Welcome guest, is this your first visit? Create Account now to join.
  • Login:

Welcome to the Online Debate Network.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.

View Poll Results: Obama: Support or Aganist?

Voters
8. This poll is closed
  • He is a great president!

    1 12.50%
  • He is doing a decent job.

    2 25.00%
  • I like him, but not that much.

    0 0%
  • I dislike him, but not that much.

    0 0%
  • He is doing a poor job.

    3 37.50%
  • He is a ruthless tyrant!

    2 25.00%
Page 3 of 15 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 13 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 296
  1. #41
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    2,638
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Obama: for or aganist?

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    The story you quoted talks about it... did you read your link?
    "Obama and the Democrats have no one but themselves to blame for this embarrassing political turn of events. It was the Democrats who created the sham pro forma parliamentary procedure to keep the Senate "in session" to prevent former President Bush from making recess appointments. Bush honored the administrative procedure; however Obama charged ahead and ignored the tactic created by his own party."

    That? (from a previously cited article) There's a lot of links in there, is there one that goes to his declaration. Was it written or in a speech? I might be able to find it that way.
    "Real Boys Kiss Boys" -M.L.

  2. #42
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    2,765
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Obama: for or aganist?

    Something missing from the choices, and I think it's a critical one, is that is Obama the best choice we could make.

    I'm sure unless you're a Tea Partier, you'd agree that Palin would not have been the best choice - one only needs to look at what a congress of gerrymandered Tea Partiers Republicans can wreak. Romney on the other had is slightly harder to dismiss but ultimately with the Republicans veering too far to the right for my comfort, it is better that there were no Republican leaders for a while. If Boehner cannot control them, I doubt Romney can.

    So despite:

    1.The President isn't King: he still has to operate within the framework of the existing systems in place.
    2. Sometimes, compromise is more important than getting your work.
    3. All power stems from monied - it has always been that way.

    He still:

    1. Provided a recovery for the economy.
    2. Drew down the wars.
    3. Made huge improvements in the handling of health care.
    4. Has made huge strides towards gay equality (repealing DADT & DOMA)
    5. Is trying to make strides in Energy efficiency and have us less dependent on foreign oil.

    Not that he's flawless, but the way I see it whatever bad is he has done would likely have been much worse under a Republican government who's dog is being wagged by the Tea Party tail. The current spy 'scandal' is ridiculous and put in place by Bush under huge opposition, so all Obama is doing is continuing down the path that Americans should already have been complaining about but didn't - i.e. they had accepted that a certain amount of domestic spying is allowed; it's all very well saying it's terrible that what was predicted has come about!

    So we need another option: he is the best choice that we could have made.

  3. #43
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,620
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Obama: for or aganist?

    Quote Originally Posted by JimJones8934 View Post
    1.The President isn't King: he still has to operate within the framework of the existing systems in place.
    Agreed, this is a negative for Obama, he has little experience, and apparently no personal desire, to work with those who do not agree with him. In every instance of an attempt to work with Republicans he has stonewalled, shutdown and refused to compromise in the slightest. He has none of the charm of Reagen or Clinton, both of which were natural deal makers, which explains why his legislative record is so dismal.

    [quote=JJ]1. Provided a recovery for the economy.[/qoute] Based on what metric? Growth has been sluggish, bubbles have multiplied, work force participation is lower than when he took office, personal wealth is down. What economic metric that is meaningful would you propose to support this concept?

    Quote Originally Posted by JJ
    2. Drew down the wars.
    No, he simply followed President Bush's Iraq timeline. In Afghanistan he hasn't drawn down anything, he provided an insubstantial surge, then returned to normal levels. Troop levels have slowly tapered off, but with no official handover plan, no formal structure for transition and virtually no guidance from the executive. Since then we've become significantly involved in Syria and have begun putting more troops in Turkey, perhaps with Syria in mind.

    Quote Originally Posted by JJ
    3. Made huge improvements in the handling of health care.
    This is a formal discussion, so challenges are generally not offered, but we both know this isn't true. The ACA hasn't even gone into full effect yet. There have been no changes to actual healthcare that have been positive, there has been an increase in health insurance prices, more people have lost their work coverage due to coverage mandates and religious organizations have been forced to cancel plans.

    Yeah, great job there.

    Quote Originally Posted by JJ
    4. Has made huge strides towards gay equality (repealing DADT & DOMA)
    You realize that he didn't repeal DOMA right? He simply refused to defend it which allowed a better group to act as the defense. Great plan there.

    I also reject that DADT made any real change in gay people's lives. During DADT it simply meant that being gay could not be part of your workplace conversation, just as being straight can largely not be part of your work place conversation (SHARP policies forbid anything but the most tangential reference to a wife). In my ten years, I've never seen and only once heard of someone being kicked out on DADT reasons alone. Usually, it was used to bolster other reasons for discharge. IE a bad conduct discharge based on missing formation, excessive debt (loss of clearance), disrespect to an NCO or Officer, etc.

    Quote Originally Posted by JJ
    5. Is trying to make strides in Energy efficiency and have us less dependent on foreign oil.
    His two major efforts in this field have been to subsidize loans to failing political lackies and loose billions of dollars and to subsidize bio-fuel, which drove up food prices, produced a bubble in the market and isn't capable of being sustainable.
    He has done virtually nothing in this field aside from those two policies that isn't simply sitting on his hands or refusing to allow development.



    You also conveniently forgot foreign policy. Despite his early popularity, he has sunk to lower approval ratings than Bush in both the Middle East and Europe. He has strained relations with Turkey, Israel, Britain, France and has presided over the increasing hostility of Russia and China (I'm willing to agree that this might not be fully his fault, but his pusillanimity certainly has not helped), he watched as Argentina returned to a belligerent state, has done nothing to discourage Iran's increasing militarism and involvement in the region and has even allowed Russia and China to begin forming joint partnership military drills, two countries that have traditionally hated each other. I guess you could call him a uniter in that sense.
    "Suffering lies not with inequality, but with dependence." -Voltaire
    "Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.” -G.K. Chesterton
    Also, if you think I've overlooked your post please shoot me a PM, I'm not intentionally ignoring you.


  4. #44
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    9,107
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Obama: for or aganist?

    Quote Originally Posted by COWBOY
    That? (from a previously cited article) There's a lot of links in there, is there one that goes to his declaration. Was it written or in a speech? I might be able to find it that way.
    It is a procedural thing. By "ignoring" the proceedings he was declaring that they were not in session. Because he can only make "recess" appointments if they are NOT in session.

    but here is more direct breakdown.

