login
Would you want to be the President? (Page 2)
-
No new posts
|
 2013-12-29 10:08 PM in reply to: 0 |
Elite  6387    |  Subject: RE: Would you want to be the President?Originally posted by ChineseDemocracy ***I just checked out wikipedia's page on narcissism...it just doesn't fit President Obama. If anything he strikes me as a man who if you want to cut down, you'd have to say he's overly cerebral. By looking at issues from so many angles, by the time he's decided to go with a decision, the opposition's already dug their heels in and won't give an inch, period. uuuuhhhh, Sure. He is indecisive. I can agree with that. ***I disagree. Again, not one of his debates was a "prepared speech." With the exception of the first debate vs. Romney, and the one debate in Philly? against Hillary, he didn't lose another debate. You think debates are not prepared lines? OK. But that is the problem with the Health care ***...umm, there are lots of problems with the ACA. A narcissist would deny there's ANY problem. He's acknowledged (as have all experts on the subject out there) there are problems...BUT, the pre-existing system was absolutely unsustainable. No, actually it wasn't. And there are many fixes that could make it better other than ACA. Simply decouple HC from employment and cover preexisting problems. Two pages... done. The fear-mongering that still exists out there today telling stories of the gloom and doom of the bogeyman "Socialized Medicine," were the same exact cries Congress and the President heard back in the '60's when Medicare was rolled out. ... ***Wouldn't a narcissist have come charging in demanding every liberal demand get satisfied? This is what I don't get. If he comes charging in demanding all his specific liberal demands be met, what kind of response do you think he'd get? OR, was it the prudent political move to let his enemies on the Right fight it out amongst themselves (in the process exposing them for the obstructionists they were) than to show his hand early? How about just be a leader instead of trying to look good or damage your opposition? That's what a leader does. what he did was just more of the same partisan BS he railed against for two years. The Obama opponents' adjectives seem to change based on the wind. When he doesn't step in immediately, he "lacks leadership." When he steps in immediately, uses drones to pick off terrorists, "He is reckless and bloodthirsty." Same goes for the "ruthless Chicago political machine" label. On one hand he's accused of being ruthless, and others he's "weak and passive!" If it's a negative adjective, it doesn't matter to the Right whether it's true, consistent, etc. It has become a joke. You should take that up with "them", because I never said such a thing. If you want to address what I said, then address me. I'm not the "Right". ***We'll agree to disagree. HC reform was a bear of a task. Does it need tweaks? Absolutely. That said, the major battle was won by Democrats led by President Obama. (you mean that narcissist labeled it ObamaCare? ...heard that one from a Righty friend of mine) ...and actually, no, the term was not coined by the president or his team. You'll have to take that up with your friend, I can't answer for him. The ACA does not need tweaks... it's wrong. It will do nothing to accomplish the objectives of lowering HC costs. We can bet on that. The whole point was it was "economically unsustainable"... it still is and it will get worse. ACA did nothing to stop that. Covering uninsured and pre-existing is not rocket science... that is just a couple of laws. Continuing the prior POTUS policies on war when you campaigned against every one of them is not a win. ***Oh, you mean like giving a set date for troop pull-outs from foreign wars? The list of differences in foreign policy is long. Also, do you honestly believe Romney would have ended the war in Iraq? I do not. You really forget history quick. FACT: Bush ended the war in Iraq before he left office and gave a end date. Obama stuck to Bush's draw down and did nothing to change it. He then INCREASED troops and the war in Afghanistan. TODAY, we STILL have more troops in Afghanistan that we had when Obama took office, even though he has begun drawing down troops for withdrawal. I am completely baffled where this idea came from that Obama ended the war in Iraq. Where in the world did you get that from? ***Really? It was about 6 months ahead of the '12 election when he decided to support gay marriage. It was not even close to a slam-dunk positive. I was very concerned that very day he may have just lost the election. I know many folks personally that shifted their support based on that issue alone. He AGREED marriage was between man and woman before he was elected in 08. You know he was elected first in 08 right? And then... right before an election... he changes his mind... and you think that is for nobel reasons? He might have not cared about SSM before 08, but to get elected, he said he opposed it. And right before an election he changes his mind. It was a calculated election cycle political move PERIOD. To see it any other way is simply not being objective at all. Does not matter what his personal beliefs are, his decisions were political plain and simple. He did it to counter social conservatives and solidify independents and social liberals which were not a slam dunck for him in 12. ***What did you want him to do? It's like wanting to get with that girl you see across the gymnasium in high school. She's told all her friends she hates your guts, she's basically told you and everyone she knows you can "go eat sh!* and die." Hmm, what magical words could even George Washington exhumed from the grave and brought back to life have said? If he can't solve that problem, he does not belong in the seat. ***We hit a skid beginning in '07 under W that was downright perilous and it's a fact we hadn't been that economically crippled since the Great Depression. It took a long while for the US to dig out of that Depression as well. When asked about the slow recovery, he was factual. The prior administration drove us into a pretty deep ditch. You speak to the problem, not to the person. Exactly what we are asked to do here. Discuss the issue, not the person. Pretty simple to show where he began in 08 and where he is today. The Peanut gallery will keep squaking... but so what. This is what I have, this is what I did, this is what I can do better.... if I can get it, why can't the President? But that isn't what he does... he continues to blame the opposition for what he took over, for his failures, and why he can't fix it. That isn't leadership. If you think it is, fine. That isn't how you fix partisan politics in DC. You take their power away by not giving them any. You play your game, not theirs. He has no game.... so he has to play theirs.
