Obama and the Supreme Court

[Nathan Poe]

The leader is always at fault for what his subordinates do. While the peon gets fired, his manager is blamed for the mistake, and the manager’s boss loses some…. I cant find the right word to put here.

Respect?

But how far up the food chain are you willing to go? Of course, all the way to Obama, but seriously -- if the general couldn't control himself, then Obama did the right thing by sacking him. And yet, Obama deserves to be called out for having a sackable general in his employ? He saw a problem; he solved it.

I’m not being melodramatic. On bush’s way out the door, he didn’t care at all about our economy and Obama was supposed to play catch but he dropped the ball.

So, it sounds like you're holding Bush responsible as well -- no argument there. The big question is, what could Obama have done to make the recovery quicker and more efficient?

I know far too many people who aren’t with us because of it.

if you don't mind me asking, how so?

While neither obama nor bush can be blamed for the end result, they certainly are to blame for the situation that matches the result.

Come again?

realistic goals while striving for unrealistic achievements.

Fair enough.

not so blindly and not the whole system and as ows. Because I hope for unrealistic achievements, I wont go trampling on everyone’s front lawn, but I certainly will speak my mind.

Speak away.

and where do the profits come from? the people who are paying the insurance company. Therefore, the customer still foots the bill. unless of course they are printing money.

So even when the churches aren't paying for it, they're still paying for it. Of course, by that logic, they're paying for the condoms being provided to the businesses they don't run.

I couldn’t care less if the insurance company loses money as long as its done in a worthwhile way. Forcing anyone to supply something is unconstitutional especially when they believe that its wrong.

The insurance companies don't think it's wrong -- and they're the ones being forced, thanks to a sweetheart deal with the church.

Its not like someone brought up this idea after the bill was proposed or even in our recent history. That sect was against birth control for centuries.

And that's why they're not paying one cent out of their pockets for anyone's birth control.

Again, by your logic, churches should only sign with insurance companies who refuse to provide birth control services to anyone -- that way, they'll be assured that not one cent of their money will ever go to a service they're opposed to.

Then do you fully credit bush for tarp reform?

I'm not ashamed to admit that he did his part to do something right.

[QUOTE]Do you mean if someone else was president or if he simply hadn’t signed it? Clinton would have signed the healthcare bill in a heart beat.[/QUOET]

And if Clinton had, she'd (I assume you mean Hillary, not Bill -- although he probably would've done it too) get the credit. But she didn't -- Obama did.

I wasn’t speaking 100% literal. I simply ment that 80-90% of what he has done isn’t helping. If you ran in circles for a year straight, you may be getting a work out, but your not going anywhere (again, not literally as you are actually going in circles).

Fair enough -- although inaccurate -- but we'll have to agree to disagree on that one.

But at least our politicians would actually have know what was in the law instead of having people tell them whats in it. It’s the worst possible thing they can do. Well ok maybe not buts its close.

And in about 30-40 years, enough of it would've gotten done to actually have meant something.

you also don’t send them in completely blind if you can avoid it.

They're not blind if they don't take the trouble to actually read the intel -- just lazy.

Granted, the Health Care Reform was a herculean bill that doesn't translate well into the soundbyte mentality that our nations pols are used to thinking and talking in -- but whose fault is that?

I’m saying that he should be given credit for what he did. If he wrote any of the law, then he deserves credit for that. The law wasn’t his idea, he does not deserve that credit. Because the overwhelming majority of the credit should be given to so many people, the only thing I would credit (and from my perspective fault) to obama is actually getting the bill passed and he shouldn’t even be given all the credit there either.

And yet, he still gets the lion's share (heck, he gets all) of the blame from the right -- double standard?

We will have to agree to disagree.

Fair enough.

But any state that tries to deny a homosexual marriage is in violation of equality. Each state must treat all members of any sex identically.

According to whom? No such right exists in the Constitution or any federal statute. Who can or cannot get married still varies from state to state. That's why different states have different rules about things such as age of consent, whether or not cousins can marry, etc.

Because no federal protections are violated (as sexual orientation is not protected), a state can choose on its own whether or not people of the same gender can marry.

My point is they are adding things to it’s list. Why not this one? Just because the states can doesn’t mean the fed shouldn’t.

I agree, they should -- if for no other reason than to give the Religious Right a collective aneurysm.