    Quote Originally Posted by LINK
    the U.S. Senate was holding short, pro forma sessions every third day—usually with only a single senator—to prevent the Senate from going into recess and thereby allow Obama to appoint high-ranking government officials for temporary terms without Senate confirmation. This process began under Senate Democrats to stymie recess appointments by President George W. Bush.

    Then Obama took the unprecedented step of declaring that, for purposes of the Constitution, the Senate is in recess whenever there are not enough senators present to conduct business, even if the Senate claims it is still in session.

    Under that theory, the president can bypass the Senate any time they go home at night, since at midnight there are not enough senators on the Senate floor to pass legislation. Obama then made several recess appointments, including filling the vacancies in the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) with labor activists who support Obama’s agenda.
    http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Governm...constitutional

    So, now that you understand/see that Obama ignored any kind of opposition to the point of ignoring the const and rule of law. Do you still hold that Obama has faced more opposition than Bush?
    To serve man.

  5. #45
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    2,638
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Obama: for or aganist?

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    It is a procedural thing. By "ignoring" the proceedings he was declaring that they were not in session. Because he can only make "recess" appointments if they are NOT in session.

    but here is more direct breakdown.
    Ok, so he did actually "declare" anything just went ahead and made his appointments.

    ---------- Post added at 12:06 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:05 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Do you still hold that Obama has faced more opposition than Bush?
    Oh, yes:

    "Overall, more than 13 percent of presidentially appointed positions hadn’t been filled at the end of Obama’s first term, compared with around 10 percent for Bush and 11 percent for Clinton. While the uptick compared with the Bush administration may sound small, it translates into dozens more vacant positions." http://http://www.propublica.org/art...ts-go-unfilled

    ---------- Post added at 12:28 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:06 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    None of his budgets when it was a one party government were fillibustered, they failed to get the requisite number of votes to pass. IE President Obama was unable to bring together enough Democrats to get a simple majority on a budget.
    Your contention is that passing a budget vote is necessary to accomplish something legislatively that your party wants.

    "He’s right about the rejection. After Obama submitted his fiscal year 2013 budget proposal on Feb. 13, 2012, House Republicans put it up for a floor vote.

    The result: 414-0 against.

    The same thing happened a year earlier in the Senate. That vote: 97-0 against. Democrats didn’t support the plan because it has been supplanted by another deficit-reduction plan Obama had later outlined. Republican leaders demanded a vote on Obama’s budget to show that Democrats don’t support any detailed budget blueprint, according to The Hill." http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...d-pass-budget/

    I'd like to know the details of the budget vote you talked about.
    "Real Boys Kiss Boys" -M.L.

  6. #46
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,620
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Obama: for or aganist?

    Quote Originally Posted by CowboyX View Post
    Your contention is that passing a budget vote is necessary to accomplish something legislatively that your party wants.
    No, my contention was that we certainly cannot call President Obama a success given his poor legislative performance, including failing to get the budgets he designed passed or even voted on by Democrats.

    You should read your link more carefully. The Hill article referenced in the partisan "Politifact" link says Democrats didn't vote for it because the President outlined another deficit plan in April in a college speech, but that that speech was low on details. The Hill article cites the massive increase in deficit spending and middle class tax increase as substantive reasons against voting for the budget.
    "Suffering lies not with inequality, but with dependence." -Voltaire
    "Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.” -G.K. Chesterton
    Also, if you think I've overlooked your post please shoot me a PM, I'm not intentionally ignoring you.


  7. #47
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    2,765
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Obama: for or aganist?

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Agreed, this is a negative for Obama, he has little experience, and apparently no personal desire, to work with those who do not agree with him. In every instance of an attempt to work with Republicans he has stonewalled, shutdown and refused to compromise in the slightest. He has none of the charm of Reagen or Clinton, both of which were natural deal makers, which explains why his legislative record is so dismal.
    ...
    You also conveniently forgot foreign policy. Despite his early popularity, he has sunk to lower approval ratings than Bush in both the Middle East and Europe. He has strained relations with Turkey, Israel, Britain, France and has presided over the increasing hostility of Russia and China (I'm willing to agree that this might not be fully his fault, but his pusillanimity certainly has not helped), he watched as Argentina returned to a belligerent state, has done nothing to discourage Iran's increasing militarism and involvement in the region and has even allowed Russia and China to begin forming joint partnership military drills, two countries that have traditionally hated each other. I guess you could call him a uniter in that sense.
    I think you make some good points and I accept some of your factual corrections (e.g. on DOMA) but to debate individual points may take more time than I'm willing to put into this particular discussion and none of your points really affect my main point that Obama remains better than the alternatives we had been presented.

    Recent rumors of Palin starting her own party (ref) fill me with Joy (good-bye GOP) and I am also relieved that she never made it to any position of power in the first place. There is very little you can say to convince me otherwise. Every president will have their successes and their failures and this one has made some deep changes in this country that has exposed the right for what they truly are and the weakness of those more centrist Conservatives to reign them in. The contrast is a good one for the country.

    For someone whose had been operating under the the promise from one side to make him a 'one term president' and thwarted at every turn, I think he's been successful in implementing some of his own promises. Maybe, as you point out, not perfectly but they are in the right direction.

    So with respect, unless you can point out that Palin wouldn't have been a good force for this country, even the worst thing that Obama would couldn't come near the horrors of Palin and a Tea Party country. This is why I suggested a more appropriate choice to the poll in the first place.

  8. #48
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    9,107
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Obama: for or aganist?

    Quote Originally Posted by COWBOY
    Ok, so he did actually "declare" anything just went ahead and made his appointments.
    I don't see the relevance of this point. He may have actually had to utter the words. It may be a reference to a procedural kind of deceleration.
    However his actions were to ignore the (senate/house?) being in session, and several stories say he "declared them at recess".

    So at this point, I don't what distinction you are even trying to make.

    Quote Originally Posted by COWBOY
    Oh, yes:

    "Overall, more than 13 percent of presidentially appointed positions hadn’t been filled at the end of Obama’s first term, compared with around 10 percent for Bush and 11 percent for Clinton. While the uptick compared with the Bush administration may sound small, it translates into dozens more vacant positions." http://http://www.propublica.org/art...ts-go-unfilled
    That is good, you supported it with evidence that actually applies.

