RufRTs Obama Windup

Status
Not open for further replies.
I used to vote GOP up through 2004 but the last campaign put me off on the party. I don't care for the DNC either. My view is politics only represent themselves, big business and certain others (the super wealthy, elites, etc.)

fully agree there.

what I am 'angry' about is what has been done to this country may well take a generation to overcome if that....we did not have a huge debt when the last depression came about...now we owe our potential enemies all this money. sure Bush helped destroy this country but an awful lot of democrats helped him do it too....

makes you want to throw the towel in. :(

btw my apology for 'snapping' at you....;)
 
I used to vote GOP up through 2004 but the last campaign put me off on the party. I don't care for the DNC either. My view is politics only represent themselves, big business and certain others (the super wealthy, elites, etc.)

There are plenty of people on the far left that should be shunned. Look at Harry Reid for example.

You voted for bush the second time around?
 
After fabricating evidence about WMD's, plunging the country into war, screwing the economy...yeah, it made sense to vote for the imbecile
 
Heard on the radio the other morning that Obama's approval rating is 47%, the lowest of any president during his first year in office. Make of that what you will.

I make from that that the first year had a lot of troubles and challenges that need time to be fixed.. and guess what it is, thanks for the previous administration.

BTW, I don't think Obama is a great president and I am not sure he will be a success, but what I know is that if Obama is shit, McCain was worse and anyone who votes for a guy who selects a VP that he himself barely knows and who considers living close to Russia adds to her CV is far from being credible.
 
Why would McCain be worse, other than having Idiot Boobs as his running mate?
 
tbf the last poll I saw had his approval at 55...that is why I 'insulted' you.

But I did some searches and I would agree his poll is below 50 on most. so I will grant you that. I never said I was without fault...bloody hell now That would be scary :lol:

fair enough you are not in up to speed on the health care debate.

Frankly I am not registered as a democrat. i have only voted once..that last time because I believed in Obama...I still do..so you may be right about my feelings of a personal connection...many of his words and writings remind me of people I grew up admiring...Gandhi, MLK JFK and RFK.

I think He is the best thing to have happened to the US in a long time. I still think he will accomplish much, though like many on the left he frustrates me....we are impatient.
But change takes time.

I do remember you saying you primarily vote GOP elsewhere...though I may be wrong.

My frustration is politicians on both sides Can solve the problems of this country...but they are more interested in scoring political points. Personally I am angry at the insane people on the far right who are more racists than anything else.

I have no problems with a republican who is a fiscal conservative. but not with these lot who cannot even think...they really are at the level of sub-humans...

Its sounds rather cynical, but from a GOP perspective - the only thing they can do at this stage is work to bring his polling numbers down in order to pick up congressional seats and re-establish their filibuster numbers for the last two years of his first term, at which point they can use their Senate numbers to put the country back into legislative gridlock in the lead up to the 2012 general election. They have no ability to get any Republican policies forward due to the Democratic majorities in the House and Senate. Even if Obama gets a second term, chances are he will not have such numbers in the Congress to push through his legislation so easily, which is why he has to try to do it within these first two years.
 
Why would McCain be worse, other than having Idiot Boobs as his running mate?

The decision to choose her makes him worse. Presidency and leadership requires a sense of responsibility, wisdom and sound decisions. He gave a big feck Off to all these when he chose her.How can one vote for a person who chose a VP that he himself barely knows??Is it that hard to note the sheer silliness and absurdity of that decision.
 
How times "change"....some of you knobs are a lot less cocky eh ?

Seems like reality is slowly sinking in around here...took a while, but inevitable.
 
The problem is that the right needs that sense of "reality" too, but they stupidly and arrogantly deny that
 
How times "change"....some of you knobs are a lot less cocky eh ?

Seems like reality is slowly sinking in around here...took a while, but inevitable.

The entire premise of this thread is cynical, which is the problem. You cite the phantom spectre of "Obamamania" and then cite each instance as not meeting standards that were imposed through media hype rather than the candidate himself. He was a populist candidate who ran on positive message - nothing more.
 
How times "change"....some of you knobs are a lot less cocky eh ?

