Discussion On President Obama

[sgreger1]

Holy shit sgreger, when did you up and get reasonable? That was spoken like a true "I hate both sides" Libertarian! Bravo, chapeau!

Lobbying is reaching record levels with 3.3 billion spent to lobby congress so far this year.

If this is true, it's disgusting. I'm so tired of lobbyists.

Lol, I'm at the point where i'm tired of hearing both sides. As you know I tend to follow the more conservative news outlets and even they are just repeating the same shit over and over again.

In reality, the republic continues and come next election day we will see what Americans vote for. Either way it probably won't change anything.


What I find odd is that the left, to my amazement, seems to actually be looking objectively at what this admin is doing and are actually becoming critical of some things and in fact not being hyprocrites. Like on FARK, I noticed a lot of liberals see the HC reform thing for what it is, a handout to the insurance company. This is something I didn't expect since everyone usually sticks to their parties so hard.

Meanwhile the republicans are united only in their efforts to not vote for any piece of legislation this year. And they continue with the "they tuk urr guns & freedomz!!11!" bit. The reality is that America was lost before Obama came in. Obama hasn't done much imo to fix that so he gets some blame but in reality our gun laws have always been too strict, and our freedoms too little, and Obama hasn't come in and really changed any of that.


Frankly I am more pissed at congress (both sides) than anyone. I expect that many American's feel this way since congress has a record low approval rating.


as for lobbying

"Washington’s influence industry is on track to shatter last year’s record $3.3 billion spent to lobby Congress and the rest of the federal government — and that’s with a down economy and about 1,500 fewer registered lobbyists in town, according to data collected by the Center for Responsive Politics."

So business as usual.

[VBSnus]

Yuck.

What I find odd is that the left, to my amazement, seems to actually be looking objectively at what this admin is doing and are actually becoming critical of some things and in fact not being hyprocrites. Like on FARK, I noticed a lot of liberals see the HC reform thing for what it is, a handout to the insurance company. This is something I didn't expect since everyone usually sticks to their parties so hard.

I don't see it as a handout...I think it's a down payment. See, the insurance companies developed an unsustainable and wicked business model: artificially inflate prices, make everyone dependent on you, then deny care to those who need it. The government is now paying them off to change that business model. What a crock of shite.

The only democrat I'm truly happy with right now is Al Franken. That funnyman sure knows how to shake things up. He's good enough, he's smart enough, and dog gonnit, people like him.

I want to see a Republican go in there and propose reams of legislation that makes sense and is truly conservative. I want him or her to show why allowing illegals health insurance hurts the economy, not why it goes against some moral concept. Show us where abortion funding is a poor economic choice, not a poor Christian choice. I want him or her to deny a democrat who tries to prattle on more than 10 minutes. That sort of thing. Shake it up!

[sgreger1]

I don't see it as a handout...I think it's a down payment. See, the insurance companies developed an unsustainable and wicked business model: artificially inflate prices, make everyone dependent on you, then deny care to those who need it. The government is now paying them off to change that business model. What a crock of shite.

Like I said, a handout lol. They didn't have the balls to pass a single payer (or the support) so they figure they can at least get rid of pre-existing conditions. But the insurance companies won't do it for free, so the congress had to throw some bones their way and say, if we make everyone buy your product and in return no pre-existing conditions claus, do we have a deal?

But I see that as a handout because instead of challenging these super corps they instead are bargaining with the devil and now everyone will be required to buy something just for being alive. I really wanted to see more emphasis on lowering premiums and steming the rise in healthcare. And also, what's with the thing where it's not effective untill 2014 or something, yet they begin the taxing earlier?

Frankly i'd rather see a single payer system and the world be damned. I don't like the idea of socialized HC, but if we are going to change the system, it is the only thing that at least has worked to some degree in other countries, so would be a good start.

I want him or her to show why allowing illegals health insurance hurts the economy, not why it goes against some moral concept.

The argument is not that it's immoral, it's that we shouldn't be giving any handouts to people who come here illegaly. End of story. If they want to make some system by which illegals can buy their own insurance and can't just show up at the ER and then not pay, than fine. As long as it doesn't cost me money I don't care.

Show us where abortion funding is a poor economic choice, not a poor Christian choice.

I'm very not with the republicans on this one. The people i've seen just in Los Angeles alone have made me a firm believer in stopping them from having kids however possible lol. I personally don't really agree with late term abortion or aborting anything that's more than a lump of cells, but as far as the law is concerned it makes sense to not have poor people with 20 kids because it becomes a larger strain on the system when we have to issue the welfare checks. So as far as economics is concerned, more abortions is good for the economy



I'd like to see a larger 3rd party presence more than anything. Even if it's just to shake things up.

[ProudMarineDad]

Show us where abortion funding is a poor economic choice, not a poor Christian choice.

I'm very not with the republicans on this one. The people i've seen just in Los Angeles alone have made me a firm believer in stopping them from having kids however possible lol. I personally don't really agree with late term abortion or aborting anything that's more than a lump of cells, but as far as the law is concerned it makes sense to not have poor people with 20 kids because it becomes a larger strain on the system when we have to issue the welfare checks. So as far as economics is concerned, more abortions is good for the economy

If a candidate is not pro life, I do not vote for him/her. Period. While I do not believe in abortion, I think a spaying/neutering clinic would be a good idea.

[sgreger1]

If a candidate is not pro life, I do not vote for him/her. Period. While I do not believe in abortion, I think a spaying/neutering clinic would be a good idea.

As a libertarian the main emphasis is less government controlling things. I personally do not agree with abortion and therefore in my family, we do not get abortions. However, what gives me the rigth to infringe on another family who wants to operate differently. As far as my family is concerned, pro life, as far as the government and law is concerned, pro choice. The blood is not on my hands if you abort your kids.


This crap Obama supports though where it's cool to have partial birth abortions where the baby is basicly born and then killed before it takes its first breath, is outright murder and should not be condoned anywhere in America.

[VBSnus]

This crap Obama supports though where it's cool to have partial birth abortions where the baby is basicly born and then killed before it takes its first breath, is outright murder and should not be condoned anywhere in America.

Does he actually support partial birth abortion, or simply not support a federal ban?

From http://www.lifenews.com/nat3896.html :

In an interview on Fox News Sunday, Obama said, "On an issue like partial-birth abortion, I strongly believe that the state can properly restrict late-term abortions. I have said so repeatedly. All I've said is we should have a provision to protect the health of the mother, and many of the bills that came before me didn't have that."

[sgreger1]

Well like all politicians, we must look at their voting record as opposed to their words. He voted against several bills that would have stopped partial birth abortions, however his reasoning was that it would somehow outlaw all abortions through deceptive language in the bill. I am not a congressman so I cannot say whether he was right or wrong. But I know his voting record sure sounds like he is for it. Either way, whether he supports it or does not, it's wrong no matter which way you slice it. Unless the mother is going to die, there is no excuse for it.

In today's fast changing world and tough political climate, I could care less about abortions. My issue is with me paying for other's abortions. I think people should be responsible for their actions. But that's just me.

In 1997, Obama voted against SB 230, which would have turned doctors into felons by banning so-called partial-birth abortion, & against a 2000 bill banning state funding. Although these bills included an exception to save the life of the mother, they didn’t include anything about abortions necessary to protect the health of the mother.

1997: opposed bill preventing partial-birth abortion

In 1997, Obama voted in the Illinois Senate against SB 230, a bill designed to prevent partial-birth abortions. In the US Senate, Obama has consistently voted to expand embryonic stem cell research. He has voted against requiring minors who get out-of-state abortions to notify their parents. The National Abortion Rights Action League (NARAL) gives Obama a 100% score on his pro-choice voting record in the Senate for 2005, 2006, and 2007.

Opposed legislation protecting born-alive failed abortions

Obama has consistently refused to support legislation that would define an infant who survives a late-term induced-labor abortion as a human being with the right to live. He insists that no restriction must ever be placed on the right of a mother to decide to abort her child.
On March 30, 2001, Obama was the only Illinois senator who rose to speak against a bill that would have protected babies who survived late term labor-induced abortion. Obama rose to object that if the bill passed, and a nine-month-old fetus survived a late-term labor-induced abortion was deemed to be a person who had a right to live, then the law would "forbid abortions to take place." Obama further explained the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment does not allow somebody to kill a child, so if the law deemed a child who survived a late-term labor-induced abortion had a right to live, "then this would be an anti-abortion statute."

And he is also against anything stopping minors from going across state lines to get abortions without consent or notification of the parents. I think if your underage and you get an abortion your parents should know, I mean your a minor, what if there are complications?

[VBSnus]

And he is also against anything stopping minors from going across state lines to get abortions without consent or notification of the parents. I think if your underage and you get an abortion your parents should know, I mean your a minor, what if there are complications?

I concur.

[tom502]

I think a large reason Obama did win, is because he is "black" or considered black, to me he is biracial, and I think he should have stressed this, as America is a muti-ethnic nation with many mixed peoples. But anyway, he got the majority black vote, and he got the majority race focused liberal vote, because here is a guy that can be considered black, yet he is appealing, intelligent, America being so race focused, they saw it an oppertunity to elect someone who can be paraded as being black, yet also appeal to everyone, meaning he's not an abraisive race baiter like Jackson or Sharpton. I think if Obama was not "black", and just a skinny young white dude, everything else being what it is, he would not have made it even to the primaries. Being "black" he got Oprah, and many others campaigning for him, like he was the new Messiah cometh.

Of course now they are all let down, as he's demonstrated he's a politician with no real change, a tan Bush in many ways, and a far left liberal socialist on many other ways.

He's a one termer that's for sure. And no one wants to admit it, but the hoopla and fanfare of him, is his race. And anyone can see this, just by visiting stores and shops in the black areas of town, they have his picture up on the walls, often right next to MLK, they have this at my local post office. if McCain or Hill would have won, this would not be the case.

I just wish America could evolve above skin identity.

[VBSnus]

I think a large reason Obama did win, is because he is "black" or considered black, to me he is biracial, and I think he should have stressed this, as America is a muti-ethnic nation with many mixed peoples.

He stressed this many times. He campaigned talking about his mother and his grandparents and mixed heritage. He never stressed "I'm black" but "I'm mixed".

But anyway, he got the majority black vote, and he got the majority race focused liberal vote,

Every Democrat gets the majority black vote and the majority race focused liberal vote...it's not like they'd vote for McCain/Palin. Or do you mean in the primaries? If so, I'd say it's because he ran a much better campaign than Hillary.

because here is a guy that can be considered black, yet he is appealing, intelligent, America being so race focused, they saw it an oppertunity to elect someone who can be paraded as being black, yet also appeal to everyone, meaning he's not an abraisive race baiter like Jackson or Sharpton. I think if Obama was not "black", and just a skinny young white dude, everything else being what it is, he would not have made it even to the primaries.

This is an unsubstantiated idea with no basis in proof and no way to find basis in proof. It's like me saying "if tom502 wasn't white he'd never post about Barack Obama being black." It's completely unprovable and does nothing but speculate on negatives.

Being "black" he got Oprah, and many others campaigning for him, like he was the new Messiah cometh.

The Messiah thing is really old, and I tend to stop reading once I see a conservative use "the One", "messiah", "where is your change now", etc. In this case, he had many others campaign for him just like Hillary had many others campaign for her. The race between the two was neck and neck. I think he won on his tactics, not his blackocity.

Of course now they are all let down, as he's demonstrated he's a politician with no real change, a tan Bush in many ways, and a far left liberal socialist on many other ways.

Who is this "they" you talk about? His 53% approval rating you mean? Or do you mean the same people who wouldn't have voted for him either way? Or the standard drop in approval rating that happens to every president when the reality of politics sinks in?

The game plan is simple. 1) candidate runs on change. 2) opposition stonewalls and blocks change at every turn. 3) opposition claims the candidate can't change anything. It's pathetic and does nothing to progress our nation.

He's a one termer that's for sure. And no one wants to admit it, but the hoopla and fanfare of him, is his race.

Perhaps it's the disgust in a weak, misled, and irresponsible Republican party. I personally couldn't give two shits that he's black and I campaigned for him despite two votes for Bush.

And anyone can see this, just by visiting stores and shops in the black areas of town, they have his picture up on the walls, often right next to MLK, they have this at my local post office. if McCain or Hill would have won, this would not be the case.

Neither of them is the first black President. It's called pride man. Good or not, a black man being made President only 40 years after the end of the Jim Crow laws, segregation, etc. is something to have pride in.

I just wish America could evolve above skin identity.

Then evolve. You're basing this comment on unsubstantiated claims that the only reason he was elected was his race. Prove it.

[ProudMarineDad]

If a white person with his level of experience had tried to run for president, he would have had trouble after the first primary.

The fact that he was black didn't have anything to with me not voting for him. It was his views on issues I feel strongly about. If the Republicans or any party nominate a black person who is a conservative, I would vote for him/her in a heart beat.

[tom502]

I would have happily voted for a Powel/Rice ticket.

[sgreger1]

...I think he won on his tactics, not his blackocity.

+1 for "blackocity" usage

EDIT: I don't think Tom was trying to say he won only for being black but I mean cummon VB, you know the reality of it, he got a lot of black peoples votes that maybe wouldnt have voted if it was for a white person. A lot of people voted for him to ensure we had the first black President because that's a big deal. He has a huge support base (well compared to other presidents kinda small) and he would have won anyways but you cannot overlook the fact that a lot of people voted for him because they wanted to see a black president. At least give him that.

[VBSnus]

...I think he won on his tactics, not his blackocity.

+1 for "blackocity" usage

EDIT: I don't think Tom was trying to say he won only for being black but I mean cummon VB, you know the reality of it, he got a lot of black peoples votes that maybe wouldnt have voted if it was for a white person. A lot of people voted for him to ensure we had the first black President because that's a big deal. He has a huge support base (well compared to other presidents kinda small) and he would have won anyways but you cannot overlook the fact that a lot of people voted for him because they wanted to see a black president. At least give him that.

I remember an article on how black women have a hard vote because they're both black like Barack and a woman like Hillary. The comments on that one were hilarious:

"Well wait, I's black...and he's black...so I best vote black! But I's a woman, and she a woman...so I best vote woman! What I's gon' do? Lawdy!"

The fact of the matter is that we were coming off of a horrible President, a crippled economy, two wars, and a horrible violation of civil liberties. The nation was ready to embrace an ultra-liberal. They may not like that decision now, but there were many more factors than black vs. white.

[sgreger1]

Oh absolutely there were more factors. I think the biggest thing that got him elected was that he was someone other than Bush and not republican. lol. I'm just saying it sounded like you were saying him being black did not attract a huge amount of the black vote when I personally think that's an unrealistic claim to make.

But either way, he's President now. I was hoping that after having the first black president we could get over the whole race thing but it seems that him being elected has just polarized the races more than before. I hope that before I die I can see the day where race does not play into politics. I say we elect a mexican, a jew, an indian, a native america (oh the irony), an asian etc so that after everyone's had their turn we can stop focusing on race.

I am particularly getting tired of the race card being pulled for every little thing nowadays. Like that traitor Jimmy Carter claiming the "you lie!" incident was based on racism and nothing else. Of course it turns out that there will be no restrictions on illegals so Joe was actually telling the truth to an extent, and probably had nothing to do with racism at all.