    Still it does seem to be about par for the course. (per my point).
    I mean "dozens" of positions in a gov with hundreds of thousands of employees isn't very significant IMO.

    Also, my point still stands that he as faced the usual roadblock but reacted in the most unconst way by any pres so far.. which is more important.
    If his appointments reflect that same attitude it is a good thing he is facing more opposition.. he should.

    ------
    Quote Originally Posted by JJ
    and this one has made some deep changes in this country that has exposed the right for what they truly are and the weakness of those more centrist Conservatives to reign them in.
    I assume you mean that they have been shown to be lovers of the const. Given Obama's assault on it(referenced here in the thread already on one point), that is the only thing that makes sense.
    To serve man.

  9. #49
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    2,638
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Obama: for or aganist?

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    The Hill article referenced in the partisan "Politifact" link says Democrats didn't vote for it because the President outlined another deficit plan in April in a college speech, but that that speech was low on details. The Hill article cites the massive increase in deficit spending and middle class tax increase as substantive reasons against voting for the budget.
    and the article I cited explained why that vote was nothing more than a political maneuver by the opposition, logical that the democrats didn't vote for it.
    "Real Boys Kiss Boys" -M.L.

  10. #50
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    2,765
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Obama: for or aganist?

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post

    JJ: and this one has made some deep changes in this country that has exposed the right for what they truly are and the weakness of those more centrist Conservatives to reign them in.
    I assume you mean that they have been shown to be lovers of the const. Given Obama's assault on it(referenced here in the thread already on one point), that is the only thing that makes sense.
    Well, they have certainly been shown to be lovers of the Constitution as it was in some imaginary 1950's alternate universe.

    Note also, they only love the Constitution if it goes their way; and if it doesn't then they fall back on some weird Christian nation argument. Or is that what you mean: that they love it so much that they insist that the First Amendment doesn't claim a separation between Church & State. Or do you mean that they believe in the Constitution and SCOTUS' role so much that the continue to repeal ObamaCare even though it has been declared Constitutional; or continue to fight for a 'traditional' definition of marriage even though that has been declared unconstitutional.

    No, what I mean is that they have been exposed as:

    1. not liking brown or black people since they won't vote for them. Hence their vote must be suppressed and their numbers reduced. (source: Texas tea party leader: GOP doesn’t want black people to vote)
    2. not liking homosexuality or homosexuals
    3. not supportive of women's health and unable to say anything unoffensive about rape.
    4. wanting to keep pushing their religion into secular politics
    5. certainly awful at understanding modern technology, the modern youth, and indeed modernity itself
    6. rabid enough to even overrun the traditional GOP we all know and love, whose only fault was an overemphasis on the importance on oil and money. Ah, we miss those days!
    7. lunatic enough to threaten to start their own party (woot - go for it Palin!)
    Last edited by JimJones8934; July 2nd, 2013 at 10:20 PM.

  11. #51
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,620
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Obama: for or aganist?

    Quote Originally Posted by JimJones8934 View Post
    I think you make some good points and I accept some of your factual corrections (e.g. on DOMA) but to debate individual points may take more time than I'm willing to put into this particular discussion and none of your points really affect my main point that Obama remains better than the alternatives we had been presented.
    Perhaps, perhaps not. Sen. McCain, certainly not my preference for president, would certainly have better ability to craft and pass legislation than Obama, is relatively liberal on Gay issues (if you consider DOMA and DADT's end a good thing), and has had better experience with foreign policy even not as President. Economically I don't think he would be too different from President Obama, though perhaps a little more willing to accept fiscal reality.

    I think Gov. Romney would have been a significantly better President than Obama. He clearly has a vastly better grasp on economic issues, has experience running executive level positions (hence less of that "I have no idea what my IRS and Justice Department are doing" bs), he has some experience on foreign policy though not significantly more than the current president. Overall, I think he would have been far, far more successful passing legislation (he has shown an ability to work with extremely progressive democrats in the past) and getting business done.

    Quote Originally Posted by JJ
    For someone whose had been operating under the the promise from one side to make him a 'one term president' and thwarted at every turn, I think he's been successful in implementing some of his own promises. Maybe, as you point out, not perfectly but they are in the right direction.
    Perhaps that is true to some extent, though I think his success rate of lower than 5% is pretty abysmal regardless of your views on his policy. Still, I think his policy has been terrible in itself, so to the extent that it is successful, its a disaster. Take a look at his seminal health insurance bill, it is massively unpopular, legally questionable on several fronts, and the fact that it has been delayed until after mid term elections today tells me that even the President realizes that it is a disaster.

    Quote Originally Posted by JJ
    So with respect, unless you can point out that Palin wouldn't have been a good force for this country,
    You realize that Gov. Palin was not running for President right? That this is a red herring argument?


    Quote Originally Posted by CowboyX View Post
    and the article I cited explained why that vote was nothing more than a political maneuver by the opposition, logical that the democrats didn't vote for it.
    You didn't read the article did you? The part that you quote cites The Hill as a reference. That Hill article contradicts it (hence why I think Poltifact is a terrible source) by pointing out that the details of the budget cut didn't emerge until after Democrats voted against it.
    "Suffering lies not with inequality, but with dependence." -Voltaire
    "Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.” -G.K. Chesterton
    Also, if you think I've overlooked your post please shoot me a PM, I'm not intentionally ignoring you.


  12. #52
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    9,107
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Obama: for or aganist?

    Quote Originally Posted by jj
    1. not liking brown or black people since they won't vote for them. Hence their vote must be suppressed and their numbers reduced.
    First, how do you get the idea that a tea party leader is speaking for the GOP? Because your original objection is that the right in general is being shown.
    So do you think the Tea party is not a fringe group now?
    Second, there is no connection with what that guy said and any action to SUPPRESS their vote. Especially not in any bad way. What I mean is, not in a way that isn't fundamental to the process anyway. For example telling the other side they are going to lose "suppresses" the vote if they believe it.

    Quote Originally Posted by JJ
    2. not liking homosexuality or homosexuals
    Only in a world where defending traditional marriage is considered an attack on homosexuals. The fact that, that issue is not about liking or disliking homosexuals doesn't seem to matter to some.

    Quote Originally Posted by JJ
    3. not supportive of women's health and unable to say anything unoffensive about rape.
    Not even worth a response.

    Quote Originally Posted by JJ
    4. wanting to keep pushing their religion into secular politics
    That is true to an extent. The major push has been against an anti-religious gov. Of course the marriage issue is a religious issue, and so both sides are advocating their "religion" on the secular gov.