***Nope, totally disagree. My retirement (and many around the country) has never looked better. Many folks on the Right were locked into hating the President even before he was elected. Fox News keeps beating the drum. GOP Senators and Congressmen have continued the beating as well. Despite the fact we continue to recover, despite the fact we're drawing down militarily in Afghanistan, have left Iraq, have reached a nuclear deal with Iran, etc. It is indeed exactly what I expected from a guy with his resume. He is/was not the answer. Take that up with them then. And we have not reached a deal in Iran by any stretch of the imagination. When they actually comply with it then you can rub my nose in it. So far the jury is out..... ***That's about the only positive I can draw from the GOP's "destroy President Obama at all costs" campaign. They are shooting themselves in the foot with the whole "President Hillary Clinton would have been an improvement." Why? Every time they say it, just cue the '16 commercials supporting President Clinton for election. OK, wow... show me anywhere that the "Right" has ever said Hilary would have done better. I said it, but I'm not the "Right". It's just speculation.... but never in my life have I heard any "Conservative" "GOP faithful" say anything good about any Clinton EVER. ***Well, unless someone else emerges, Hillary Clinton has to be considered the favorite. They've all got skeletons, but how 'bout Rubio? It seems to me he's the GOP's only hope. Losing Hispanics at a 70-30 clip is a death blow to the GOP. Kinda tough to win this large group over when you've got GOP and Tea Party folks shouting to "send those illegal aliens back!" I could care less who the GOP puts up. I oppose Hilary just on the grounds of her last name. I'm done with Clinton/Bush... they had their time... go retire and raise money. ***I don't know...every time I flip on Hannity he's talking about how Powell is basically a Democrat in disguise. Ya gotta be careful who you wish for. Take that up with Hannity, I don't watch him. Do you notice a trend here? If you want to discuss what I said, then address me. I do not discuss what Mathews says when talking to you. Powell is a moderate. I can respect that. Even if he came out as a D, I would still respect him and probably vote for him just because I like him personally. I do not care about the GOP or the DNC. You seem to think that because I feel I have valid criticism of Obama, that I am just some "Right/GOP" parrot. If that is what you think of me, then I don't know what to say. So I can rant all I want about Obama, but it isn't like I have a long list of folks I would rather have. Because I will concede to you that I agree.... the Capital is divided and so is the country. Yes we have "problems" we need solved, but right now the biggest problem is we are not getting along and there is a deep divide on which direction American's think this country needs to head. That is a HUGE problem, and I do not know who is going to be able to solve that. ***I think we can agree this aint changing any time soon...but for some reason it certainly is fun talking about it. No, it's "fun" to debate flip turns, or peeing on your bike. I'm troubled with the very serious problems facing this country. At the end of the day, "Obama" is not the problem, nor is he the solution. The DNC and the GOP will continue to prop up their puppets and the money will continue to flow and the country will continue to head towards financial ruin. There is a disconnect between what Washington is doing, and what the electorate is allowing them to get away with. Obama has not done one single thing any President before him has not done... and I have never taken him to task for any of it. But this continual praise for a mediocre President at best is just plain silly. I have no idea how much the DNC paid for all the rose colored glasses, but they certainly got their money's worth. He is absolutely positively unremarkable in any way... other than giving speeches. And that is a gift. That is a skill to be able to motivate people... actually, most CEOs are just that... not nuts and bolts guys, but figure heads and motivators. But true leaders are more, and Obama is not "more". So Obama Derangement Syndrome is real and absolutely ridiculous... but so is the "Slobbering Love Affair" with Obama. They are both completely baseless and unfounded. Edited by powerman 2013-12-29 10:09 PM |
| 2013-12-29 10:47 PM in reply to: ChineseDemocracy |
Champion 6993  Chicago, Illinois | Subject: RE: Would you want to be the President? Worse part is that the polarization of America is what makes the politicians not only more profitable but helps keeps them in power. No one wants to vote for a 3rd party because "this election is the most important election ever and we can not afford 4 years of X in office." |
| 2013-12-31 8:34 PM in reply to: powerman |
