The Obama Deception HQ Full length version

[HenRoc]

So Scott.

I'm not trying to 'talk down to you' but, we all know this shit isn't working...and as you said it's taking its time to take effect.

But...what would you do differently?

:edit:

Its one of the scenarios where he's trying to implement ideas to get us out of a recession..but it's back firing on him pretty badly. I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt though, I think it is time we pull out of a country we had no business being in..in the first place.

We've been fighting this war for 6 years..with no end...I'm sure there have been improvements but people are still dying for a radical idealology that the West's influence is wrong..and anyone who doesn't follow Islam is an infedel.

Everyone says our freedom is being fought for....what freedom are they holding from us? We're not oppressed we have our rights to free speech...rights to bare arms (although he was trying to rip that away from the people) and we allowed to voice our opinions.

Last I checked...those terrorists weren't holding us back from doing anything we ever hoped to become in THIS country.

[owequitit]

So Scott.

I'm not trying to 'talk down to you' but, we all know this shit isn't working...and as you said it's taking its time to take effect.

But...what would you do differently?

What shit isn't working?

On the economy:

Well, I would have gone in heeding the advice of many economists that said the stimulus would not work. Instead, Obama wanted to spend his political capital on something he could use to say "look what I did," and understandably so, as whether it is true or not, he can turn around and credit himself and the democrats for the economic revival. However, he essentially took the opinions he WANTED to hear and disregarded those he didn't WANT to hear. Economists were weighing in on the situation before it ever occurred. One of the issues with Bush was that he didn't want to do another stimulus because the one prior to that had no tangible affect on anything. That is a good indication that futher spending isn't going to have the desired effect. The situation here was slightly different, but ultimately, signs of recovery were beginning to manifest and we didn't need the extra 13% on our debt which weighs the taxpayers down just as much as some other things might.

They also must have ignored, at least to some extent, the signs of recovery that were starting to happen in Q1. I don't think he should have done that. I understand why he did, but the problem with trying to spend all of your political capital on ideological needs, is that it CAN and often DOES backfire. Luckily for Obama most people aren't paying attention and I guarantee he is already getting credit for stuff he didn't do.

If you look at the breakdown of the stimulus, you will see that a large portion of the money went to projects or purposes on HIS agenda, and not necessarily to the areas that needed the most stimulation. I don't care what anyone says, but a big part of the reason for this stimulus was that it gave him a good way to get money for those programs, without having to fight long and hard for it. That freed up more time and energy for his health care fight.

I have the same complaint about the budget that he approved. There were litterally billions upon billions of special interest projects funded. He made the statement that next year would be different, so I will withold final judgement until then, but he better be prepared for a showdown if it comes down to it, because if he passes another budget with tons of stuff in it that he was against in his campaign, then I am going to be inclined to think he was not being honest.

As for me:

1) I would not have been so hasty to put a "stimulus" in effect. There is plenty of other stuff that needed to be done, and should be done. Much of it was just as critical. He started working on it, which was good.

The regulations on the credit default swap issues (which in and of themselves could DESTROY our economy) could have been more of a focus.

His international visits were a good thing as the direction we were headed in the community needed to change.

2) I would not have been against some stimulus money to help slow or reduce the number of foreclosures. He did do some of that, and some of that money has become available. However, the requirements of that stimulus would have been much smaller. Extending unemployment benefits I may also not have been against, but again, you have to be careful with that too, because that doesn't directly stimulate, it merely slows the slide. However, when people are faced with losing everything, this is not inherently a bad way to go. Unfortunately, I don't think a lot of this money has been released yet either.