    Quote Originally Posted by JJ
    5. certainly awful at understanding modern technology, the modern youth, and indeed modernity itself
    Very possible. Obama, as I understand it, had a superior online campaign where as Romeny's attempts were bad to say the least.

    Quote Originally Posted by JJ
    6. rabid enough to even overrun the traditional GOP we all know and love, whose only fault was an overemphasis on the importance on oil and money. Ah, we miss those days!
    I don't know what that means.

    Quote Originally Posted by JJ
    7. lunatic enough to threaten to start their own party (woot - go for it Palin!)
    Lunatic is debatable. .. but I did change my party affiliation to Libertarian because the "republican" party is pretty much Democrat light.
    I mean our last two candidates were the most liberal republicans the party could find.

    Quote Originally Posted by JJ
    Note also, they only love the Constitution if it goes their way; and if it doesn't then they fall back on some weird Christian nation argument.
    Not really. Unless you confuse the supreme courts every ruling with inherently a correct understanding and application of the const.

    Quote Originally Posted by JJ
    that they love it so much that they insist that the First Amendment doesn't claim a separation between Church & State.
    The contention is that the "separation" does not exist as currently expressed by the gov. It is a separation that limits the gov ability effect the people, not the peoples ability to effect the gov.
    For example praying while in office is not the "gov" establishing a religion, but the way libs act.. it is. But no matter how much one hates religion it doesn't change the intent of the const.

    Quote Originally Posted by JJ
    Or do you mean that they believe in the Constitution and SCOTUS' role so much that the continue to repeal ObamaCare even though it has been declared Constitutional; or continue to fight for a 'traditional' definition of marriage even though that has been declared unconstitutional.
    You know, this may surprise you ..but every court decision had a Dissenting opinion written as well. Which means that there is reasonable disagreement.
    AS for trying to REPEAL obamacare.. that is called our process at work. Or do you think it inherently wrong to repeal laws through the house/senate/pres?

    In other words.. what is wrong with that?
    To serve man.

  13. #53
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    2,765
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Obama: for or aganist?

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Perhaps, perhaps not. Sen. McCain, certainly not my preference for president, would certainly have better ability to craft and pass legislation than Obama, is relatively liberal on Gay issues (if you consider DOMA and DADT's end a good thing), and has had better experience with foreign policy even not as President. Economically I don't think he would be too different from President Obama, though perhaps a little more willing to accept fiscal reality.
    Except that during an actual crises during the election he called this weird timeout to go to Washington where he received zero calls and contributed nothing to the situation. And McCain railed against the repeal of DADT and called it a "Sad Day" when it came down to the vote. As far as foreign policy, doesn't his recent picture of palling around with kidnappers to bolster his claim that he had the power to distinguish 'good' Libyan rebels from ones tell you that he's more interested in more war, not less!

    But even if it were true, once he was President he would have been under the same principles of the GOP of less regulations (drill, baby, drill) and more war (bomb, bomb, iran). Remember, whatever you think he may possibly would have done, McCain is not King either: he still has to represent the principles of the GOP.



    I think Gov. Romney would have been a significantly better President than Obama. He clearly has a vastly better grasp on economic issues, has experience running executive level positions (hence less of that "I have no idea what my IRS and Justice Department are doing" bs), he has some experience on foreign policy though not significantly more than the current president. Overall, I think he would have been far, far more successful passing legislation (he has shown an ability to work with extremely progressive democrats in the past) and getting business done.
    Yet, Romney's first foray into the world involved insulting at least three countries. I agree that he would have ended up passing legislation, given the House would have ended up being Republican controlled too, but only if passing bad Republican legislations were the goal. And I don't think his co-operative bona fides in the past is hardly something he himself is particularly proud of: his signature achievement was more useful to the Democrats.


    Perhaps that is true to some extent, though I think his success rate of lower than 5% is pretty abysmal regardless of your views on his policy. Still, I think his policy has been terrible in itself, so to the extent that it is successful, its a disaster. Take a look at his seminal health insurance bill, it is massively unpopular, legally questionable on several fronts, and the fact that it has been delayed until after mid term elections today tells me that even the President realizes that it is a disaster.
    I'm not sure where you're getting a 5% success rate; Politifact's Obameter, that tracks his campaign promises kept at 45% and only 22% broken.

    ObamaCare is being actively derailed by the Republicans at a House and State level so any failure would have to begin there. There is no attempt to try to make it work and every attempt to make it fail, slow it down, repeal it, challenge it with no real replacement or alternative in the works.

    It is also settled law so it is not legally questionable that is not massively unpopular: ask those people who are now under their parents' insurance, or those that got refunds, or those who are seeing premiums lowered now that there is real competition (e.g. in CA where Exchange rates are lower). As for the delay in the implementation of the Employer mandate; that's not the entire bill and if there unforeseen issues to figure out then isn't better that it were given time.

    Again, specifics on ACA is more than really should be discussed here. Whether you like it or not, at least something was being done about the issue of Health Care here. A Republican government would have done nothing, just like what is happening now: nothing to help and all to resist the changes. This is what's important: that one side wants to improve everyone's lot (and with evidence now to back it up) and the other would deny it (viz-a-viz those States that elected not to expand the Medicaid roles).


    You realize that Gov. Palin was not running for President right? That this is a red herring argument?
    You realize Cheney was not President either, right? The woman was a loose canon, with aspirations of power beyond her limited brain-power. Coupled with a misunderstanding of Power (she famously said that the VP was in charge of the Senate) and with Cheney not exactly a passive VP, I can only imagine the potential for pain.

    So yes, it's unrealized but the risk was too great and and it is a position that has proven itself each time she spoken. I find my views on her 100% consistently against her: how about your's? Are you, too, glad that she didn't make it? Do you support her? She's even a threat to the Republican party now, so unless you support her viewpoints then, surely you must agree that she doesn't deserve any position of power. You know what she's like!

    Also, McCain loses credibility for the choice of Palin: it was a cynical move but worse, it was not a properly vetted candidate, as the whole world knows now.
    Last edited by JimJones8934; July 3rd, 2013 at 10:08 AM.

  14. #54
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    9,107
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Obama: for or aganist?

    Quote Originally Posted by JJ
    ObamaCare is being actively derailed by the Republicans at a House and State level so any failure would have to begin there
    No.. it isn't. You said it, it is law. How is it being derailed?
    The failure starts with where it is being implemented.


