Question for democrats?

[RightWingFerret]

if I had a dog, my dog would of accomplished more than Obama during these 3.4 years.

 

[KevinWestern]

IN all fairness...I do not see it as lazy or ignorant. Not everyone allows politics to play a mjaor role in their lives. I believe many people are trusting...they trust what they hear on the news. To them, if Brian Williams siad it, it must be true...and if Brian Williams doesnt report on it, then it never happened.

Me? Early in the mroning I watch local news affiliate of NBC.....mid day, I have CNN on in the backgorund. 6:00 Brett Baier on Fox. And when there is a conflict of information, (more often than not), I conduct my own research.

I NEVER read blogs.....ever.

But I am retired...I have the time.

Sure, I get your point.

And I’m not saying everyone needs to be a political guru or anything, following all the issues 24/7, I’m just saying perhaps everyone donates 3-4 hours total every four years to get the real spin on who they are voting for in the Presidential election via their own independent research.

I agree, people are too trusting these days, and I think we need to get sharper as a society and question the things we hear more.

 

[Jarhead]

wow you think Obama is moderate, and you're an independant....hmmmm something doesnt smell right. The only thing more leftwing he could do is just come out and say he's a socialist.

Are you sure you know what the definition of Socialism is? Until Obama comes out and says to the United States that he wants the government to take over all of the major industries and companies so the profits can be dictated and shared by all, I’m going to go ahead and say that you don’t know what you’re talking about.

Stop trying to make Obama look more extreme than he is.

My fear is more about the way he tests the waters..and then when he gets what he wants, he adds on to it....

For example...

For the first time in the hiostory of our nation, a bill was written and signed into law that madates that a citizen MUST purchase or have someone purchase a product. For good or for bad, that was a first.

Then, 2 years later, the same President ammends a law and adds into it, for the first time in the history of our nation, that a company of a particular industry MUST offer a service (contraception), even if it prefers not to.

Please notice...these are both FIRST TIMES.....

Under this President there was another first that for some reason no one in the media wanted to address....

For the first time, (and I bleieve against the law), the President approved the American Taxpayer being pushed back to a sewcond position...a subordinate position in lending terms...as it pertains to the Solyndra loan. That has never happened before...and as I said...I believe there is a law preventing this.....

Alkl three of the above concern me.

Is he a socilaist...I have no idea.

But I will say this...I do not like the trends I am seeing...and what concerns me more is what he will do when re-election isnt a concern of his.

 

[KevinWestern]

For the first time in the hiostory of our nation, a bill was written and signed into law that madates that a citizen MUST purchase or have someone purchase a product. For good or for bad, that was a first.

Is it really though? I have to purchase guns and fund troops so that they can invade Iraq and police the world, right? I have to pay into Medicare/Medicaid yet have never needed to use those services; aren’t I being forced into those too? And evidence he’s a socialist – not quite.

Then, 2 years later, the same President ammends a law and adds into it, for the first time in the history of our nation, that a company of a particular industry MUST offer a service (contraception), even if it prefers not to.

I think the law requires companies to offer contraception as part of their insurance coverage. All insurance companies will build contraception into a plan if asked to do so, so the forcing comes on the side of the company who’s developing an insurance plan for its employees.

Do I agree with it, not really. Is it a big deal, no. Is it evidence he’s a socialist, no.

Please notice...these are both FIRST TIMES.....


For the first time, (and I bleieve against the law), the President approved the American Taxpayer being pushed back to a sewcond position...a subordinate position in lending terms...as it pertains to the Solyndra loan. That has never happened before...and as I said...I believe there is a law preventing this.....

Not too familiar with this one. But socialist? Not quite evidence.

Alkl three of the above concern me.

Is he a socilaist...I have no idea.

But I will say this...I do not like the trends I am seeing...and what concerns me more is what he will do when re-election isnt a concern of his.