3) One thing that our current two parties are not smart enough to understand is that they do NOT represent anywhere near the majority of people in this country. One side panders to a certain contingent of special interest groups and the other side to another. The problem with "special interest" groups is that they are by nature special interest because they do NOT represent the majority of the population at any given moment, regardless what their "interest" is. As such, the majority of Americans are left in the middle unrepresented. The reason the power shifts back and forth is because on the one hand Party A will over reach their bounds and the silent majority in the middle gets tired of the shit, and votes the other way. Then when that party oversteps their bounds, the silent majority again shifts the balance of power in the other direction. The problem with this system is that you are left trying to choose the lesser of two evils rather than being able to vote for the most suitable candidate. This is the main reason we need at least one more strong party and preferrably two. That way, if say the Independent party and the Libertarian party were strong, then we would have more than a realistic choice of Democrats and Republicans. That would either force them to start to move back toward center, or cease to be in any kind of power situation. The problem though is that the other parties do not have the leadership structures in place to make that happen. If it were me, I would rather help create a leadership structure in a neutral party than be stuck in some ideological warfare. I have been considering getting involved in the grassroots level to try and get some momentum for the independent party, of which I am a member.

I.E. I would not run as a Dem or a Repub.

This would give me the advantage of not talking lip service about "bipartisanship" and then sticking to party lines. I would hit them both between the eyes when they wanted to act like children, or got too far to one side. Such a person would inherently be able to embrace the good of all proposals without having to worry about their party turning on them.

4) With the healthcare issue, I would not try to cram it down the country's throat for my own potential political gain. Partly because it is not the right thing to do, and partly because it if doesn't work, then long term it is going to backfire and cost me and my party. The potential downside is not worth the potential short term gain that way.

I would NOT cook the books so that I could pretend it will be easier to pay for than it really is. When it came to financial accounting, I would do an honest, no B.S. assessment about how much it was likely to cost, and how much we had to pay for it. If I knew a tax cut was going to remain in effect, then I would not assume that it would expire for the purpose of making the books looks legitimate. That is an incorrect practice and it should be punishable by the same laws that private companies can be prosecuted under for the same offense. I would probably push for that law as well.

The other thing I would do differently would be to actually have an open forum for discussion. The ONLY reason Obama has been willing to relent and compromise on the health care is because he doesn't have enough support in his own party. He has pretended all along that he is open to "bipartisan" suggestion, but really, he has only embraced it when he needed to. At one point, he looked at the Republicans at a dinner when he first took office, and said "they elected me, not you" or something to that effect. The problem with that is we had a Democratically controlled Congress when everything went to hell in a hand basket, and even before that, so at some point they aren't going to escape the fall out. If you are going to be actually bipartisan, then you need to be bipartisan.

[owequitit]

Just because an idea comes from the left or the right does not mean it is automatically bad or good. There are some definite issues that need to be addressed in healthcare, but the average quality is not one of them because we have FAR AND AWAY the best healthcare in the world. Period. The components that need to be addressed are the inflation problems. There are certainly some things we can do to mitigate the inflation, but one of the issues not currently being addressed are ALL of the causes for inflation. Two of the biggest contributors to the inflation are 1) liability and insurance requirements and 2) the number of people and their growing healthcare needs. Specifically, the Baby Boomer generation is this huge lump of people that are all reaching the ages where they need more medical attention. No amount of government run healthcare, as currently proposed is going to solve either one of those two issues. That means that in addition to the increased taxes associated with this new program we are STILL going to have to absorb the inflation, which puts us right where we are, and that is paying too much for healthcare. The only difference is that in stead of paying your health insurance provider more money to cover the cost (usually when you use it, or in premiums) we are going to absorb the cost in taxes. It ain't free. If we are subsidizing people then the proportion of taxes will be relatively higher. You need only look at other socialized healthcare programs to get an idea. In Canada, the typical middle class worker is looking at anywhere from 40-50% taxes. That would be roughly 15-30% higher than what we are seeing now, depending on income and tax bracket. Now, the democrats would have you believe that we are not going to increase the taxes on the middle class, and only tax the rich to provide for such programs. The problem is that the "rich" already account for over 60% of all tax revenue collected, even though they make up less than 1% of the population. How much can you tax them before it doesn't work anymore? At some point they are going to HAVE to increase taxes on the middle class, it is inevitable and unavoidable. This is also verified by EVERY other social medicine program in the world, in the long term.