Elite 4547 | Subject: RE: Would you want to be the President? Originally posted by powerman Originally posted by ChineseDemocracy ***I just checked out wikipedia's page on narcissism...it just doesn't fit President Obama. If anything he strikes me as a man who if you want to cut down, you'd have to say he's overly cerebral. By looking at issues from so many angles, by the time he's decided to go with a decision, the opposition's already dug their heels in and won't give an inch, period. uuuuhhhh, Sure. He is indecisive. I can agree with that. ***I disagree. Again, not one of his debates was a "prepared speech." With the exception of the first debate vs. Romney, and the one debate in Philly? against Hillary, he didn't lose another debate. You think debates are not prepared lines? OK. But that is the problem with the Health care ***...umm, there are lots of problems with the ACA. A narcissist would deny there's ANY problem. He's acknowledged (as have all experts on the subject out there) there are problems...BUT, the pre-existing system was absolutely unsustainable. No, actually it wasn't. And there are many fixes that could make it better other than ACA. Simply decouple HC from employment and cover preexisting problems. Two pages... done. The fear-mongering that still exists out there today telling stories of the gloom and doom of the bogeyman "Socialized Medicine," were the same exact cries Congress and the President heard back in the '60's when Medicare was rolled out. ... ***Wouldn't a narcissist have come charging in demanding every liberal demand get satisfied? This is what I don't get. If he comes charging in demanding all his specific liberal demands be met, what kind of response do you think he'd get? OR, was it the prudent political move to let his enemies on the Right fight it out amongst themselves (in the process exposing them for the obstructionists they were) than to show his hand early? How about just be a leader instead of trying to look good or damage your opposition? That's what a leader does. what he did was just more of the same partisan BS he railed against for two years. The Obama opponents' adjectives seem to change based on the wind. When he doesn't step in immediately, he "lacks leadership." When he steps in immediately, uses drones to pick off terrorists, "He is reckless and bloodthirsty." Same goes for the "ruthless Chicago political machine" label. On one hand he's accused of being ruthless, and others he's "weak and passive!" If it's a negative adjective, it doesn't matter to the Right whether it's true, consistent, etc. It has become a joke. You should take that up with "them", because I never said such a thing. If you want to address what I said, then address me. I'm not the "Right". ***We'll agree to disagree. HC reform was a bear of a task. Does it need tweaks? Absolutely. That said, the major battle was won by Democrats led by President Obama. (you mean that narcissist labeled it ObamaCare? ...heard that one from a Righty friend of mine) ...and actually, no, the term was not coined by the president or his team. You'll have to take that up with your friend, I can't answer for him. The ACA does not need tweaks... it's wrong. It will do nothing to accomplish the objectives of lowering HC costs. We can bet on that. The whole point was it was "economically unsustainable"... it still is and it will get worse. ACA did nothing to stop that. Covering uninsured and pre-existing is not rocket science... that is just a couple of laws. Continuing the prior POTUS policies on war when you campaigned against every one of them is not a win. ***Oh, you mean like giving a set date for troop pull-outs from foreign wars? The list of differences in foreign policy is long. Also, do you honestly believe Romney would have ended the war in Iraq? I do not. You really forget history quick. FACT: Bush ended the war in Iraq before he left office and gave a end date. Obama stuck to Bush's draw down and did nothing to change it. He then INCREASED troops and the war in Afghanistan. TODAY, we STILL have more troops in Afghanistan that we had when Obama took office, even though he has begun drawing down troops for withdrawal. I am completely baffled where this idea came from that Obama ended the war in Iraq. Where in the world did you get that from? ***Really? It was about 6 months ahead of the '12 election when he decided to support gay marriage. It was not even close to a slam-dunk positive. I was very concerned that very day he may have just lost the election. I know many folks personally that shifted their support based on that issue alone. He AGREED marriage was between man and woman before he was elected in 08. You know he was elected first in 08 right? And then... right before an election... he changes his mind... and you think that is for nobel reasons? He might have not cared about SSM before 08, but to get elected, he said he opposed it. And right before an election he changes his mind. It was a calculated election cycle political move PERIOD. To see it any other way is simply not being objective at all. Does not matter what his personal beliefs are, his decisions were political plain and simple. He did it to counter social conservatives and solidify independents and social liberals which were not a slam dunck for him in 12. ***What did you want him to do? It's like wanting to get with that girl you see across the gymnasium in high school. She's told all her friends she hates your guts, she's basically told you and everyone she knows you can "go eat sh!