But I'm not going to blame Obama for not trying to do something which the Right will only allow over their dead bodies (look how they cried over the DADT repeal) -- he knows he doesn't have anywhere near the political clout.

And if more states follow suit, he won't have to. Gay marriage is allowed, and the federal government stays small -- everybody wins.

They don’t have to be the worst. They just have to be bad enough. And if enough have the same faults, the US will be left with one awful problem in one spot and it can/will drag down what they were good at doing. Say for example every president we have for the next 10 years is awful with the economy. Nothing else will matter because we wont be able to pay for it.

Agreed -- but that requires a string of presidents all with the same blind spot. If the national parties whom we have placed so much -- too much -- trust in can't conjure up someone with a solution, then they don't deserve to exist.

And if we continue to follow them so blindly over the cliff -- perhaps neither does America.

[QUOTE]It would be nice to know for certain how much some projects have helped/hurt.[QUOTE]

Lacking Mr. Peabody and his Wayback Machine, we can only speculate.

A friend once told me that you cant just topple over a vending machine. You should rock it back and forth several times and then its easy. With every time it gets wrecked, people see it and say its happened before and try to convince themselves that its not as bad as it has been before. I cannot claim that this is the worst because I don’t know. I cannot claim that our “vending machine” will fall over because I don’t know. I don’t even know at what point our “vending machine” will fall over. What I do know is that I want change and not the kind of change that is rushed or forced through. I want solid and productive change for the better.

Well who doesn't!? Every president, every politician, every leader (no matter how incompetent)wants that -- what they disagree on is exactly what constitutes a "productive change for the better." Everyone has their own idea; everyone wants the chance to try.

well apparently I haven’t said it straight out yet so I’ll do that now. The operation Obama started in Libya was a great tactical move even if I don’t agree with how he finished it. Sending our troops into Iran to get that shmuck was ballsy, I think there was a better option but I’m not the one with advisors.

If the schmuck in question is Bin Laden, you mean Pakistan. And I see that from a strictly tactical point of view, it changes nothing. Bin Laden is more of a figurehead than a mastermind -- cut off the hydra's head, a new one pops up; Al-Qaeda hasn't surrendered, nor did anyone expect it to.

Killing Bin Laden was more for a domestic boost than anything else -- the people of the US got a measure of closure, even if it was more symbolic than anything else. And let's face it -- it didn't hurt the President's popularity either.

It was a gamble, but it paid off.

(And of course, how much would you blame him if it turned out he had the opportunity, but passed on it -- or worse, gave the order and had the whole operation go sideways!)

Literally, I personally feel those two things were the only good things he’s done his whole presidency. Additionally I’ll have to credit him for the gay rights in hospitals thing but I’m still thinking about how much to actually give.

I'm sure you'll find the necessary rationale to give as little as possible.

That’s possible but knowing the man, I think its because he’s just not ambitious.

Too bad -- it's going to take ambition -- the right kind of ambition -- to really help this country. I sometimes wonder if that kind of ambition even exists anymore.

they would never have had the chance if Obama was doing what America wanted. Getting them jobs. The biggest thing we needed help with was our economy and all Obama did was waste money on “shovel ready” plans that everyone who knew anything knew wasn’t going to do anything. As you said, we need lasting spending.

"Getting them jobs"? Obama extended the Bush bailouts to keep some of the biggest companies in the country from going chapter 11, which would've cost who knows how many thousands of jobs -- and the Right raked him over the coals for it!

Enough of what the people want -- a leader's duty is to give people what they need. In that respect, I'll lay some blame on Obama for bad timing. Obama took a gamble, and lost -- I personally think that health care reform was noble, but ill-timed. Economy first, Obamacare should've been tabled until his second term (which wouldn't be in question if he had atacked the economy first).

no, I know plenty of people who blindly vote for the democrat or the repub. Its probably the worst thing you can do but if you try to talk to them about it, make sure they cant easily get to a weapon.

Some people just don't want to think, and will happily let others do it for them.

You can count on it.

Sadly true, but if we don’t have hope, all we are left with is our weapons.


Yea, obama actually passed a couple of things he promised. I don’t think Romney will do anything hes promising. I have no idea who I’m voting for. How about you? Do you want to run? (again this isnt entirely literal)

As I said, I haven't voted in over a decade, and see no reason to start now.