    Quote Originally Posted by JJ
    It is also settled law so it is not legally questionable that is not massively unpopular: ask those people who are now under their parents' insurance, or those that got refunds, or those who are seeing premiums lowered now that there is real competition (e.g. in CA where Exchange rates are lower).
    Wrong
    Quote Originally Posted by LINK
    Last week, the state of California claimed that its version of Obamacare’s health insurance exchange would actually reduce premiums. “These rates are way below the worst-case gloom-and-doom scenarios we have heard,” boasted Peter Lee, executive director of the California exchange. But the data that Lee released tells a different story: Obamacare, in fact, will increase individual-market premiums in California by as much as 146 percent.
    http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapoth...ums-by-64-146/

    You will note that both are Forbes articles, but the one I link came out a week later from yours. Basically when the report first came out it impressed people, then as they dug into the numbers and understood what it was really saying.. it wasn't all it was cracked up to be.
    Bottom line increase not decrease. = failure.

    another explanation here
    To serve man.

  15. #55
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    2,638
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Obama: for or aganist?

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    You didn't read the article did you? The part that you quote cites The Hill as a reference. That Hill article contradicts it (hence why I think Poltifact is a terrible source) by pointing out that the details of the budget cut didn't emerge until after Democrats voted against it.
    "Democratic aides said ahead of the vote that the Democratic caucus would not support the plan because it has been supplanted by the deficit-reduction plan Obama outlined at a speech at George Washington University in April."

    Read more: http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/1...#ixzz2Y0C8uz21

    "ahead" of the vote, read closer...the Hill article mentions the budget was SENT to the Hill in FEBRUARY. It wasn't voted on until after the President's speech on April 13th or 14th. The vote was on a Wednesday at the end of May.
    "Real Boys Kiss Boys" -M.L.

  16. #56
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    2,765
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Obama: for or aganist?

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    First, how do you get the idea that a tea party leader is speaking for the GOP? Because your original objection is that the right in general is being shown.
    Not speak for but certainly a significant force and certainly as a voting bloc within the Republican party, they are enough to get things done their way. Ask Boehner.

    So do you think the Tea party is not a fringe group now?
    No, but it is over-represented due to gerrymandering.

    Second, there is no connection with what that guy said and any action to SUPPRESS their vote. Especially not in any bad way. What I mean is, not in a way that isn't fundamental to the process anyway. For example telling the other side they are going to lose "suppresses" the vote if they believe it.
    Of course there's a connection. On the one hand, this 'guy' happens to be a Tea Party leader. On the other hand following the recent SCOTUS decision Texas within two hours began to put in place those very programs that would suppress or otherwise disproportionally affect African American & Hispanic votes. And other Republican-run states are attempting to do the same; even stopping early voting.

    So we shall see how this all pans out. But Republicans have shown their true colors in this regard - that they will not allow the country to vote them in fairly.


    2. not liking homosexuality or homosexuals
    Only in a world where defending traditional marriage is considered an attack on homosexuals. The fact that, that issue is not about liking or disliking homosexuals doesn't seem to matter to some.
    I find the best way to deal with these arguments are to get to a common ground that I trust we both share. Just replace homosexuals with African-American. Just as 'traditional-marriage' was racially segregated so too is it now gender-biased: they can't even marry.

    And whilst it's true that not all people on this dislike homosexuals themselves, it is also true that they all see homosexuality a moral wrong. Hating the sin but not the sinner is the most ludicrous position to hold. You know what the issues really are: that homosexuals want the same civil rights as heterosexual couples. It's a straw-man to say that you are defending a 'word': as Andrew Sullivan said recently, if you can live with divorce, you can live with gay marriage.

    3. not supportive of women's health and unable to say anything unoffensive about rape.
    Not even worth a response.
    Evidence:
    The Ohio Senate will vote on a budget bill Thursday that would defund Planned Parenthood, block grants to rape crisis centers that refer women to abortion clinics, and prevent abortion clinics from transferring patients to public hospitals in the case of severe complications.
    (src)
    As for the rape comments, I don't expect a response but you have to agree it is politicians again trying to push their religious views on the rest of the country.

    JJ:4. wanting to keep pushing their religion into secular politics
    That is true to an extent. The major push has been against an anti-religious gov. Of course the marriage issue is a religious issue, and so both sides are advocating their "religion" on the secular gov.
    Being religiously neutral is not 'anti-religious'! Can you provide an example where the Government is being ANTI-religious? And marriage is not a religious issue - I don't care if you require your own deity to less your marriage, that's your prerogative, but don't dismiss others' marriage just because they do not follow your God.

    edit: Here's another example from today:Wis. court upholds convictions of parents who prayed for dying girl instead of going to doctor. Would you support the free practice of religion in this case or not?

    JJ:5. certainly awful at understanding modern technology, the modern youth, and indeed modernity itself
    Very possible. Obama, as I understand it, had a superior online campaign where as Romeny's attempts were bad to say the least.
    Much has been written about ORCA - Wikipedia is a good place to start. But my point about 'modernity' should be emphasized: the GOP is getting older and more white and more male. Demographically, it's in big trouble.


    I don't know what that means.
    I mean, I miss the old GOP who was more of a pro-business, fiscally conservative party. Too much religion and racism will be the party's undoing.

    Lunatic is debatable. .. but I did change my party affiliation to Libertarian because the "republican" party is pretty much Democrat light.
    I mean our last two candidates were the most liberal republicans the party could find.
    Of course, because the country is decided by the independents; the left & right being already settled demographically. Still, 2016 will be interesting - between Paul and Rubio, who would you choose? Or were you a Santorum or Gingrich supporter? Would you support Palin, if Gods forbid, decide to run.

    JJ:Note also, they only love the Constitution if it goes their way; and if it doesn't then they fall back on some weird Christian nation argument.
    Not really. Unless you confuse the supreme courts every ruling with inherently a correct understanding and application of the const.
    The constitution is not a mathematical system - there is no 'inherently correct' understanding of it; otherwise, we'd have no issues - we'd just computerize the whole thing and spit out decisions. I believe every ruling to be what the country deserves and should abide by (until it is overturned in the future).

    The key thing is that win or lose, the interpretations and real-world applications, can change over time. This is why its great.