Then you have the issue that the government is going to determine what care you are or are not entitled to, just like every other system. Nobody wants them paying for boob jobs, etc. If you want care that they deem is unnecessary, and you don't, guess what? You STILL have to go out and get private insurance to get that coverage. Take Canada for instance. In addition to the matched taxes etc that is required by the government (just like ours) they also spend roughly $2700 a month per employee to pay into the healthcare fund etc. Then, on top of that, because dental is optional in Canada, they have to pay to provide dental insurance to the employee. So in reality, they are paying nearly $3000 a month per employee.

So business is paying it right? What's the big deal, they are made of money right? Wrong. That $3,000 per employee is money they can't spend on expanding, growing, etc. In fact, ALL of the owners are making next to nothing so they can keep the employees paid, especially in an economy like this. What is the incentive to want to create jobs and take the financial risk associated if there is nothing in it for them? That is why job creation in social countries is poor.

We haven't eliminated any healthcare costs, we have simply shifted them around.

History is littered with examples of private enterprise doing things better than the government because the governments are by nature, bureaucratic, slow and inefficient. Now I am supposed to just believe that they are going to waltz right in and do better, without addressing two of the biggest fundamental causes, and they are going to do it cheaper and for less money with better service? Forgive me while I don't buy it.

One thing Obama did that I agree with is that he set aside money to allow for electronic record keeping improvements, because (according to him) we spend 25% of our healthcare costs on paperwork. OK. That is likely true, but once the systems are computerized, then there is no need to try and sell that as a reason for government run healthcare, because it has already been removed from the equation. Also, just because we spend 25% on paperwork does NOT mean that we will see anywhere near that kind of gain. If we only have 10% waste in that system versus a computerized system, then we will only save 10%. Once we have made that gain, then nationalizing the system becomes irrelevant, because it won't allow us to see that gain a second time.

The other major question that is currently being asked, and dismissed, is what happens when the government mandates healthcare for all and competes against the private companies? Since Obama has proposed taxing business to pay for a lot of this, what happens when this affects their ability to provide healthcare and they can no longer afford it, and must then put those employees on the government run system? What happens if this becomes widespread, and the costs of the program increase exponentially because that was not an intended consequence? That is a legitimate question that NEEDS to be answered but is not currently being addressed. Essentially, businesses end up paying twice, but nobody seems to want to talk about that.

If I were president, I would attack it in the following ways.

1) We have to get the liability thing under control. It is one thing to sue a doctor for malpractice because he took your lung instead of your kidney. It is an entirely different matter for a doctor to get sued because a man came in with 13 .45 caliber gunshot wounds and could not be saved. We have crossed the line into the former. Everytime a lawsuit like this happens, YOUR costs go up, because the doctor's insurance costs go up.

Nationalized medicine or not, this is a major contributor to the problem and one that must be dealt with first to stem the rise in costs on that end.

2) We have to figure out how to deal with the baby boomers. Their retirement is especially problematic for us younger people because a) they outnumber us by around 7:1, which means every 1 of us has to take care of 7 of them b) many of them still think Social Security = retirement, so many don't have all that much money to deal with and c) older generations are also living longer, so in addition to maintaining the boomer's style of life, we must also continue to support our grandparents or great grandparents as they age.

One of the issues currently occuring is that the number of people needing care is growing so fast, they literally can't create trained professionals fast enough. This drives up job demand, pay scales and service prices. That is inflation. No more product for greater cost. This one is not going to be solved by either nationalizing anything or maintaining the status quo. It is a question to which I do not have a ready answer, but I do know that it is a fundamental component of the current problem.

It must be addressed before any real progress can be made.

3) One of the arguements currently on the books is that the medical charge offs currently occuring are a large source of inflation because when someone doesn't pay, the hospital writes it off and the tax payers either absorb it, or the hospitals costs go up. There is probably some merit to that, but ultimately, I don't know that it is going to be a 1:1 improvement because if we don't write those off by having the government pay, we are still essentially sharing those same costs among all those paying for the system. Again, it is an example of shifting the cost, not eliminating it. If the system becomes less efficient through government bureaucracy, then it might end up costing more.

This is a question that I need to look into further. But it is hard to keep ahead of this stuff when you are working full time, and trying to do other things too. Unfortunately, in light of both parties lying the way they do, I have no choice but to try.

I have not formed an opinion on this yet, but it needs to be answered before I am satisfied.