And you said you'd be the worst person for the job -- I disagree; I nominate myself. That doesn't mean I wouldn't jump at the chance if I thought I could win.

[odis]

Respect?

But how far up the food chain are you willing to go? Of course, all the way to Obama, but seriously -- if the general couldn't control himself, then Obama did the right thing by sacking him. And yet, Obama deserves to be called out for having a sackable general in his employ? He saw a problem; he solved it.

Agreed. All I am saying is that obama should have talked to his general more and if he found his general so grieved by the situation, he should have known that his general was not capable to lead his men through the war as obama wanted to fight it. This is why every boss shares in his underlings mistakes and the mistakes of their underlings. If you’re the managing a project, and one of your managers employs someone who is unfit, it is your fault for giving the position to the guy who was not fully competent to fulfill his duties by giving a job to someone so unfit. Obama himself is not solely responsible for the deaths of his soldiers, nor is he fully responsible for any outcomes; in fact he would be significantly less responsible if he didn’t stand up telling the country that he was the man for the job. But he did. He made the claim that he was going to bring our boys home! That being said, Obama is highly responsible for putting an unqualified/stubborn and unwilling to change tactics/lose cannon/other (take your pick) into the commander’s chair.

When the guy In the driver’s seat is having trouble and smashing the panic button, you either give him some help or swap out the driver. You don’t wait for all hell to break loose.

So, it sounds like you're holding Bush responsible as well -- no argument there. The big question is, what could Obama have done to make the recovery quicker and more efficient?

The bill obama rushed through to save our economy was disastrous. Cash for clunkers only helped those with money buy another car. In the end the only thing it really did was create a car-buying-bubble followed by a slump. How about buying half of each bank that needed the bail out and turning them into much smaller and more profitable businesses and selling them off again? How about not investing loads of cash into businesses that were too new to know if any present economy could have supported them? The money given away by this president was given away in such a rush that a lot of it was wasted. How about some anti-fraud programs? i personally know at least 20 people taking advantage of multiple programs that all have the condition that they dont sign up for another program, and most of them would already have been turned in except that many people in the "slums" only go by their nick names and so no one knows their real ones.

if you don't mind me asking, how so?

Owners of businesses can be prideful. When you loose your business, wife and kids, and your home, you tend to feel you don’t have any reason to live for and the embarrassment to compound it further. I only know because I lost my cousin in a similar way.

Come again?

Neither man created/intentionally reinforced the situation that caused my friends to do what they did and so they cannot be accountable. However they did bring it about and so I should be far less trusting with their ideas and actions.

So even when the churches aren't paying for it, they're still paying for it. Of course, by that logic, they're paying for the condoms being provided to the businesses they don't run.

They are partially yes. However, if no one wants the condoms to be included, then no. Either way, its still wrong to force anyone to buy anything, AND it adds insult to injury when you also force them to add something else to the list that they feel is wrong to supply.

The insurance companies don't think it's wrong -- and they're the ones being forced, thanks to a sweetheart deal with the church.

I couldn’t care less if the insurance company loses money as long as its done in a worthwhile way. Forcing anyone to supply something is unconstitutional especially when it’s a religious organization and they believe that its wrong.

Fixed.

And that's why they're not paying one cent out of their pockets for anyone's birth control.

Again, by your logic, churches should only sign with insurance companies who refuse to provide birth control services to anyone -- that way, they'll be assured that not one cent of their money will ever go to a service they're opposed to.

And the great thing about our country is that they can do just that…. That is of course unless obama forces all insurance companies to supply condoms and also forces everyone to buy health insurance of course….. because then he literally would be forcing religious institutions to do something they feel is wrong.

I'm not ashamed to admit that he did his part to do something right.

Except that tarp is responsible for the housing bubble….

Do you mean if someone else was president or if he simply hadn’t signed it? Clinton would have signed the healthcare bill in a heart beat.

And if Clinton had, she'd (I assume you mean Hillary, not Bill -- although he probably would've done it too) get the credit. But she didn't -- Obama did.

Neither of us assign credit/fault in remotely similar ways. We will forever disagree when it comes to anything of this nature. I credit/blame the entire system at varying levels dependent on their control of the situation, you don’t seem to.

And in about 30-40 years, enough of it would've gotten done to actually have meant something.

better that than the catastrophe we will have when it gets taken down by the supreme court.