    The contention is that the "separation" does not exist as currently expressed by the gov. It is a separation that limits the gov ability effect the people, not the peoples ability to effect the gov.
    For example praying while in office is not the "gov" establishing a religion, but the way libs act.. it is. But no matter how much one hates religion it doesn't change the intent of the const.
    Hmm, except that when another religion prays, your side hates it. Also, recently (and I can't find the reference right now) an atheist president was not allowed to speak, specifically due to a religious objection. So it seems as if Republicans would prefer a Christian nation above all else (though which denomination remains an open question).


    You know, this may surprise you ..but every court decision had a Dissenting opinion written as well. Which means that there is reasonable disagreement.
    AS for trying to REPEAL obamacare.. that is called our process at work. Or do you think it inherently wrong to repeal laws through the house/senate/pres?
    Of course, the dissents make more interesting reading IMHO.

    As far as repealing ACA, of course it's legal, and I fully support and encourage Republicans show their position on the matter in as public a way as possible. It is an honest and transparent way for the country to decide who their leaders should be and how they should vote.

    In other words.. what is wrong with that?
    It is harming people. Every delay in implementation only makes it more difficult to give the system a go and see what happens and adjust accordingly.
    Last edited by JimJones8934; July 3rd, 2013 at 09:52 AM.

  17. #57
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    9,107
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Obama: for or aganist?

    Quote Originally Posted by JJ
    No, but it is over-represented due to gerrymandering.
    How do you figure? support?
    The tea party is a very recent political movement. Hardly enough time to gerrymander to much effect IMO.

    Quote Originally Posted by JJ
    Of course there's a connection. On the one hand, this 'guy' happens to be a Tea Party leader. On the other hand following the recent SCOTUS decision Texas within two hours began to put in place those very programs that would suppress or otherwise disproportionally affect African American & Hispanic votes. And other Republican-run states are attempting to do the same; even stopping early voting.

    So we shall see how this all pans out. But Republicans have shown their true colors in this regard - that they will not allow the country to vote them in fairly.
    Support that they would "suppress" any vote.
    All your doing is making claims and then trying to support those by more claims.

    Quote Originally Posted by JJ
    I find the best way to deal with these arguments are to get to a common ground that I trust we both share. Just replace homosexuals with African-American. Just as 'traditional-marriage' was racially segregated so too is it now gender-biased: they can't even marry.
    False analogy.

    The definition of marriage never changed. In this case the definition of marriage IS being changed.

    Quote Originally Posted by JJ
    And whilst it's true that not all people on this dislike homosexuals themselves, it is also true that they all see homosexuality a moral wrong.
    That is true, but your original statement was that the conservatives don't like homosexuals.
    .. so are you now walking that back? Because you are not supporting it.

    Quote Originally Posted by JJ
    Hating the sin but not the sinner is the most ludicrous position to hold. You know what the issues really are: that homosexuals want the same civil rights as heterosexual couples. It's a straw-man to say that you are defending a 'word': as Andrew Sullivan said recently, if you can live with divorce, you can live with gay marriage.
    Irrelevant to your claim.

    Quote Originally Posted by JJ
    Evidence:
    De-funding Planed parenthood =/= being against women's health.
    Try again.

    Quote Originally Posted by JJ
    As for the rape comments, I don't expect a response but you have to agree it is politicians again trying to push their religious views on the rest of the country.
    I don't think I have ever heard a religious argument for defense of rape.

    Quote Originally Posted by JJ
    Being religiously neutral is not 'anti-religious'!
    Right, but when religiously neutral state = state officials can not express their personal religion.
    Then it IS anti-religious. Again the example is prayer.
    An example would be schools suppression of prayer by students. Such as censorship of graduation speeches.
    Quote Originally Posted by link
    A high school valedictorian in Vermont was forbidden by school administers from delivering nearly half of his graduation speech in which he discussed how Jesus had changed his life.

    Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/06/17...#ixzz2Y0QqxX2s
    Another example of where cultural "neutrality" = Religious suppression http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013...ross-necklace/
    *It is not political as the topic of our discussion, but it does highlight my point that Neutrality is actually turned into suppression.


    Another example where gov "neutrality" becomes suppression.
    Quote Originally Posted by LINK
    That came about after Dekker said he asked Rehoboth officials in late May for permission to lead Sunday morning services for eight weeks at the nearby public bandstand. Rehoboth City Manager Greg Ferrese turned him down.

    "I cannot mix church and state," Ferrese's email reply to Dekker said. "I trust you understand."

    But Dekker said Tuesday that he didn't understand — and didn't think the principle of church-state separation should lead to the denial of his request.
    http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/n...beach/2486107/


    Quote Originally Posted by JJ
    And marriage is not a religious issue - I don't care if you require your own deity to less your marriage, that's your prerogative, but don't dismiss others' marriage just because they do not follow your God.
    Then you don't understand the history of marriage and what it "is".
    That it is changing doesn't negate what it has been historically. Namely a gov recognition of a RELIGIOUS event, with the state eventually copying it and creating it's own.

    Quote Originally Posted by JJ
    Much has been written about ORCA - Wikipedia is a good place to start. But my point about 'modernity' should be emphasized: the GOP is getting older and more white and more male. Demographically, it's in big trouble.
    Because white people can't understand other Americans if they are not on the same color chart?
    I wish I had a link to my thread about how there is no "black" issue, there is only AMERICAN issues.

    Quote Originally Posted by JJ
    I mean, I miss the old GOP who was more of a pro-business, fiscally conservative party. Too much religion and racism will be the party's undoing.
    Meh.. I miss the fiscally conservatives as well.

    Quote Originally Posted by JJ
    Of course, because the country is decided by the independents; the left & right being already settled demographically. Still, 2016 will be interesting - between Paul and Rubio, who would you choose? Or were you a Santorum or Gingrich supporter? Would you support Palin, if Gods forbid, decide to run.
    I think for the last election the independents broke for the loser. So it is no longer true that independents tip the scales.
    What is happening is more conservatives are staying home. IMO due to the liberal nature of the republicans we have to choose from.

    As for the last election, my #1 was Ron Paul. Not because I agree with everything he stood for, but because he represented the farthest right choice. My hope(however naive) would be that he would pull the nation more to a const respecting gov again.
    My #2 was Gingrich, because he was, again IMO, the most conservative with a chance to win. (That is after Herman Cain was destroyed).