* and die." Hmm, what magical words could even George Washington exhumed from the grave and brought back to life have said? If he can't solve that problem, he does not belong in the seat. ***We hit a skid beginning in '07 under W that was downright perilous and it's a fact we hadn't been that economically crippled since the Great Depression. It took a long while for the US to dig out of that Depression as well. When asked about the slow recovery, he was factual. The prior administration drove us into a pretty deep ditch. You speak to the problem, not to the person. Exactly what we are asked to do here. Discuss the issue, not the person. Pretty simple to show where he began in 08 and where he is today. The Peanut gallery will keep squaking... but so what. This is what I have, this is what I did, this is what I can do better.... if I can get it, why can't the President? But that isn't what he does... he continues to blame the opposition for what he took over, for his failures, and why he can't fix it. That isn't leadership. If you think it is, fine. That isn't how you fix partisan politics in DC. You take their power away by not giving them any. You play your game, not theirs. He has no game.... so he has to play theirs.
***Nope, totally disagree. My retirement (and many around the country) has never looked better. Many folks on the Right were locked into hating the President even before he was elected. Fox News keeps beating the drum. GOP Senators and Congressmen have continued the beating as well. Despite the fact we continue to recover, despite the fact we're drawing down militarily in Afghanistan, have left Iraq, have reached a nuclear deal with Iran, etc. It is indeed exactly what I expected from a guy with his resume. He is/was not the answer. Take that up with them then. And we have not reached a deal in Iran by any stretch of the imagination. When they actually comply with it then you can rub my nose in it. So far the jury is out..... ***That's about the only positive I can draw from the GOP's "destroy President Obama at all costs" campaign. They are shooting themselves in the foot with the whole "President Hillary Clinton would have been an improvement." Why? Every time they say it, just cue the '16 commercials supporting President Clinton for election. OK, wow... show me anywhere that the "Right" has ever said Hilary would have done better. I said it, but I'm not the "Right". It's just speculation.... but never in my life have I heard any "Conservative" "GOP faithful" say anything good about any Clinton EVER. ***Well, unless someone else emerges, Hillary Clinton has to be considered the favorite. They've all got skeletons, but how 'bout Rubio? It seems to me he's the GOP's only hope. Losing Hispanics at a 70-30 clip is a death blow to the GOP. Kinda tough to win this large group over when you've got GOP and Tea Party folks shouting to "send those illegal aliens back!" I could care less who the GOP puts up. I oppose Hilary just on the grounds of her last name. I'm done with Clinton/Bush... they had their time... go retire and raise money. ***I don't know...every time I flip on Hannity he's talking about how Powell is basically a Democrat in disguise. Ya gotta be careful who you wish for. Take that up with Hannity, I don't watch him. Do you notice a trend here? If you want to discuss what I said, then address me. I do not discuss what Mathews says when talking to you. Powell is a moderate. I can respect that. Even if he came out as a D, I would still respect him and probably vote for him just because I like him personally. I do not care about the GOP or the DNC. You seem to think that because I feel I have valid criticism of Obama, that I am just some "Right/GOP" parrot. If that is what you think of me, then I don't know what to say. So I can rant all I want about Obama, but it isn't like I have a long list of folks I would rather have. Because I will concede to you that I agree.... the Capital is divided and so is the country. Yes we have "problems" we need solved, but right now the biggest problem is we are not getting along and there is a deep divide on which direction American's think this country needs to head. That is a HUGE problem, and I do not know who is going to be able to solve that. ***I think we can agree this aint changing any time soon...but for some reason it certainly is fun talking about it. No, it's "fun" to debate flip turns, or peeing on your bike. I'm troubled with the very serious problems facing this country. At the end of the day, "Obama" is not the problem, nor is he the solution. The DNC and the GOP will continue to prop up their puppets and the money will continue to flow and the country will continue to head towards financial ruin. There is a disconnect between what Washington is doing, and what the electorate is allowing them to get away with. Obama has not done one single thing any President before him has not done... and I have never taken him to task for any of it. But this continual praise for a mediocre President at best is just plain silly. I have no idea how much the DNC paid for all the rose colored glasses, but they certainly got their money's worth. He is absolutely positively unremarkable in any way... other than giving speeches. And that is a gift. That is a skill to be able