If it were me in office, I would not only allow these issues to be aired in an open forum, I would encourage it. But currently, they seem to be questions that Obama doesn't have answers for because there is a huge propaganda war right now with everything on the right being dismissed as heretic fundamentalism, propaganda and B.S. Some of that is certainly true, but right now, they are attempting to lump a whole series of valid questions in with the trash, because they probably don't have good answers for it, and the longer those questions persist, and the more they gain traction, the more support for HIS agenda wains.

Unlike the rhetoric, I would actually like to see a system that is beneficial to as many people as possible, and in order to do that, we need to allow the questions to come out and be addressed, discussed and debated. We also need to consider the fact that whatever the best solution is just might not jive with our ideology or construct of the way things SHOULD be.

Asking and answering questions has certainly never been a bad thing, and by trying to ramrod this through the system, I can't help but wonder what they are trying to hide, especially in light of the political rifts forming in their own party.

What we have is a fundamental ideology that says all corporations are evil and the government is sweet and innocent. There is some merit to both, but really there is more falsehood there than anything.

[owequitit]

I am not saying, nor have I implied that one system is better than the other, but I am certainly going to question it. As it stands, from what I can find, there are many flaws in the system, none of which are inherently solved by nationalization.

The fact that the Democrats are trying to ramrod the legislation through the system for their own short term gain, and the fact that they can't even get a concensus among their own party concerns me deeply. This is not an issue to be taken lightly, and it is not an issue that should be just brushed aside.

In fact, this one issue has the ability to nearly DOUBLE our annual government expenses, and given the current state of the economy, deficit and debt, I can't in good conscience forego questioning or expecting enough time to make an educated determination on it.

Also, on the economic issue, I learned a long time ago in high school the differences of montary and fiscal policy and the limitation of both. Once the nascient signs of recovery were creeping in, I would have started to develop contingency plans, but not necessarily spent anything, because having been educated on the topic, I would have been aware that in many cases, the economic cycle is independent of the political/fiscal cycle. That is clearly evidenced by the fact that we will be under full economic recovery long before we get to 25% spending on the stimulus.

[owequitit]

So Scott.

I'm not trying to 'talk down to you' but, we all know this shit isn't working...and as you said it's taking its time to take effect.

But...what would you do differently?

:edit:

Its one of the scenarios where he's trying to implement ideas to get us out of a recession..but it's back firing on him pretty badly. I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt though, I think it is time we pull out of a country we had no business being in..in the first place.

We've been fighting this war for 6 years..with no end...I'm sure there have been improvements but people are still dying for a radical idealology that the West's influence is wrong..and anyone who doesn't follow Islam is an infedel.

Everyone says our freedom is being fought for....what freedom are they holding from us? We're not oppressed we have our rights to free speech...rights to bare arms (although he was trying to rip that away from the people) and we allowed to voice our opinions.

Last I checked...those terrorists weren't holding us back from doing anything we ever hoped to become in THIS country.

I didn't get the impression you were talking down to me. You asked a legitimate question. The other person tried to make snide remarks as if to discount my position without offering something substantive instead. I was essentially dismissed because he didn't want to hear what I had to say, and it was apparently beneath him to address it, even though he was given the opportunity to do so in a mature, rational and upfront manner.

1) On the war thing, I do not disagree with you. However, while it was clearly a mistake to go in there in the first place, it was not feasible for us to just pull out either. One would assume that Obama is also aware of this as he did not just yank our troops out the day he got into office.

2) Afganistan is a seperate issue entirely, and one which is still an issue that needs to be dealt with. They DID have a direct link to terrorism against the US and they DO need a system of government that is hopefully strong enough to withstand such failures in the future.

Having said that, our military has not been used properly since WWII, with the exception of Desert Storm 1 because we were ASKED to be there by the Kuwaitis. We didn't invade and overthrow. We came to defend, and when the threat was removed, we left.

We have since WWII, become more or less a tyranistic regime which topples governments at our own will. Sad, but true.

However, I will pose the following question to you.