    Quote Originally Posted by JJ
    The constitution is not a mathematical system - there is no 'inherently correct' understanding of it; otherwise, we'd have no issues - we'd just computerize the whole thing and spit out decisions. I believe every ruling to be what the country deserves and should abide by (until it is overturned in the future).
    Well there are two types of interpretation.. and one IS wrong. It is only a "living breathing document" in that it allows for the CONGRESS to change it, through a defined process.
    The gov has taken the short cut and simply re-defined things it didn't like through the courts.

    .. but I do agree .. we get the gov we deserve.. and we deserve the train-wreck that is coming.

    Quote Originally Posted by JJ
    Hmm, except that when another religion prays, your side hates it. Also, recently (and I can't find the reference right now) an atheist president was not allowed to speak, specifically due to a religious objection. So it seems as if Republicans would prefer a Christian nation above all else (though which denomination remains an open question).
    You may "expect" it.. but you shouldn't.
    As to the atheist... I have no idea what you are talking about.

    Quote Originally Posted by JJ
    It is harming people. Every delay in implementation only makes it more difficult to give the system a go and see what happens and adjust accordingly.
    I haven't seen any connection to a delay caused by republicans especially in the house and senate.
    Also your assertion that it is "harming" is also questionable projection as well. It assumes that Obama care is going to have ultimately good effects.
    In contrast with the negative news attached to every announcement of implication. California starts the exchanges that are supposed to lower premiums.. and premiums go up.
    It doesn't do what it says it would do.

    Further, the major delays are due to the bill itself being massive and impossible to easily understand or apply. Not from some Republican opposition monster.

    O.k. please support that Obama care is being held up in any way by republicans.
    To serve man.

  18. #58
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    2,765
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Obama: for or aganist?

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    How do you figure? support?
    The tea party is a very recent political movement. Hardly enough time to gerrymander to much effect IMO.
    Agreed, but the gerrymandering allowed the most right-wing politicians to be voted in. I believe that Tea Party politicians even beat out some traditional Republicans. We know how it works - appeal to the base to get in and then pivot or etch-a-sketch as Romney's campaign manager put it. Except that in gerrymandered districts, there is no need to pivot and thus the most fervent voters (which happens to be the most ideologically driven) tend to win out. It's been noted elsewhere this is as much of a problem for (the traditional) Republicans as it is for Democrats.

    I certainly don't mind the debate but that debate should be held in the middle, not the extremes of the party.

    Support that they would "suppress" any vote.
    All your doing is making claims and then trying to support those by more claims.
    North Carolina is removing early voting (src). Early voting is typically the only chance African Americans and other minorities with low paying jobs get a chance to vote. And the lines were huge in Florida and Pennsylvania even when there were early voting. Other techniques have been requiring a photo id, which is also difficult for those that don't drive or can afford to drive (again, disproportionally poor minority groups who tend to vote Democratic.)

    I trust these are enough evidence: is this something you did not already know or are you asking for the sake of discussion. Or are you quibbling over the term 'suppression', as in they are being actively denied rather than being incredibly inconvenienced? Please lay out your objections clearly so as to save time.


    False analogy.

    The definition of marriage never changed. In this case the definition of marriage IS being changed.
    It's practically the same result. It had been decided that two parties cannot have the same legal tax, inheritance and other privileges between as everyone else. Are we quibbling over the name? Are you OK with it if it were called a 'civil marriage'? Besides, who cares if the definition of the word has changed? Words change their meanings all the time!

    That is true, but your original statement was that the conservatives don't like homosexuals.
    .. so are you now walking that back? Because you are not supporting it.
    I said both and merely clarified that not all republicans don't like homosexuals though come to think of it I remembered GOPride so I'll say that most Republicans don't like homosexuals and most don't like homosexuality.

    De-funding Planed parenthood =/= being against women's health.
    Try again.
    De-funding PP without an adequate replacement reduces the amount of care available to women. It is completely against women's health.

    I don't think I have ever heard a religious argument for defense of rape.
    Who said defending rape? I was talking about their comments on rape.

    JJ:Being religiously neutral is not 'anti-religious'!
    Right, but when religiously neutral state = state officials can not express their personal religion.
    Then it IS anti-religious. Again the example is prayer.
    An example would be schools suppression of prayer by students. Such as censorship of graduation speeches.
    I would believe this argument if there were prayers from other faiths or even atheistic statements supported too. But I fear that does not happen. When you say anti-religious, you really mean anti-Chrisitian.

    Besides, why should I have to sit through a bunch of prayers anyway? Do it in the privacy of your own home or church. I don't need to see it.


    Another example of where cultural "neutrality" = Religious suppression http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013...ross-necklace/
    *It is not political as the topic of our discussion, but it does highlight my point that Neutrality is actually turned into suppression.
    Then I'll ignore it. Personally, I think it's mostly harmless to wear such symbols but I fear again that it is rarely reciprocated with Christians organizations and others. (e.g. Scouts & homosexuals; Catholic Church & women; Mormons & African Americans for a while).


    Another example where gov "neutrality" becomes suppression.

    http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/n...beach/2486107/
    Well, technically, this is your first example. But in this case, as with others, I prefer to see multi-faith events rather than one or another. For a Christian group to take lead for an event for people of all beliefs, I don't think a prayer from only one religion is acceptable.

    Then you don't understand the history of marriage and what it "is".
    That it is changing doesn't negate what it has been historically. Namely a gov recognition of a RELIGIOUS event, with the state eventually copying it and creating it's own.
    So then what's wrong with the government tweaking their own definition and allow people of the same sex to marry? I don't see the government forcing Churches or priests to perform the marriage so where's the exact problem? AFAIK, most gay marriages take place in some secular location, how does that affect any religion?


    JJ:Much has been written about ORCA - Wikipedia is a good place to start. But my point about 'modernity' should be emphasized: the GOP is getting older and more white and more male. Demographically, it's in big trouble.
    Because white people can't understand other Americans if they are not on the same color chart?
    I wish I had a link to my thread about how there is no "black" issue, there is only AMERICAN issues.
    No, mainly Republican White people as far as I can tell! And I don't mean this to be insulting but why is it that all the negative actions towards minorities (gays, blacks, hispanics, & women) and the poor seem to be wholly on the Republican side! It doesn't seem to be just great messaging on the Democratic side - there's a fundamental need to do actual harm. I mean, it's not like D's support gays but not Blacks or R's support women but not Immigration. It's wholly one sided. I suppose it makes it easier to decide which side to be on but it's a little weird.