They're not blind if they don't take the trouble to actually read the intel -- just lazy.

They are when the bill is so massive that you cant read it in time to accurately understand what it says. Like you said, politicians lie. We cant trust them. Do you think they trust each other? Not a single one read enough of that bill to understand anything that it says. I copied wiki’s notes just of that bill, in times roman single spaced 12 font, and they are 20 pages long and had to cite 339 references (not really including them all and I am willing to bet that about half that number is the political bull that was thrown back and forth). When you have 20 pages worth of just notes and most of it is still to come because no one posting on wiki has any idea how the rest of this bull is going to play out, you have a problem!

Granted, the Health Care Reform was a herculean bill that doesn't translate well into the soundbyte mentality that our nations pols are used to thinking and talking in -- but whose fault is that?

About a quarter of the bill doesn’t take effect until 2020 anyway. Why not propose it in 4 separate bills, at least then its somewhat manageable?

And yet, he still gets the lion's share (heck, he gets all) of the blame from the right -- double standard?

How is this a double standard? I am not the right and I do not care for how everyone else rests the blame nor should i be faulted for it.

According to whom? No such right exists in the Constitution or any federal statute. Who can or cannot get married still varies from state to state. That's why different states have different rules about things such as age of consent, whether or not cousins can marry, etc.

Because no federal protections are violated (as sexual orientation is not protected), a state can choose on its own whether or not people of the same gender can marry.

Because they are treating one person differently than another for something that is not illegal and has nothing to do with the preset list of qualifications such as financial standing.

I agree, they should -- if for no other reason than to give the Religious Right a collective aneurysm.

But I'm not going to blame Obama for not trying to do something which the Right will only allow over their dead bodies (look how they cried over the DADT repeal) -- he knows he doesn't have anywhere near the political clout.

And if more states follow suit, he won't have to. Gay marriage is allowed, and the federal government stays small -- everybody wins.

Unless of course states begin to ban same sexy marriage and he hides in the corner yelling something about intolerance and pointing his finger at the right when as I already pointed out, he would actually gain by passing it into law. What it seems that hes trying to do is press the issue and bring it up a lot in order to gain political superiority by dividing up the political right with this issue. You yourself would have to agree that its wrong to allow this to continue for this purpose.

Agreed -- but that requires a string of presidents all with the same blind spot. If the national parties whom we have placed so much -- too much -- trust in can't conjure up someone with a solution, then they don't deserve to exist.

And if we continue to follow them so blindly over the cliff -- perhaps neither does America.

And that is why I NEVER give anyone a complete pass for any of their faults. I may ignore them because of some redeeming qualities, but I always make a list. It helps me keep my eyes open.

Well who doesn't!? Every president, every politician, every leader (no matter how incompetent)wants that -- what they disagree on is exactly what constitutes a "productive change for the better." Everyone has their own idea; everyone wants the chance to try.

LOL! No they don’t… they want the power/money/respect that being successful gives. If they really wanted positive change, they would constantly be tweaking the systems/laws in order to find what works the best. Instead everyone wants to impose huge legislation with their name on it to claim their successes.

If the schmuck in question is Bin Laden, you mean Pakistan. And I see that from a strictly tactical point of view, it changes nothing. Bin Laden is more of a figurehead than a mastermind -- cut off the hydra's head, a new one pops up; Al-Qaeda hasn't surrendered, nor did anyone expect it to.

Killing Bin Laden was more for a domestic boost than anything else -- the people of the US got a measure of closure, even if it was more symbolic than anything else. And let's face it -- it didn't hurt the President's popularity either.

It was a gamble, but it paid off.

(And of course, how much would you blame him if it turned out he had the opportunity, but passed on it -- or worse, gave the order and had the whole operation go sideways!)

Don’t go looking for the Wayback Machine. I don’t want to know. all things considered, it probably ended about as well as it could have.

I'm sure you'll find the necessary rationale to give as little as possible.

What have I said that makes you think so?

"Getting them jobs"? Obama extended the Bush bailouts to keep some of the biggest companies in the country from going chapter 11, which would've cost who knows how many thousands of jobs -- and the Right raked him over the coals for it!

There are better options to just bailing them out. If I were the president, I would have given them 3 options, buy half the business and divide it up into smaller more profitable businesses, help them to split themselves up, or allow them to go it alone. Just throwing money at the problem was the German’s solution and it got them one of the worst war planes in history.