Do we have any business being in Somalia? Last time I checked, their internal issues had no bearing on the functioning of our country, and yet there have been recent whispers of needing to send troops in there to fight (under the control of a government that isn't even ours), for what purpose?

How can we on the one hand not justify something like Iraq or Afganistan, but we can justify something like Somalia or Darfur? Those are not our fights anymore than any others.

In fact, we have ALREADY been to Somalia once to deal with this exact same issue. But because we chose not to topple regimes and install governments, look at this, the same problem occurs 15 years later. Nothing changed as a result of being there, and nothing will change on a permanent basis as a result of us being there again.

But, we will be slayed if we don't go, and we will be slayed if we do. We can't win.

The other unintended consequences of such politically motivated and limited engagements is that it directly undermines our security and safety in the world, because gives our military the perception of being weak, limited and defeatable. The biggest downside to not plowing down enemies that rise against you, is that it tarnishes the fear factor of people being afraid to go to war with you.

What are your thoughts on the issue?

[HybridKyle]

:edit:

Its one of the scenarios where he's trying to implement ideas to get us out of a recession..but it's back firing on him pretty badly. I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt though, I think it is time we pull out of a country we had no business being in..in the first place.

We've been fighting this war for 6 years..with no end...I'm sure there have been improvements but people are still dying for a radical idealology that the West's influence is wrong..and anyone who doesn't follow Islam is an infedel.

Everyone says our freedom is being fought for....what freedom are they holding from us? We're not oppressed we have our rights to free speech...rights to bare arms (although he was trying to rip that away from the people) and we allowed to voice our opinions.

Last I checked...those terrorists weren't holding us back from doing anything we ever hoped to become in THIS country.

Just so that everyone remembers....Obama claimed that as soon as he took office he would bring the troops home, his first act was to SEND 17,000 MORE overseas. Great way to stick to your word, ohh and everything else he claimed he would do. Awesome for a President who wasn't even born in this country



/ done

[NAiL05]

Yea he did awesome on his promises I like the troop deal. I almost pissed myself laughing when he said he needed to do that. He can talk the talk but he can't walk the walk. I think now that he is in office he realizes that talking and doing are two different things.

[owequitit]

Just so that everyone remembers....Obama claimed that as soon as he took office he would bring the troops home, his first act was to SEND 17,000 MORE overseas. Great way to stick to your word, ohh and everything else he claimed he would do. Awesome for a President who wasn't even born in this country



/ done

Let's not turn this into a flame fest. Obama has made good choices regarding a lot of things even if he had to backpedal slightly on what he promised. He would have had no way of knowing the intricate details of those situation until AFTER the promises were made and AFTER he got elected. The fact that he was willing to go against his own word (and take political flak for it from the left, I might add) shows he has a better character than a lot of people give him credit for. In situations like those, there is a HUGE difference between talking the talk and walking the walk. I currently have dear friends in Afganistan and have had several in Iraq. Had Obama NOT made a choice that was best for them, I would have been upset. But he didn't do that. He didn't go in and say "gee I said this, and it will endanger their lives, but I have to do it anyway, so that I don't take political flak." And wouldn't you know, now he can't win on either side. He gets accused of lying by the ultra liberal left, and then he gets accused of lying by the ultra conservative right. Luckily, must of us rational people in the middle understand that sometimes choices have to be made that aren't exactly what you thought you might be able to do. Also, if you are pissing off the far left, and far right, at the same time, in equal doses, then you are doing a good job because frankly, they don't matter anyway. The majority in the middle does.

The fact that he had to alter his promises to make good on a bad situation, doesn't bother me as much as what I have discussed here. It also does not bother me as much as him saying that the troops shouldn't be used for XXX mission but they SHOULD be used for XXX mission right after he said he wouldn't deploy them unless absolutely necessary (oppressed Somalis are not any more deserving of protection than oppressed Afganis or Iraqis).

I want them home, and I want them KEPT home which is what he promised. I don't want any of this "that wasn't our war, so we are going to pull out of that and send them to a war that IS our war." That is bullshit. We went to Somalia once, and they didn't want to install a rational and peaceful government. We spent the time money and resources, and we spent the lives. It didn't work. Bush's biggest war adversaries accused him of meddling in the affairs of other countries. How would this be any different? Not to mention the further tarnish it would bring to our military.

The fact is that military exists for one thing and one thing only. That is to take life at rate which removes your enemies will to fight. If that can't be achieved, for whatever reason, then the troops need to stay home because all you are going to create is a mess. Which is about all we have done since Vietnam.

As of yet, Obama has not committed troops to Somalia, there have only been whispers of the need from the State Department. Of course, I am sure Hillary thinks she has a vested interest in the situation since she spoke out about the first one, and clearly, we didn't accomplish anything the first time, because here we are right back where we started.

As for his other foreign policy strategies, so far he is approaching the situation in the middle east fairly well, because he is not being outspoken about anything and thus not giving the radical governments much to use against us. A good case in point is Iran. They tried to blame the dissention on the US, but it didn't work, because they had no way to substantiate it and it ultimately tarnished the Iranian government's image in their own people's minds, which is EXACTLY what needed to happen. Had Bush not made his "Axis of Evil" speech, then both Iran and N. Korea would be in different positions right now. I also believe he has taken the correct stance in that he has tried to make the Arab nations more equal in the process, where traditionally (starting with Kennedy) the Israelis were the sole US allies. We aren't going to get support or cooperation from the Arab nations if we ALWAYS favor the Israelis. In many cases, the Arab nations are wrong, but in a lot of cases the Israelis are also wrong. They do have a right to defend themselves, but there are times they go about meddling or breaking the process too, and they should be called on it.

On the one hand, I am NOT going to give Obama a pass on stuff he fucks up just because he is XXXXX or XXXXXXXXX. But on the other hand, I am not going to slay him either because he is XXXXX or XXXXXXXXX.

If he does well, or makes the best decision possible, then I will give him credit where credit is due. But I am not going to wash myself into a dillusional romance with him as some others clearly have.

Overall, other than the stuff discussed in this thread, I haven't had many issues with him. He is charismatic, and up front and outspoken, which automatically builds a comfortable relationship with people. It was also good in making people feel like it wasn't the end of the world afterall. However, he needs to keep in mind that he DID NOT win by a landslide popular vote, only beating McCain by about 3.5% points. He needs to keep in mind that while he did win, he isn't the end all be all solution to the country's issues and while many voted for him, they are still very much on the fence about the issue. As such, those who giveth can taketh away.

[owequitit]

Yea he did awesome on his promises I like the troop deal. I almost pissed myself laughing when he said he needed to do that. He can talk the talk but he can't walk the walk. I think now that he is in office he realizes that talking and doing are two different things.

See my response. This is going to do nothing but get the thread closed. If you don't want to have an enlightened, factual and neutral discussion, then please refrain from participating.

[HenRoc]

I didn't get the impression you were talking down to me. You asked a legitimate question. The other person tried to make snide remarks as if to discount my position without offering something substantive instead. I was essentially dismissed because he didn't want to hear what I had to say, and it was apparently beneath him to address it, even though he was given the opportunity to do so in a mature, rational and upfront manner.

1) On the war thing, I do not disagree with you. However, while it was clearly a mistake to go in there in the first place, it was not feasible for us to just pull out either. One would assume that Obama is also aware of this as he did not just yank our troops out the day he got into office.

2) Afganistan is a seperate issue entirely, and one which is still an issue that needs to be dealt with. They DID have a direct link to terrorism against the US and they DO need a system of government that is hopefully strong enough to withstand such failures in the future.

Having said that, our military has not been used properly since WWII, with the exception of Desert Storm 1 because we were ASKED to be there by the Kuwaitis. We didn't invade and overthrow. We came to defend, and when the threat was removed, we left.

We have since WWII, become more or less a tyranistic regime which topples governments at our own will. Sad, but true.

However, I will pose the following question to you.

Do we have any business being in Somalia? Last time I checked, their internal issues had no bearing on the functioning of our country, and yet there have been recent whispers of needing to send troops in there to fight (under the control of a government that isn't even ours), for what purpose?

How can we on the one hand not justify something like Iraq or Afganistan, but we can justify something like Somalia or Darfur? Those are not our fights anymore than any others.

In fact, we have ALREADY been to Somalia once to deal with this exact same issue. But because we chose not to topple regimes and install governments, look at this, the same problem occurs 15 years later. Nothing changed as a result of being there, and nothing will change on a permanent basis as a result of us being there again.

But, we will be slayed if we don't go, and we will be slayed if we do. We can't win.

The other unintended consequences of such politically motivated and limited engagements is that it directly undermines our security and safety in the world, because gives our military the perception of being weak, limited and defeatable. The biggest downside to not plowing down enemies that rise against you, is that it tarnishes the fear factor of people being afraid to go to war with you.

What are your thoughts on the issue?

My thoughts? I absolutely agree that we should have stuck to one country...there wasn't any real need to go to Iraq because all Saddam did was oppress his own people in a dictarship..as you said the military hasn't been used properly since WWII except the Gulf War.

Obviously there's no way to easily pull out now because the fear of instability in Iraq is something that's always going to be the main issue with the government.

I always wondered why we could not be a neutral power..and just worry about what's going within our own borders..we were after one guy but Bush jumped the gun and went to Iraq.

And to Nail05, that's a stupid response..you can't give the guy crap for trying to pull us out of a jam, I don't agree with some of the routes he is taking BUT I am willing to give him the benefit of the doubt.

And he's trying..more or less the citizens want change..but it does not happen over night.

Republicans and Democrats can squabble back and forth..but really he's always going to be criticized for making the wrong moves even though in his mind it's the right move.

As Scott mentioned 'Bush's biggest war adversaries accused him of meddling in the affairs of other countries. ' I hold that as a very true statement...he did the right thing to try and go after Osama..but Saddam?

Saddam had nothing to with 9/11 yeah he praised the attacks..more or less it felt like a personal insult to Bush..but we had NO reason to invade.

The guy had outdated Scud's from the Soviet era...so there was no way in hell he would be able to conduct an attack on US soil..this all came out after they confirmed he had no WMDs.

Remember..he invaded Kuwait...we were asked to step in..we destroyed his fleeing army of thieves..and he never bothered us again.

Somalia was something that also never really needed to be helped either..I remember the photograph in Times where that US soldiers body was being dragged through the streets of Mogadishu...that was something very much painful to see.

And Scott, no worries. I just wanted an honest opinion basically. I've been told that the way he's conducting this whole recovery..it involves taxes being raised and I've also heard that by doing this...we will all be footing the bill for a very long time.

[lil_dcb7]

Just so that everyone remembers....Obama claimed that as soon as he took office he would bring the troops home, his first act was to SEND 17,000 MORE overseas. Great way to stick to your word, ohh and everything else he claimed he would do. Awesome for a President who wasn't even born in this country



/ done

Didn't he say it wouldn't be "over night"?

Didn't he say he had to send it more troops to secure the troops departure? You know, not all of the thousands of troops can just hop on a helicopter and just uh, leave.

Obama wasn't born in this country? Did you really dislike him that much to not pay a single bit of attention to what was going on with him during the election? Last I heard, Hawaii was a apart of this country.

Being president of the United States is a pretty big job. I'm sure whoever his boss is(sarcasm), had to have checked his background. I don't think they would over look something like that for a president. You can't even work for the fucking post office unless every little thing is checked out.

People amaze me.

[quakerjoe]

I love reading your responses Owequitit. To read something with thought behind it is a breath of fresh air.

Anyways, I want to throw in my $.01. (I don't have enough to make $.02.haha)

Overall, I'm almost completely dissatisfied with how the government has been running thing. Around every corner is another flaw, lie, scandal, or BS propoganda scandal. I think there are a couple basic things that I would like to see happen or at least I want to investigate them a bit more.

1) I've been trying to come up with a solution to the Health Insurance reform and came up with a thought of a member run health insurance company, kind of like a credit union. This could have the potential to remove some overhead from the costs the insured peoples would have to pay. Then by setting up a system of "True Health Costs" the members would pay a higher but reasonable cost, which are based on actual member health. Then through incentive programs members can lower their premiums.

A) One incentive program would involve the members achieving better health based on goals set by the system.

B) Another incentive program would involve a probationary period where the members visit history would be the focus. It seems like there are some people, for lack of better words, abuse their health insurance. They have a sniffle, they go to the doctor. They get a little cut, they got to the doctor. It would appear that they are trained to automatically default to going to the doctor if something happens. Through this program members would be rewarded for maybe going only when they really need it.

Overall, I don't know dip about the health insurance industry, but at the moment I think that it could possibly lead to a more competitive market and it could instill some accountability that has been lost over the years.

2) I would love to see people start holding their reps accountable for what happens. I think people don't realize the power that they hold. The framers of the Constitution made Article 1 the longest and the first for a reason. It seems like people would rather blame the President rather than hold Congress at fault. It's easier that way, I suppose. I think one reason that Congress/Obama are really pushing to get the Health Care stuff pushed through is because they don't believe that they are going to hold the majority come fall of 2010.

3) I think the Federal Government is far too strong and we need to see a power shift from the Feds to the States. I've come to the conclusion that this can only come through the shift in the payments of taxes. Think of all the money that the states would no longer have to compete for. The way the system was setup was just one more way the Feds could keep control of the South after the Civil War. It's all about the funding. Furthermore, if the states had more rights/power then the health care thing would be a moot point. Cali could pass this Health Care system if they wanted, Missouri doesn't have to if they don't want it, and the citizens can then choose what set of rules they want to go follow. A final decision from Washington is too far and vast to cater to the individuals needs.


I've got to stop there. It's dinner time. Yum.

[HybridKyle]

Didn't he say it wouldn't be "over night"?

Didn't he say he had to send it more troops to secure the troops departure? You know, not all of the thousands of troops can just hop on a helicopter and just uh, leave.

Obama wasn't born in this country? Did you really dislike him that much to not pay a single bit of attention to what was going on with him during the election? Last I heard, Hawaii was a apart of this country.

Being president of the United States is a pretty big job. I'm sure whoever his boss is(sarcasm), had to have checked his background. I don't think they would over look something like that for a president. You can't even work for the fucking post office unless every little thing is checked out.

People amaze me.

So you just believe everything they tell you on TV right? Do some research, or is it enough for you when someone says, ohhh it's ok he was born in Hawaii...




"Obama has spent over $1 million dollars defending all the lawsuits that have been filed since my lawsuit of August 21, 2008;

Why spend that amount of money if you were really born in Hawaii and for up to Twenty-Five [$25.00] Dollars one can secure a duplicate copy of the “vault” birth certificate [“vault” = certificate that has hospital name, doctor’s name & signature, weight and length of baby, etc.];

All, yes ALL of Obama’s records are “SEALED” – why ?

Birth records;

School records – “SEALED” because they will probably show that Obama applied for and recived “foreign aid” indicating he was from Kenya or Indonesia where he was “adopted”;

Occidental College;

Columbia University;

Harvard Law School;

State Senate Records from Illinois;

Passport records;

Hospital records from Kenya and two [2] hospitals in Hawaii;

COLB [Certification of Live Birth] that was placed on Obama’s website had Father’s Race as “AFRICAN” – a term not used in 1961;

**Obama traveled at age twenty [20] to Pakistan – what Passport did he travel with ?

United States citizens prohibited in 1981 of going to Pakistan;

So Obama traveled on an Indonesia or Kenyan birth certificate;

****For Immediate Release: - 07/21/2009

U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder Refuses to Prosecute President Obama


Read and do some research into things for yourself, don't just believe that everything you hear is truth...I do the same, and have nothing against him other than the fact that he is the next puppet and has no concerns of "FIXING" the problems, but to go along with the agenda of the "puppet master"

Not posting in here anymore

Have fun kids!

[accordaffair]

so you're one of those "birthers" eh? were you a truther too?

[lil_dcb7]

Christ you "puppet" people really don't let up. Politics are nothing new. I don't think we've EVER had a real president since abe lincoln.

No, I don't believe everything I hear on TV. If Obama's record checks out and he becomes the FUCKING PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, its good enough for me.

If he gets indited later for it, then come laugh in the general public's face. How about that?