    Meh.. I miss the fiscally conservatives as well.
    Yeah, I think the whole world has discovered we can just push the problem forward.

    I think for the last election the independents broke for the loser. So it is no longer true that independents tip the scales.
    What is happening is more conservatives are staying home. IMO due to the liberal nature of the republicans we have to choose from.
    Wow that's news to me. Then how can Republicans ever win?


    As for the last election, my #1 was Ron Paul. Not because I agree with everything he stood for, but because he represented the farthest right choice. My hope(however naive) would be that he would pull the nation more to a const respecting gov again.
    My #2 was Gingrich, because he was, again IMO, the most conservative with a chance to win. (That is after Herman Cain was destroyed).
    I should hate you ;-) but I don't. Still, in what weird universe do you think that any of those people had a chance to win the election? Surely a better vote would have been for Romney or Huntsman.

    JJ:The constitution is not a mathematical system - there is no 'inherently correct' understanding of it; otherwise, we'd have no issues - we'd just computerize the whole thing and spit out decisions. I believe every ruling to be what the country deserves and should abide by (until it is overturned in the future).
    Well there are two types of interpretation.. and one IS wrong. It is only a "living breathing document" in that it allows for the CONGRESS to change it, through a defined process.
    The gov has taken the short cut and simply re-defined things it didn't like through the courts.

    .. but I do agree .. we get the gov we deserve.. and we deserve the train-wreck that is coming.
    But SCOTUS doesn't change the Constitution - they are merely interpreting it for modern times with contemporaneous understandings of the issues. Take the VRA, SCOTUS put the power back to Congress to update the list of States - they didn't nullify the whole thing.

    On the train-wreck argument, ultimately, we all want the same thing: a highly functioning and efficient country where there are more happy people than unhappy people. We don't live in a theocracy so things can change and we can do better by constantly improving our lot. We have a two party system here that, to me, seems too few, that help guide it one way or another.


    You may "expect" it.. but you shouldn't.
    As to the atheist... I have no idea what you are talking about.
    I know I shouldn't but unfortunately, that's how Christianity can come across. For the most part, of course, all religious people are fine but there's a weird line that once is cross, they turn into a hate-machine. It's bizarre to say the least.

    I found it - http://www.examiner.com/article/god-...-from-speaking has details about the case:

    Sims, the first openly gay PA state representative, was blocked from delivering his remarks by several Republican lawmakers led by state representative Daryl Metcalfe (R). Metcalfe called a “procedural objection” citing that Sims’ comments would be in “open rebellion against God's law.” Two other Democratic representatives took to Sims’ defense, but they too were silenced.

    Comments?


    I haven't seen any connection to a delay caused by republicans especially in the house and senate.
    Certainly, a lot of states delayed their implementation of exchanges until after the 2012 elections to see what pans out.

    Also your assertion that it is "harming" is also questionable projection as well. It assumes that Obama care is going to have ultimately good effects.
    Getting money back and having insurance is a bad thing? How?

    In contrast with the negative news attached to every announcement of implication. California starts the exchanges that are supposed to lower premiums.. and premiums go up.
    It doesn't do what it says it would do.
    I heard the opposite that premiums went down:

    Premiums for mid-range or "silver" health insurance plans offered through insurance exchanges created under the Affordable Care Act are significantly lower than the Congressional Budget Office previously predicted, according to a report released Wednesday by Avalere Health, Modern Healthcare reports.
    (http://www.californiahealthline.org/...ed-report-says)


    Further, the major delays are due to the bill itself being massive and impossible to easily understand or apply. Not from some Republican opposition monster.
    Yes but it's being implemented over several years. Plenty of time to figure things out and adjust accordingly.

    O.k. please support that Obama care is being held up in any way by republicans.
    Constant repealing of it - this puts everyone ill at ease to put their efforts towards it. It certainly delayed things for those that wanted Romney to win.
    The refusal to open exchanges (single-payer, here we come suckers!) or expand the Medicaid roles (even Jan Brewer is having trouble doing it in Arizona!). Threaten to not fund it.

  19. #59
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    1,483
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Obama: for or aganist?

    Quote Originally Posted by JimJones8934 View Post

    So with respect, unless you can point out that Palin wouldn't have been a good force for this country, even the worst thing that Obama would couldn't come near the horrors of Palin and a Tea Party country. This is why I suggested a more appropriate choice to the poll in the first place.
    This is another poor argument. Being that she was never elected President (or Vice President) you cant say what sort of President she would have made. Having to appeal to the argument that she would have "Made a worst President" as reason to suppose Obama just goes to show how incredibly poor a President Obama has been.
    I will no longer be replying to any post from a Liberal going forward. I will continue, as normal, to discuss topics and engage in intellectual exchanges with non-leftist

  20. #60
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    2,765
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Obama: for or aganist?

    Quote Originally Posted by Someguy View Post
    This is another poor argument. Being that she was never elected President (or Vice President) you cant say what sort of President she would have made. Having to appeal to the argument that she would have "Made a worst President" as reason to suppose Obama just goes to show how incredibly poor a President Obama has been.
    Of course I can say what sort of President she could have made! That's how people make a decisions: based upon what they have done and what they said and projecting forward.

    I am saying that given the choice of Palin, the person who picked Palin, along with the Tea Party's rise to power, Obama is the only choice. This debate was turning into whether Obama did a good job or not but the OP is: are we for him or against him. Therefore, Obama has to do worse than the alternatives in order for me to no longer support him.

    Even though he's not done the most perfect job, he has still moved the country in a positive direction relative to what I believe the other side would have done (more war, less regulation, no HC, no gay-rights, no immigration reform). My view of the right is being continually backed up their opposition to (regulation, ACA, gay-rights & immigration reform). So I continue to believe I made the right decision.

 

 
Page 3 of 15 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 13 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Obama on Islam and the US
    By Apokalupsis in forum Politics
    Replies: 70
    Last Post: June 22nd, 2009, 10:19 AM
  2. Obama Doublespeak
    By cds69 in forum Shootin' the Breeze / Off-Topic
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: June 19th, 2009, 10:45 AM
  3. What if Obama...
    By Lord Infamous in forum Shootin' the Breeze / Off-Topic
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: May 23rd, 2009, 06:20 AM
  4. What if Obama...
    By Lord Infamous in forum Hypothetical Debates
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: May 22nd, 2009, 08:39 AM
  5. Obama the Parrot
    By onalandline in forum Politics
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: March 17th, 2009, 09:47 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •