care benefits were no more a part of the original constitution than gay marriage.
It is sad that the gay issue forms a clouded lens for you and so many others. While viewing the world through this overly narrow lens, you perception of the world in which we live and work beomces terribly warped. As you contemplate the ways in which you feel discriminated against, you become blind to the realities of our world.
You, like most liberals when they argue, fail to listen. I stated in an earlier comment that the public has come together collaboratively to support bridges, roads, police, fire, and public education. If the voters wish to change any of these it remains their right. Let the voters vote on universal, socialized, Marxist health care plans. The plans will lose every time.
So, what is the liberal answer to this rejection by the voters: try to get in through the Supreme Court (this is their usual tactic of choice) or get Hitlery elected President so she can mandate it.
If the voters want it so bad, it will happen. The problem is, the majority of people are not in favor of socialized medicine. When it happens sometime in the far off distant future, you can claim victory. Until then, health care is an individual responsibility.
Do you have a plan to fund “Hillary Care?”
Tom // August 27, 2007 at 9:16 am
I only mentioned “gay marriage” as an example of how the conservatives feel that the constitution is a living document when it pleases their agenda. Your lens, metaphor works both ways, everything that you implied about me works equally well when applied to you.
“As you contemplate the ways in which you feel discriminated against, you become blind to the realities of our world.” Really? So somehow, your realities are more valid than mine? Now, who’s looking through a narrow lens?
“I stated in an earlier comment that the public has come together collaboratively to support bridges, roads, police, fire, and public education.” You did? Where? Certainly not in this thread.
“If the voters want it so bad, it will happen.” In a poll done by CBS NEWS, in March of 2007 the question was asked “SHOULD GOVERNMENT GUARANTEE HEALTH CARE FOR ALL?” The response was 64% yes, 27% no. So, perhaps the voters will indeed make it happen.
Thespis // August 27, 2007 at 9:32 am
The polls that matter are on election day.
Good Luck with that.
Oh, and no one trusts CBS any more…you know…the Dan Rather thing.
And it isn’t that my view matters any more than any one else. It’s about the difference that we make in speaking, influencing and listening to others. Gay marriage was rejected in Ohio by a 75% vote. Even the Kerry voters were against it.
75% is a strong indicator of the MAJORITY view.
Tom // August 27, 2007 at 10:03 am
“Oh, and no one trusts CBS any more…you know…the Dan Rather thing.” You really do have a habit of speaking in absolutes. “…no one trusts CBS any more…” Are you absolutely sure of that statement? Or are you just looking through that narrow lens again?
Thespis // August 27, 2007 at 11:58 am
Most interesting is your total failure to respond to the liberal attempt to circumvent the voters. Hey, it has worked for them so many times before, why not try it again?
When 75% of the voters outright REJECT an issue, just try the Supreme Court next.
Wow. That comment about a narrow, clouoded lens really got to you, didn’t it? It is something to think about, and I’m glad to see and hear you pondering the views of the majority.
Tom // August 27, 2007 at 3:27 pm
4th try.
“Most interesting is your total failure to respond to the liberal attempt to circumvent the voters. Hey, it has worked for them so many times before, why not try it again?”
Sorry, that I haven’t responded but you’ll have to be a bit more specific, I have no idea what liberal attempt you’re speaking of.
“Wow. That comment about a narrow, clouoded(sic) lens really got to you, didn’t it?”
Not really, I was just using it to point out your hypocrisy. I find it amusing that you so easily allow your own hyperbole to be used against you.
To bring the thread back to it’s original topic, I do have a couple of questions for you.
1. Why do YOU oppose government supported health care for everyone?
2. Is it really because it’s not mandated in the Constitution?
3. If there were a Constitutional Amendment to mandate health care for all, would you then support it?
4. Do you really think people will stop working if they have health care coverage?
5. Do you only support issues that are supported by the majority or do you occasionally have an opposing view?
6. Why do you feel that the supposed greatest, wealthiest, brightest, most compassionate nation on earth can’t come up with a plan that would be able to insure all it’s citizens, when countries of lesser stature have?
Thespis // August 27, 2007 at 4:30 pm
Tom, your confusion and general delusion might be a result of your failure to read carefully. I previously mentioned the abortion issue as one that the liberals took to the Supreme Court since the voters would not pass it.
Also, another failed liberal program never passed by the voters is the celebrated and FAILED war on poverty. That war has been going on for more than forty years, and it’s the only war from which the democrats did not want to cut and run.
There is nothing more amusing that your rather constant state of confusion, but keep speaking, it shows everyone reading why this great nation can not be handed over to liberal control.
By the way, your use of the tired technique of trying to set the agenda (a type of a filibuster) won’t work here. I set the agenda, not you.
Thanks.
Tom // August 27, 2007 at 5:17 pm
This is fun…I keep posting and you keep deleting. Are you really that threatened by a “liberal” that you won’t allow his replies to stand?
Thespis // August 27, 2007 at 5:57 pm
No posts have been deleted.
Avoid any personal attacks and profanity, and it will stand.
Is this another one of your liberal delusions?
Just asking.
Thespis
Tom // August 27, 2007 at 7:20 pm
No, it’s not one of my liberal delusions, two post have been deleted. If you would like screen caps I can supply them. It’s not the first time that my post have come up missing. So, I always do a quick screen cap just in case.
Thespis // August 27, 2007 at 10:48 pm
WOW! This is really important to you.
Thanks.
Tom // August 28, 2007 at 8:56 am
“WOW! This is really important to you.
Thanks.”
No, it’s actually not important to me. But if it makes you feel good go ahead and think that. I only mention it to show your utter dishonesty. But since you set the “agenda” it actually makes the fact that my posts were deleted moot. You won’t discuss, you rant, or call people delusional, confused, narrow, or moonbats among other things. Then you have the nerve to say that post will only be deleted if personal attacks or profanity are used. HAH! You should qualify that by saying, that YOU can use all the personal attacks and name calling you want, but others must abide by your totally arbitrary and hypocritical “rules”.
Why even bother to have a comments section, if you’re going to delete comments that challenge you? OOPS, sorry I forgot, your “agenda” doesn’t allow questions. I hope you enjoy exchanging thoughts and ideas with yourself, it’s so much easier to defend your position when it’s never challenged.
Thespis // August 28, 2007 at 9:26 am
Dear Readers, please acknowlede the above rants of a hapless moonbat.
No posts were deleted.
Robin Roberts embarrassed herself. She is supposed to be unbiased, yet she sides with the dems in using her personal tragedy to advocate for universal health care.
Tom // August 28, 2007 at 9:46 am
“Dear Readers, please aknowlede the above rants of hapless moonbat.”
Dear Readers, please acknowledge how Thespis says that personal attacks are not allowed and post will be deleted when they are used. However, he uses them constantly.
Tom // August 28, 2007 at 10:13 am
“Dear Readers, please aknowlede the above rants of hapless moonbat.”
Dear Readers, please acknowledge how Thespis says that personal attacks are not allowed and post will be deleted when they are used. However, he uses them constantly.”
Dear Readers, please acknowledge that the above has been edited by Thespis. It originally read:
“Dear Readers, please aknowlede(sic) the above rants of hapless moonbat.”
Dear Readers, please acknowledge how Thespis says that personal attacks are not allowed and post will be deleted when they are used. However, he uses them constantly. Please acknowledge the double standard and hypocrisy.”
Thespis // August 29, 2007 at 8:06 am
Dear Friends:
No posts have been deleted, I assure you. Tom has mentioned that he has problems posting information on this blog.
Just chalk one up to liberal delusion.
Leave a Comment