Has the President overstretched the reach of executive power? Yes, I think so. But not all of this is solely his fault, as I think we have the Bush Presidency to thank for a lot of post 9/11 “special powers” given to the executive branch of the United States government.

Socialist? I’ve yet to see any real evidence that he’s a socialist. He might be a wannabe dictator at time, but he’s definitely not a socialist.

 

[KevinWestern]

if I had a dog, my dog would of accomplished more than Obama during these 3.4 years.

Doesn't make any sense.

Let's say that Obama's only accomplishment was killing OBL (for the sake of the argument). How would you explain a dog being able to coordinate such an operation (or even say “Yes” or “No”) as Commander in Chief? I think it’s impossible.

 

[UpAndAbout]

For the first time in the hiostory of our nation, a bill was written and signed into law that madates that a citizen MUST purchase or have someone purchase a product. For good or for bad, that was a first.

Is it really though? I have to purchase guns and fund troops so that they can invade Iraq and police the world, right? I have to pay into Medicare/Medicaid yet have never needed to use those services; aren’t I being forced into those too? And evidence he’s a socialist – not quite.

Then, 2 years later, the same President ammends a law and adds into it, for the first time in the history of our nation, that a company of a particular industry MUST offer a service (contraception), even if it prefers not to.

I think the law requires companies to offer contraception as part of their insurance coverage. All insurance companies will build contraception into a plan if asked to do so, so the forcing comes on the side of the company who’s developing an insurance plan for its employees.

Do I agree with it, not really. Is it a big deal, no. Is it evidence he’s a socialist, no.

Please notice...these are both FIRST TIMES.....


For the first time, (and I bleieve against the law), the President approved the American Taxpayer being pushed back to a sewcond position...a subordinate position in lending terms...as it pertains to the Solyndra loan. That has never happened before...and as I said...I believe there is a law preventing this.....

Not too familiar with this one. But socialist? Not quite evidence.

Alkl three of the above concern me.

Is he a socilaist...I have no idea.

But I will say this...I do not like the trends I am seeing...and what concerns me more is what he will do when re-election isnt a concern of his.

Has the President overstretched the reach of executive power? Yes, I think so. But not all of this is solely his fault, as I think we have the Bush Presidency to thank for a lot of post 9/11 “special powers” given to the executive branch of the United States government.

Socialist? I’ve yet to see any real evidence that he’s a socialist. He might be a wannabe dictator at time, but he’s definitely not a socialist.

Well that's a relief then. A dictator would be ten times worse than socialism for pete's sake. I find him to be kind of a Hugo Chavez wannabe myself.

 

[Jarhead]

For the first time in the hiostory of our nation, a bill was written and signed into law that madates that a citizen MUST purchase or have someone purchase a product. For good or for bad, that was a first.

Is it really though? I have to purchase guns and fund troops so that they can invade Iraq and police the world, right? I have to pay into Medicare/Medicaid yet have never needed to use those services; aren’t I being forced into those too? And evidence he’s a socialist – not quite.

Then, 2 years later, the same President ammends a law and adds into it, for the first time in the history of our nation, that a company of a particular industry MUST offer a service (contraception), even if it prefers not to.

I think the law requires companies to offer contraception as part of their insurance coverage. All insurance companies will build contraception into a plan if asked to do so, so the forcing comes on the side of the company who’s developing an insurance plan for its employees.

Do I agree with it, not really. Is it a big deal, no. Is it evidence he’s a socialist, no.

Please notice...these are both FIRST TIMES.....


For the first time, (and I bleieve against the law), the President approved the American Taxpayer being pushed back to a sewcond position...a subordinate position in lending terms...as it pertains to the Solyndra loan. That has never happened before...and as I said...I believe there is a law preventing this.....

Not too familiar with this one. But socialist? Not quite evidence.

Alkl three of the above concern me.

Is he a socilaist...I have no idea.