Seems like reality is slowly sinking in around here...took a while, but inevitable.

ruf..sorry to say..you don't give a damn about the millions who are without health insurance. You gloss over all the lies your god bush said and did to bring this country to its knees. and you feel a big man about some help your company gives to the uninsured...at the expense of the taxpayer.

its not all about you mate...what happens to the guy down the street Does affect you. we are all part of society. If we don't take care of these problems at a Federal level, one day that problem will come knocking on Your or My door...and it won't be pleasent for us or our families.

Grow up.
 
Why would McCain be worse, other than having Idiot Boobs as his running mate?

If someone can be willing to sell his own principals just to get elected, yes that does make him worse. McCain in 2000 would have been a great candidate. Him or Gore, this country would have been OK. But the fact McCain selected Idiot Boobs as you rightly call her means he was willing to sell out his country. If he toppled over that stupid woman who would not have been qualified to be my clerk would be President. and that is OK?

Read what you post and think about it.
 
ruf..sorry to say..you don't give a damn about the millions who are without health insurance. You gloss over all the lies your god bush said and did to bring this country to its knees. and you feel a big man about some help your company gives to the uninsured...at the expense of the taxpayer.

its not all about you mate...what happens to the guy down the street Does affect you. we are all part of society. If we don't take care of these problems at a Federal level, one day that problem will come knocking on Your or My door...and it won't be pleasent for us or our families.

Grow up.

Name one "federal level" program that is not in the red or on the verge on insolvency. So your solution is to hand over government control on healthcare ?

If you are so worried about our children and our "families", have you stopped to think who is going to pay for this out of control government spending ?

You are the one stuck on left wing ideology, its plain for anyone to see in here....and stop dragging Bush out time and time again, he's no longer in office remember ?

The fact that the election in Mass. is so close is a stinging indictment to the type of politics that you promote. Coakley may yet end up winning (should be a no brainer in a state where 11% of registered voters are republicans) yet the polls show a statistical dead heat. Why ? Because independants have left the "change" revolution in droves and even some democrats realize that the amount of spending coming out of washington is unsustainable (of course, you think government should be the solution to all of societys ills).

Spare me the personal tirade...you waft on philosophically about the healthcare debate from behind a keyboard while others are actively engaged on a daily basis (and as you correctly point out, paying taxes)
 
After fabricating evidence about WMD's, plunging the country into war, screwing the economy...yeah, it made sense to vote for the imbecile

last time I checked, its been over a year since he left office....do you have any other argument to offer or is "blame bush" the standard mantra around here ?
 
Lets tally the score shall we ?

Copenhagen Obama Visit = Fail

Chicago Olympic Bid Obama Visit = Fail

New Jersey Governors Race Obama Visit = Fail

Virginia Governors Race Obama Visit = Fail

Massachusetts Senate Race Obama Visit = ?????


A new kind of politics :lol:
 
I blame Bush.
Not really but I do blame Reagan
 
Name one "federal level" program that is not in the red or on the verge on insolvency. So your solution is to hand over government control on healthcare ?

If you are so worried about our children and our "families", have you stopped to think who is going to pay for this out of control government spending ?

You are the one stuck on left wing ideology, its plain for anyone to see in here....and stop dragging Bush out time and time again, he's no longer in office remember ?

The fact that the election in Mass. is so close is a stinging indictment to the type of politics that you promote. Coakley may yet end up winning (should be a no brainer in a state where 11% of registered voters are republicans) yet the polls show a statistical dead heat. Why ? Because independants have left the "change" revolution in droves and even some democrats realize that the amount of spending coming out of washington is unsustainable (of course, you think government should be the solution to all of societys ills).

Spare me the personal tirade...you waft on philosophically about the healthcare debate from behind a keyboard while others are actively engaged on a daily basis (and as you correctly point out, paying taxes)

Bush has to be dragged in because he left this mess for others to clean up. You are either too stupid to understand that are too blinded by hatred of a black man being your President.

And you still have not answered my statement that your charity you so proudly claim to do for uninsured is nothing more than passing the buck to the taxpayer.

the point of my post is collective responsibility. You don't get that.

and you are willing to balance the budget on the back of those who are suffering the most.

Its OK for people to go bankrupt because they cannot pay their health care bills in your world.
a calamity should happen to you or your family to understand...but probably you still wont get it.
 
Bush has to be dragged in because he left this mess for others to clean up. You are either too stupid to understand that are too blinded by hatred of a black man being your President.