to motivate people... actually, most CEOs are just that... not nuts and bolts guys, but figure heads and motivators. But true leaders are more, and Obama is not "more". So Obama Derangement Syndrome is real and absolutely ridiculous... but so is the "Slobbering Love Affair" with Obama. They are both completely baseless and unfounded. Unfortunately, I don't have the tech-savvy to attempt retorts within the gob of text I see before me, so I'll do my best to find spots here... You say "indecisive," I'll go with cerebral. I like a president that utilizes his cerebral cortex to do what's best. "Going with your gut" snap reactions aren't a smart bet. Of course debates have prepared lines, but they aren't speeches. It's simple communication skills, and he's simply better at it than his competition. You criticize him for not being a leader, yet as I posted he has led our nation for 5 years, and we are improving. (I love these rose-colored glasses!) If you've got a 401k, I bet it's looking pretty nice. If you're in poverty, I'll bet you've got food on the table. If you're gay, I bet you're pretty happy you have an administration that wants you treated the same as any straight American. Again, we can agree to disagree. A 2-page healthcare bill? Here's the deal, ACA is here and it isn't going anywhere. Is droning on and on about the ACA kind of like droning on and on about W driving us into a ditch? If so, I guess we're even.  "How about just be a leader instead of trying to look good or damage your opposition? That's what a leader does. what he did was just more of the same partisan BS he railed against for two years." Okay Barack, "just be a leader." What does that even mean? That would be like me out on a Sunday morning bike ride when out of the corner of my eye I see a smokin' fast pit-bull bearing down on me. "Hey Brian, just be a leader!" It sounds so easy. Hey Ted Cruz and Rand Paul, come on over, let's make a deal. Really, it's that easy? I don't think so. Powerman, sorry, I don't have you on my tv, so I can't quote you. No, you're not "the Right," from what I've read, like me your stances seem to be scattered throughout the spectrum, but tend to veer. You a little Right, and me toward the Left. I'm not the only person in America who doesn't agree with your assessment of Obamacare. You say it is economically unsustainable and will only get worse. I disagree. The beginnings of Medicare were fraught with many of the same complaints we're seeing with Obamacare today. Powerman, you are correct on the Iraq War end. I was incorrect. I think I was recalling Romney's criticism of the President for not delaying the exit. Romney wanted more troops in Iraq after the agreed-upon exit and criticized the president. On Afghanistan, had we pulled out earlier, against the advice of our military commanders, or drew down our forces, again, against the advice of our military commanders, Obama would be skewered. Imagine our geopolitical position weakened, forces withdrawn, Taliban allowed to thrive, perhaps even Al Qaeda as well. It's a lose-lose, Afghanistan's always been that way...but it sure is loaded to the gills with very valuable natural resources.  We can agree to disagree on the gay marriage issue, which I really thought was going to cost him the '12 election. '08 wasn't the time to support gay marriage. You can call that politics, and I'll say sure, it's politics. Politicians practice politics. If they don't, they won't last long. Who could solve that problem? Again, there are some problems that just are not solvable. You do the best you can with what you've got. I think he's done a fine job, you don't. We can agree to disagree. "You take their power away by not giving them any." I'm not understanding that statement. Please explain. "You play your game, not theirs." Again, how? As I've said before, George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Gandhi, and Jesus Christ could be elected, and I'm telling you right now, they'd experience the same dang nonsense. We have a Congress full of representatives that hail from areas in which they tow the hard party line or they're out on their keisters. Yes, that goes for Dems too, not just GOP and Tea Partiers. Tough stuff, no solution. On Iran, yes we shall see. Only time will tell. On the radio Right saying Hillary would be better than Obama, yes, I've heard both Hannity and Rush say it. I don't listen to a ton of radio, but on my drive I've heard it with my own ears. It stuck out to me because I thought, "well that kind of talk isn't helping your cause in '16." I don't think you are a parrot. You can mention Matthews if you wish...I may just get a tingle up my leg to boot. I very much respect President Obama. What he's had to endure in the form of obstructionism is unprecedented. It's really quite eye-opening. You say we're on the road to financial ruin...I disagree. We can agree to disagree. Have a very Happy New Year Powerman!!! |
| 2013-12-31 8:39 PM in reply to: 0 |
Pro 15655 | Subject: RE: Would you want to be the President? Originally posted by ChineseDemocracy Unfortunately, I don't have the tech-savvy to attempt retorts within the gob of text I see before me, so I'll do my best to find spots here... You say "indecisive," I'll go with cerebral. I like a president that utilizes his cerebral cortex to do what's best. "Going with your gut" snap reactions aren't a smart bet. Of course debates have prepared lines, but they aren't speeches. It's simple communication skills, and he's simply better at it than his competition. You criticize him for not being a leader, yet as I posted he has led our nation for 5 years, and we are improving. (I love these rose-colored glasses!) If you've got a 401k, I bet it's looking pretty nice. If you're in poverty, I'll bet you've got food on the table. If you're gay, I bet you're pretty happy you have an administration that wants you treated the same as any straight American. Again, we can agree to disagree. A 2-page healthcare bill? Here's the deal, ACA is here and it isn't going anywhere. Is droning on and on about the ACA kind of like droning on and on about W driving us into a ditch? If so, I guess we're even. Originally posted by powerman Originally posted by ChineseDemocracy ***I just checked out wikipedia's page on narcissism...it just doesn't fit President Obama. If anything he strikes me as a man who if you want to cut down, you'd have to say he's overly cerebral. By looking at issues from so many angles, by the time he's decided to go with a decision, the opposition's already dug their heels in and won't give an inch, period. uuuuhhhh, Sure. He is indecisive. I can agree with that. ***I disagree. Again, not one of his debates was a "prepared speech." With the exception of the first debate vs. Romney, and the one debate in Philly? against Hillary, he didn't lose another debate. You think debates are not prepared lines? OK. But that is the problem with the Health care ***...umm, there are lots of problems with the ACA. A narcissist would deny there's ANY problem. He's acknowledged (as have all experts on the subject out there) there are problems...BUT, the pre-existing system was absolutely unsustainable. No, actually it wasn't. And there are many fixes that could make it better other than ACA. Simply decouple HC from employment and cover preexisting problems. Two pages... done. The fear-mongering that still exists out there today telling stories of the gloom and doom of the bogeyman "Socialized Medicine," were the same exact cries Congress and the President heard back in the '60's when Medicare was rolled out. ... ***Wouldn't a narcissist have come charging in demanding every liberal demand get satisfied? This is what I don't get. If he comes charging in demanding all his specific liberal demands be met, what kind of response do you think he'd get? OR, was it the prudent political move to let his enemies on the Right fight it out amongst themselves (in the process exposing them for the obstructionists they were) than to show his hand early? How about just be a leader instead of trying to look good or damage your opposition? That's what a leader does. what he did was just more of the same partisan BS he railed against for two years. The Obama opponents' adjectives seem to change based on the wind. When he doesn't step in immediately, he "lacks leadership." When he steps in immediately, uses drones to pick off terrorists, "He is reckless and bloodthirsty." Same goes for the "ruthless Chicago political machine" label. On one hand he's accused of being ruthless, and others he's "weak and passive!" If it's a negative adjective, it doesn't matter to the Right whether it's true, consistent, etc. It has become a joke. You should take that up with "them", because I never said such a thing. If you want to address what I said, then address me. I'm not the "Right". ***We'll agree to disagree. HC reform was a bear of a task. Does it need tweaks? Absolutely. That said, the major battle was won by Democrats led by President Obama. (you mean that narcissist labeled it ObamaCare? ...heard that one from a Righty friend of mine) ...and actually, no, the term was not coined by the president or his team. You'll have to take that up with your friend, I can't answer for him. The ACA does not need tweaks... it's wrong. It will do nothing to accomplish the objectives of lowering HC costs. We can bet on that. The whole point was it was "economically unsustainable"... it still is and it will get worse. ACA did nothing to stop that. Covering uninsured and pre-existing is not rocket science... that is just a couple of laws. Continuing the prior POTUS policies on war when you campaigned against every one of them is not a win. ***Oh, you mean like giving a set date for troop pull-outs from foreign wars? The list of differences in foreign policy is long. Also, do you honestly believe Romney would have ended the war in Iraq? I do not. You really forget history quick. FACT: Bush ended the war in Iraq before he left office and gave a end date. Obama stuck to Bush's draw down and did nothing to change it. He then INCREASED troops and the war in Afghanistan. TODAY, we STILL have more troops in Afghanistan that we had when Obama took office, even though he has begun drawing down troops for withdrawal. I am completely baffled where this idea came from that Obama ended the war in Iraq. Where in the world did you get that from? ***Really? It was about 6 months ahead of the '12 election when he