But I will say this...I do not like the trends I am seeing...and what concerns me more is what he will do when re-election isnt a concern of his.

Has the President overstretched the reach of executive power? Yes, I think so. But not all of this is solely his fault, as I think we have the Bush Presidency to thank for a lot of post 9/11 “special powers” given to the executive branch of the United States government.

Socialist? I’ve yet to see any real evidence that he’s a socialist. He might be a wannabe dictator at time, but he’s definitely not a socialist.

your first point has to do with the madate to pay taxes...not to purchase something. A child does not pay taxes, so a child is not madated to be part of the purchasing of guns for the military...as an example. Being toild you MUST buy something is something completely different. You have no choice. The minute you are born you are beholden to the mandate.

Your second point..I dont know if you know the law. It has nothing to do with the employer. It has to do with insurance carriers. They are, by law, forced to offer contraception as part of their policy. Is it a big deal? No. Of course not. But where will it end? Today, they are forced to offer a service, whether or not they want to. Tomorrow? Maybe they will be told they must ALSO cover plasitc surgery. Before you say "rediculous" hear me out....Studies show that more attractive people are more likely to secure a job than less attractive people. Being born unattractive is not a choice...I am sure you see where I am going with this so I dont need to go further.....

So lets look at another possibility. The Healthcare mandates are rationalized by the "good cause" argument. All will have healthcare. I get it.

Is hunger not a good cause? What will be next? All grocers will be mandated to sell at a lower margin of profit? How about winter coats? Children need them. Will there be legislation that winter coats can not afford a profit higher than 1% to the manufacturer?

Do not fall inot that "it is no big deal" trap......PRECEDENT is a key word...once the precedent is set, thew sky is the limit.

I have never referred to President Obama as a socilaist. But, I am quite concerned with the trend. The precedents being set will be used in the future...

Curious...if, in fact, he pushed legislation on grocers as I said earlier....do you not see that being a major debate?

Mosyt of what we buy as consumers are necessities for a stable life......

We are about to turn a corner under Obama.....we need to be very careful what we support.

 

[Jarhead]

if I had a dog, my dog would of accomplished more than Obama during these 3.4 years.

Doesn't make any sense.

Let's say that Obama's only accomplishment was killing OBL (for the sake of the argument). How would you explain a dog being able to coordinate such an operation (or even say “Yes” or “No”) as Commander in Chief? I think it’s impossible.

Applkes to apples...

Dogs cant startegize.

However.....lets say OBL was his only accomplishment.

My dog, last year...came into my house barking like the world was coming to an end....he raised my eyebrows enough to see what was wrong. Sure enough, the house directly behind me was on fire....well...the rear deck was due to a Bar B Q issue..... The owners were completely unaware as they were sitting on their front porch.
We saved their home with a few garden hoses. 5 more minutes, it would have been the house.
To me, what my dog did was more of an accomplishemnt than the ordering of the shooting of OBL.

 

[catzmeow]

wow you think Obama is moderate, and you're an independant....hmmmm something doesnt smell right. The only thing more leftwing he could do is just come out and say he's a socialist.

Almost every objective observer notes that Obama isn't a particularly liberal president. Of course, Ronald Reagan probably looks like a communist in comparison to your views. Does that mean that he's a liberal, or that you're a far right whacko? I'd say the latter.

 

[rdean]

So what did Obama accomplish since he took office?
I would like to know, because honestly the only good thing I can see is that UBL was killed, but even that was not entirely Obama's credit.......

In my view since Obama took office we have become more divided, more nasty to each other, more people live in poverty, more people feeling "entitled"........

Just my two cents.....

Start here:

What the heck has Obama done so far?

Once you've finished going through that, come back and let us know. I have a lot more.

Imagine what he could have done if the Confederate Conservative Republican Party of Teanuts hadn't worked to make him fail since before he was sworn in? Not really a surprise them being 90% white and all.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

I think he got the seas to stop rising and added 7 states to the USA