And you still have not answered my statement that your charity you so proudly claim to do for uninsured is nothing more than passing the buck to the taxpayer.

the point of my post is collective responsibility. You don't get that.

and you are willing to balance the budget on the back of those who are suffering the most.

Its OK for people to go bankrupt because they cannot pay their health care bills in your world.
a calamity should happen to you or your family to understand...but probably you still wont get it.

Nice...wishing a calamity on me or my family just because I don't agree with your utopian ideology...feck off
 
a calamity should happen to you or your family to understand...but probably you still wont get it.

yeah, thats ambiguous....tool

Since you're big on answering questions, I'll repeat some for you ;

Name one "federal level" program that is not in the red or on the verge on insolvency. So your solution is to hand over government control on healthcare ?

If you are so worried about our children and our "families", have you stopped to think who is going to pay for this out of control government spending ?

You are the one stuck on left wing ideology, its plain for anyone to see in here....and stop dragging Bush out time and time again, he's no longer in office remember ?

The fact that the election in Mass. is so close is a stinging indictment to the type of politics that you promote. Coakley may yet end up winning (should be a no brainer in a state where 11% of registered voters are republicans) yet the polls show a statistical dead heat. Why ? Because independants have left the "change" revolution in droves and even some democrats realize that the amount of spending coming out of washington is unsustainable (of course, you think government should be the solution to all of societys ills).

Spare me the personal tirade...you waft on philosophically about the healthcare debate from behind a keyboard while others are actively engaged on a daily basis (and as you correctly point out, paying taxes)
 
yeah, thats ambiguous....tool

Since you're big on answering questions, I'll repeat some for you ;

Name one "federal level" program that is not in the red or on the verge on insolvency. So your solution is to hand over government control on healthcare ?


If you are so worried about our children and our "families", have you stopped to think who is going to pay for this out of control government spending ?



You are the one stuck on left wing ideology, its plain for anyone to see in here....and stop dragging Bush out time and time again, he's no longer in office remember ?

.

The fact that the election in Mass. is so close is a stinging indictment to the type of politics that you promote. Coakley may yet end up winning (should be a no brainer in a state where 11% of registered voters are republicans) yet the polls show a statistical dead heat. Why ? Because independants have left the "change" revolution in droves and even some democrats realize that the amount of spending coming out of washington is unsustainable (of course, you think government should be the solution to all of societys ills).



Spare me the personal tirade...you waft on philosophically about the healthcare debate from behind a keyboard while others are actively engaged on a daily basis (and as you correctly point out, paying taxes)

Of course they need to be funded...but politicians are about kicking the can down the road than address it.

1.Caps should be lifted for social security
Medicare should be for all.
We have the opportunity to get the best of both worlds with health care.
universal coverage with a public option to bring down premiums for all. The next step would be to address the Pharmas and Hospitals that are making huge bucks.

2.We cannot balance the budget in a recession...Keynesian theory. But of course ultimately the goal should be a balance budget. the solution is to keep more jobs here than exporting them as we have done. We need to manufacture here. More people employed...more money will be spent. It will take time.

3.I have addressed the bit about Bush being out of office.

4.Coakley ran a poor campaign and deserves to lose. People have short attention spans....and they are impatient. They forget what the Republicans did for 8 years...
 
in no way do I wish harm upon you or yours.

sorry about the poor choice of words to make my point.

apology accepted. you're opinionated and sometimes passions get ahead of us...I've been known to do that :angel:
 
just thinking of the Mas senate seat. I think...or hope she loses.

That way they will Have to get Health Care done through reconciliation. A straight up and down vote...and we can have the public option in.

If she loses, dems across the board will reevaluate. Think of it, a dem loses a senate race in massachusetts...that has to be a stinging rebuke to current policies and governance.

Dems will take note, and I suspect a few from the House and Senate will change votes out of pragmatism. They may not even make 51 votes if Coakley loses.

I wouldn't lose too much sleep though Red....a republican winning in Massachusetts would be nigh on impossible. The fact that it is even close is the story here.
 
If she loses, dems across the board will reevaluate. Think of it, a dem loses a senate race in massachusetts...that has to be a stinging rebuke to current policies and governance.

Dems will take note, and I suspect a few from the House and Senate will change votes out of pragmatism. They may not even make 51 votes if Coakley loses.

I wouldn't lose too much sleep though Red....a republican winning in Massachusetts would be nigh on impossible. The fact that it is even close is the story here.

just sick of people on both sides playing 'politics'...I know that is the game...but you know what I mean...heck compromise...get something done for others instead of worrying about getting elected...and forgetting why you are if office.


Obama as much I like him Is a politician.....and he wants his two terms...I think he will get some changes done....

but too much damage has been done to our country...and both parties are to be blamed. Nothing wrong with companies being profitable...but at what cost.

one final point. The Health Insurance Industry? now that is one industry that imo adds zero value to service...I mean Zero.

all the people employed would need to migrate to care giving...

feck mate...we are in such a mess.....and I agree at some point we are gpoing to hand this over to our kids...lets clean it up now...do what we can Together ffs.

sorry for the rambling.....

I am still giddy from us finally winning one and seeing Shitty lose..the cnuts :)
 
If she loses, dems across the board will reevaluate. Think of it, a dem loses a senate race in massachusetts...that has to be a stinging rebuke to current policies and governance.

Dems will take note, and I suspect a few from the House and Senate will change votes out of pragmatism. They may not even make 51 votes if Coakley loses.

I wouldn't lose too much sleep though Red....a republican winning in Massachusetts would be nigh on impossible. The fact that it is even close is the story here.

Its not as strange as one might think. They've had two prominent Governors (Weld and Romney) there within the past 16 years. Weld was geopolitically more liberal than a modern Blue Dog, and Romney is basically a fiscal conservative Mormon who used Mass to propel himself into national politics. The misconception that Mass is a Democratic lock comes from Kennedy's length of tenure (and before him his brother Jack), and not necessarily a commitment to liberal politics, as evidenced by their elections of two GOP Governors. So even if the Democratic candidate unexpetedly loses, it wouldn't be sufficient to tie it to a "rebuke of Obamamania".
 
Oh that doesn't bother me, it's just the internet and I see nothing wrong with some banter and the like. It's fun trying to one up another poster. ;)

all good people on here mate...I mean it...

Me? I tend fly off the handle a bit too often...I stopped going to see matches a long time ago...always some idiot saying something and we are having a fight over nothing...

I tend to wear my heart on my sleeve....thats my problem. ;)
 
Its not as strange as one might think. They've had two prominent Governors (Weld and Romney) there within the past 16 years. Weld was geopolitically more liberal than a modern Blue Dog, and Romney is basically a fiscal conservative Mormon who used Mass to propel himself into national politics. The misconception that Mass is a Democratic lock comes from Kennedy's length of tenure (and before him his brother Jack), and not necessarily a commitment to liberal politics, as evidenced by their elections of two GOP Governors. So even if the Democratic candidate unexpetedly loses, it wouldn't be sufficient to tie it to a "rebuke of Obamamania".

good point. President Kennedy was pretty conservative by today's standards...but then he died in 1963. I think he would have evolved into a Liberal like his brother if he had lived.
 
Its not as strange as one might think. They've had two prominent Governors (Weld and Romney) there within the past 16 years. Weld was geopolitically more liberal than a modern Blue Dog, and Romney is basically a fiscal conservative Mormon who used Mass to propel himself into national politics. The misconception that Mass is a Democratic lock comes from Kennedy's length of tenure (and before him his brother Jack), and not necessarily a commitment to liberal politics, as evidenced by their elections of two GOP Governors. So even if the Democratic candidate unexpetedly loses, it wouldn't be sufficient to tie it to a "rebuke of Obamamania".


aaah classic downplay the signficance talk.

One year into a presidency and he is scrambling to save the "safest" democratic senate seat in the country.

If its not a rebuke of his presidency, what is it ? A vote of confidence ? :lol:

11% registered republicans...who are committing to vote for Brown then ? Answer, independants and disaffected dems.....gasp ! The Mass. electorate are not dumb...they know a vote for Brown could kill the current healthcare bill, and they apparently have no problem with that.

THAT is the indictment of Obamacare my friend, and no amount of "head in sand" proclamations will make it go away.
 
aaah classic downplay the signficance talk.

One year into a presidency and he is scrambling to save the "safest" democratic senate seat in the country.

If its not a rebuke of his presidency, what is it ? A vote of confidence ? :lol:

11% registered republicans...who are committing to vote for Brown then ? Answer, independants and disaffected dems.....gasp ! The Mass. electorate are not dumb...they know a vote for Brown could kill the current healthcare bill, and they apparently have no problem with that.

THAT is the indictment of Obamacare my friend, and no amount of "head in sand" proclamations will make it go away.

Its neither a rebuke nor an affirmation. The people of Mass can vote for whoever they please. If the Dems don't put out a compelling candidate, or else if the party takes a routine approach to the election that allows the GOP candidate to pick up votes, then those are the factors that will decide who wins. Second, its rather strange that you should suggest a state like Massachusetts would be opposed to health care reform when polls show a majority of the country are in favor of it, and the New England states probably more so. Again, your argument does add up.
 
Its neither a rebuke nor an affirmation. The people of Mass can vote for whoever they please. If the Dems don't put out a compelling candidate, or else if the party takes a routine approach to the election that allows the GOP candidate to pick up votes, then those are the factors that will decide who wins. Second, its rather strange that you should suggest a state like Massachusetts would be opposed to health care reform when polls show a majority of the country are in favor of it, and the New England states probably more so. Again, your argument does add up.



:lol:


I don't know what polls you are looking at Raoul, but check out the following from Rasmussen just last week. The numbers in all aspects of healthcare debate are not good reading for starry eyed dems like yourself ;

"Advertisement
Health Care Reform
17% Expect Health Care Plan To Lower Costs, 57% Expect Costs to Go Up
Monday, January 11, 2010 Email to a Friend ShareThisAdvertisement
Voter expectations that the health care legislation before Congress will become law have reached a new high, but most are still opposed to the plan.

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey shows that just 17% believe passage of the legislation will achieve the stated goal of reducing health care costs. Fifty-seven percent (57%) think it will lead to higher costs.

Fifty-two percent (52%) also believe passage of the legislation will lead to a decline in the quality of care.

Overall, 40% of voters nationwide favor the health care reform plan proposed by President Obama and congressional Democrats. Fifty-five percent (55%) are opposed. As has been the case throughout the debate, those who feel strongly about the issue are more likely to be opposed. Just 19% of voters Strongly Favor the plan while 45% are Strongly Opposed.

Rasmussen Reports tracks support for the health care plan weekly and releases new findings every Monday morning.

(Want a free daily e-mail update? If it's in the news, it's in our polls). Rasmussen Reports updates are also available on Twitter or Facebook.

When it comes to paying for the plan, voters are okay with taxing the rich but strongly reject cuts in Medicare and excise taxes on “Cadillac” health plans provided by employers. Adding to concerns about paying for the plan is the fact that 78% expect it to cost more than projected. Voters overwhelmingly believe passage of the plan will increase the federal deficit and lead to middle class tax hikes.

Both support and opposition for the plan have changed little since Thanksgiving (see question wording and trends). Eighty-six percent (86%) of liberals favor the plan, and 82% of conservatives oppose it. Among political moderates, 48% are in favor, and 40% are opposed.

Despite the ongoing public opposition, 69% say it’s at least somewhat likely that the bill will pass. That figure is up four points from a week ago and includes 31% who say passage is Very Likely.

While most Americans oppose the overall plan, two reforms in the plan are supported by more than 70% of the public -- creating a new national insurance exchange and requiring health insurance companies to accept applicants with pre-existing conditions. Some other parts of the plan are popular as well. Still, polling data released two weeks ago showed that reminding voters of what’s in the plan does not increase support for it.

From the beginning of the health care debate, a major challenge has been the fact that most Americans have health insurance and are generally happy with their coverage. However, 52% of voters fear that they could be forced to change insurance if the health care legislation passes.

Also consistent throughout the health care debate has been the partisan nature of the response. The latest numbers show that 72% of Democrats favor the plan while 83% of Republicans oppose it. Among those not affiliated with either major party, 30% are in support of the plan, and 60% are opposed.

Most voters favor the ban on abortion coverage for insurance plans that receive federal subsidies, and 47% believe each state should have the right to opt out of the federal plan if it passes. On a related topic, 34% favor a single-payer national health insurance system. ."
 
Status
Not open for further replies.