decided to support gay marriage. It was not even close to a slam-dunk positive. I was very concerned that very day he may have just lost the election. I know many folks personally that shifted their support based on that issue alone. He AGREED marriage was between man and woman before he was elected in 08. You know he was elected first in 08 right? And then... right before an election... he changes his mind... and you think that is for nobel reasons? He might have not cared about SSM before 08, but to get elected, he said he opposed it. And right before an election he changes his mind. It was a calculated election cycle political move PERIOD. To see it any other way is simply not being objective at all. Does not matter what his personal beliefs are, his decisions were political plain and simple. He did it to counter social conservatives and solidify independents and social liberals which were not a slam dunck for him in 12. ***What did you want him to do? It's like wanting to get with that girl you see across the gymnasium in high school. She's told all her friends she hates your guts, she's basically told you and everyone she knows you can "go eat sh!* and die." Hmm, what magical words could even George Washington exhumed from the grave and brought back to life have said? If he can't solve that problem, he does not belong in the seat. ***We hit a skid beginning in '07 under W that was downright perilous and it's a fact we hadn't been that economically crippled since the Great Depression. It took a long while for the US to dig out of that Depression as well. When asked about the slow recovery, he was factual. The prior administration drove us into a pretty deep ditch. You speak to the problem, not to the person. Exactly what we are asked to do here. Discuss the issue, not the person. Pretty simple to show where he began in 08 and where he is today. The Peanut gallery will keep squaking... but so what. This is what I have, this is what I did, this is what I can do better.... if I can get it, why can't the President? But that isn't what he does... he continues to blame the opposition for what he took over, for his failures, and why he can't fix it. That isn't leadership. If you think it is, fine. That isn't how you fix partisan politics in DC. You take their power away by not giving them any. You play your game, not theirs. He has no game.... so he has to play theirs.
***Nope, totally disagree. My retirement (and many around the country) has never looked better. Many folks on the Right were locked into hating the President even before he was elected. Fox News keeps beating the drum. GOP Senators and Congressmen have continued the beating as well. Despite the fact we continue to recover, despite the fact we're drawing down militarily in Afghanistan, have left Iraq, have reached a nuclear deal with Iran, etc. It is indeed exactly what I expected from a guy with his resume. He is/was not the answer. Take that up with them then. And we have not reached a deal in Iran by any stretch of the imagination. When they actually comply with it then you can rub my nose in it. So far the jury is out..... ***That's about the only positive I can draw from the GOP's "destroy President Obama at all costs" campaign. They are shooting themselves in the foot with the whole "President Hillary Clinton would have been an improvement." Why? Every time they say it, just cue the '16 commercials supporting President Clinton for election. OK, wow... show me anywhere that the "Right" has ever said Hilary would have done better. I said it, but I'm not the "Right". It's just speculation.... but never in my life have I heard any "Conservative" "GOP faithful" say anything good about any Clinton EVER. ***Well, unless someone else emerges, Hillary Clinton has to be considered the favorite. They've all got skeletons, but how 'bout Rubio? It seems to me he's the GOP's only hope. Losing Hispanics at a 70-30 clip is a death blow to the GOP. Kinda tough to win this large group over when you've got GOP and Tea Party folks shouting to "send those illegal aliens back!" I could care less who the GOP puts up. I oppose Hilary just on the grounds of her last name. I'm done with Clinton/Bush... they had their time... go retire and raise money. ***I don't know...every time I flip on Hannity he's talking about how Powell is basically a Democrat in disguise. Ya gotta be careful who you wish for. Take that up with Hannity, I don't watch him. Do you notice a trend here? If you want to discuss what I said, then address me. I do not discuss what Mathews says when talking to you. Powell is a moderate. I can respect that. Even if he came out as a D, I would still respect him and probably vote for him just because I like him personally. I do not care about the GOP or the DNC. You seem to think that because I feel I have valid criticism of Obama, that I am just some "Right/GOP" parrot. If that is what you think of me, then I don't know what to say. So I can rant all I want about Obama, but it isn't like I have a long list of folks I would rather have. Because I will concede to you that I agree.... the Capital is divided and so is the country. Yes we have "problems" we need solved, but right now the biggest problem is we are not getting along and there is a deep divide on which direction American's think this country needs to head. That is a HUGE problem, and I do not know who is going to be able to solve that. ***I think we can agree this aint changing any time soon...but for some reason it certainly is fun talking about it. No, it's "fun" to debate flip turns, or peeing on your bike. I'm troubled with the very serious problems facing this country. At the end of the day, "Obama" is not the problem, nor is he the solution. The DNC and the GOP will continue to prop up their puppets and the money will continue to flow and the country will continue to head towards financial ruin. There is a disconnect between what Washington is doing, and what the electorate is allowing them to get away with. Obama has not done one single thing any President before him has not done... and I have never taken him to task for any of it. But this continual praise for a mediocre President at best is just plain silly. I have no idea how much the DNC paid for all the rose colored glasses, but they certainly got their money's worth. He is absolutely positively unremarkable in any way... other than giving speeches. And that is a gift. That is a skill to be able to motivate people... actually, most CEOs are just that... not nuts and bolts guys, but figure heads and motivators. But true leaders are more, and Obama is not "more". So Obama Derangement Syndrome is real and absolutely ridiculous... but so is the "Slobbering Love Affair" with Obama. They are both completely baseless and unfounded. "How about just be a leader instead of trying to look good or damage your opposition? That's what a leader does. what he did was just more of the same partisan BS he railed against for two years." Okay Barack, "just be a leader." What does that even mean? That would be like me out on a Sunday morning bike ride when out of the corner of my eye I see a smokin' fast pit-bull bearing down on me. "Hey Brian, just be a leader!" It sounds so easy. Hey Ted Cruz and Rand Paul, come on over, let's make a deal. Really, it's that easy? I don't think so. Powerman, sorry, I don't have you on my tv, so I can't quote you. No, you're not "the Right," from what I've read, like me your stances seem to be scattered throughout the spectrum, but tend to veer. You a little Right, and me toward the Left. I'm not the only person in America who doesn't agree with your assessment of Obamacare. You say it is economically unsustainable and will only get worse. I disagree. The beginnings of Medicare were fraught with many of the same complaints we're seeing with Obamacare today. Powerman, you are correct on the Iraq War end. I was incorrect. I think I was recalling Romney's criticism of the President for not delaying the exit. Romney wanted more troops in Iraq after the agreed-upon exit and criticized the president. On Afghanistan, had we pulled out earlier, against the advice of our military commanders, or drew down our forces, again, against the advice of our military commanders, Obama would be skewered. Imagine our geopolitical position weakened, forces withdrawn, Taliban allowed to thrive, perhaps even Al Qaeda as well. It's a lose-lose, Afghanistan's always been that way...but it sure is loaded to the gills with very valuable natural resources. We can agree to disagree on the gay marriage issue, which I really thought was going to cost him the '12 election. '08 wasn't the time to support gay marriage. You can call that politics, and I'll say sure, it's politics. Politicians practice politics. If they don't, they won't last long. Who could solve that problem? Again, there are some problems that just are not solvable. You do the best you can with what you've got. I think he's done a fine job, you don't. We can agree to disagree. "You take their power away by not giving them any." I'm not understanding that statement. Please explain. "You play your game, not theirs." Again, how? As I've said before, George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Gandhi, and Jesus Christ could be elected, and I'm telling you right now, they'd experience the same dang nonsense. We have a Congress full of representatives that hail from areas in which they tow the hard party line or they're out on their keisters. Yes, that goes for Dems too, not just GOP and Tea Partiers. Tough stuff, no solution. On Iran, yes we shall see. Only time will tell. On the radio Right saying Hillary would be better than Obama, yes, I've heard both Hannity and Rush say it. I don't listen to a ton of radio, but on my drive I've heard it with my own ears. It stuck out to me because I thought, "well that kind of talk isn't helping your cause in '16." I don't think you are a parrot. You can mention Matthews if you wish...I may just get a tingle up my leg to boot. I very much respect President Obama. What he's had to endure in the form of obstructionism is unprecedented. It's really quite eye-opening. You say we're on the road to financial ruin...I disagree. We can agree to disagree. Have a very Happy New Year Powerman!!!
Wait........what? Edited by Left Brain 2013-12-31 8:40 PM |
|
|
|
|
|
| |||
|
View profile
Add to friends
Go to training log
Go to race log
Send a message
View album
CONNECT WITH FACEBOOK