But along the same lines, it was dumb for bush to do it, so why continue with the stupidity?

[Nathan Poe]

Agreed. All I am saying is that obama should have talked to his general more and if he found his general so grieved by the situation, he should have known that his general was not capable to lead his men through the war as obama wanted to fight it.

Seems clear that Obama had too much faith in the general to follow orders. I'll hold him responsible for that, but at least he fixed it -- better late than never.

When the guy In the driver’s seat is having trouble and smashing the panic button, you either give him some help or swap out the driver. You don’t wait for all hell to break loose.

Except the general wasn't "smashing the panic button" -- he was behaving unprofessionally.

The bill obama rushed through to save our economy was disastrous. Cash for clunkers only helped those with money buy another car. In the end the only thing it really did was create a car-buying-bubble followed by a slump.

No argument -- but doing nothing and "letting the market correct itself" wouldn't have been much of an improvement.

How about buying half of each bank that needed the bail out and turning them into much smaller and more profitable businesses and selling them off again?

[

Sure -- it's not like the Right has enough to howl "SOCIALISM!!!!" over.

How about not investing loads of cash into businesses that were too new to know if any present economy could have supported them?

It was a gamble -- and in the end, it lost. Obama is responsible for that.

The money given away by this president was given away in such a rush that a lot of it was wasted. How about some anti-fraud programs? i personally know at least 20 people taking advantage of multiple programs that all have the condition that they dont sign up for another program, and most of them would already have been turned in except that many people in the "slums" only go by their nick names and so no one knows their real ones.

You're talking about reform, and plugging up the holes. Preaching to the choir; I've been in favor of that for a long time.

Owners of businesses can be prideful. When you loose your business, wife and kids, and your home, you tend to feel you don’t have any reason to live for and the embarrassment to compound it further. I only know because I lost my cousin in a similar way.

Sorry to hear that.

They are partially yes. However, if no one wants the condoms to be included, then no.

Well, clearly someone does want them included.

Either way, its still wrong to force anyone to buy anything, AND it adds insult to injury when you also force them to add something else to the list that they feel is wrong to supply.

Fair enough.

And the great thing about our country is that they can do just that…. That is of course unless obama forces all insurance companies to supply condoms and also forces everyone to buy health insurance of course….. because then he literally would be forcing religious institutions to do something they feel is wrong.

The problem is that no such insurance company exists -- so long as some employers are willing to provide contraceptive services, the insurers will.

Except that tarp is responsible for the housing bubble….

So does Bush get the blame for that?

Neither of us assign credit/fault in remotely similar ways. We will forever disagree when it comes to anything of this nature. I credit/blame the entire system at varying levels dependent on their control of the situation, you don’t seem to.

Actually I do -- but neither Obama, Bush, no any president is singlehandedly "the system."

better that than the catastrophe we will have when it gets taken down by the supreme court.

Seems no different.

They are when the bill is so massive that you cant read it in time to accurately understand what it says. Like you said, politicians lie. We cant trust them. Do you think they trust each other? Not a single one read enough of that bill to understand anything that it says.

So whose fault is that? Reason #5,286 not to trust them -- they're lazy.

I copied wiki’s notes just of that bill, in times roman single spaced 12 font, and they are 20 pages long and had to cite 339 references (not really including them all and I am willing to bet that about half that number is the political bull that was thrown back and forth). When you have 20 pages worth of just notes and most of it is still to come because no one posting on wiki has any idea how the rest of this bull is going to play out, you have a problem!

Nevertheless, my point stands -- overhauling the country's entire medical system isn't going to fit on a pamphlet.

Obamacare is probably going to go down as his biggest mistake -- not necessarily because it's a bad idea, but because of the timing -- Obama should've been focusing on fixing the economy.

About a quarter of the bill doesn’t take effect until 2020 anyway. Why not propose it in 4 separate bills, at least then its somewhat manageable?

I don't know why he did what he did or didn't do what he didn't do.

How is this a double standard? I am not the right and I do not care for how everyone else rests the blame nor should i be faulted for it.

That's why I specified the right, and not you.

Because they are treating one person differently than another for something that is not illegal and has nothing to do with the preset list of qualifications such as financial standing.

Nevertheless, it is within their power to do so, unless someone amends the Constitution.

Unless of course states begin to ban same sexy marriage and he hides in the corner yelling something about intolerance and pointing his finger at the right when as I already pointed out, he would actually gain by passing it into law. What it seems that hes trying to do is press the issue and bring it up a lot in order to gain political superiority by dividing up the political right with this issue. You yourself would have to agree that its wrong to allow this to continue for this purpose.

Actually, I don't have to agree that's it's wrong -- I think it's a sharp piece of political maneuvering.

Obama supports gay marriage, but he's gotta know that he doesn't have the political clout to accomplish it on a federal level. he has nothing to gain from failure.

And let's be honest about one thing -- there is no way that a gay marriage amendment would pass Congress -- let alone get ratified by enough states to make it. (maybe in a few years, but now? Not a snowball's chance in hades.)

So he throws his moral support behind those states which pass it, and lets the Right (which gives a lot of lip service to "states' rights") froth at the mouth over states which actually exercise their rights.

So you're absolutely right -- he's using it to get political superiority which dividing the right on the issue -- separating the actual Conservatives (the ones who actually want less government in their lives) from the Religious Reich Right.

It's called "Divide and Conquer" -- and it works.

And that is why I NEVER give anyone a complete pass for any of their faults. I may ignore them because of some redeeming qualities, but I always make a list. It helps me keep my eyes open.

As do I -- we just seem to disagree as to what we're willing to ignore.

LOL! No they don’t… they want the power/money/respect that being successful gives. If they really wanted positive change, they would constantly be tweaking the systems/laws in order to find what works the best. Instead everyone wants to impose huge legislation with their name on it to claim their successes.

I guess I was a cockeyed optimist there for a second... the (non-corrupt) politicians in this country (all twelve of them) are the way I've described them -- they want to help, but disagree as to how. The rest... well, they are in it mostly for themselves.

Don’t go looking for the Wayback Machine. I don’t want to know. all things considered, it probably ended about as well as it could have.

It is what it is.

There are better options to just bailing them out. If I were the president, I would have given them 3 options, buy half the business and divide it up into smaller more profitable businesses, help them to split themselves up, or allow them to go it alone. Just throwing money at the problem was the German’s solution and it got them one of the worst war planes in history.

But along the same lines, it was dumb for bush to do it, so why continue with the stupidity?

Because Obama's trying hard to distance himself from the "Socialist" label the right has hung on him -- using the government to buy out and dismantle businesses wouldn't have helped his case.

Again, it was a questionable move, but it was the one that sucked the least.

[odis]

Seems clear that Obama had too much faith in the general to follow orders. I'll hold him responsible for that, but at least he fixed it -- better late than never.

Except the general wasn't "smashing the panic button" -- he was behaving unprofessionally.

Yes at the end when he wasn’t getting any reinforcements from Obama, the general then became unruly. However, up until that point, “Failure to gain the initiative and reverse insurgent momentum in the near term (next 12 months) — while Afghan security capacity matures — risks an outcome where defeating the insurgency is no longer possible,” General McChrystal writes. -Published: September 20, 2009

And the report which is dated august 30, 2009, states, “Success is achievable, but it will not be attained simply by trying harder or “doubling down” on the previous strategy.” The report goes on and explains why every part of the military structure must be modified or completely changed in order to fight the war. McChrystal “Define[s] the minimum force levels to accomplish the mission with an acceptable level of risk.” In military terms, this would be like saying oh-$#!%, we need help!

First up tonight, Afghanistan. Just moments ago, Defense Secretary Robert Gates told our Christiane Amanpour that the Taliban now has the momentum. The pressure to make a decision is growing on President Obama from the military, as well as the political left and right. - Aired October 5, 2009 - 22:00 ET

Last week, The Daily Telegraph disclosed that the leaking of details of MPs' expenses earlier this year was caused by anger at the Government’s failure to support and equip British troops on the front line in Afghanistan.- 29 Sep 2009

McChrystal's predecessor left behind an unfilled request for an addition of approximately 10,000 U.S. forces, and Obama had been expected to review that request near the end of the year.
McChrystal was encouraged by superiors to assess the war bluntly and not to hold back in asking for troops, money, or equipment, and he knows he probably only has a short period to do so, defense officials and others in Washington and Afghanistan said.- July 31, 2009

So not only did obama know there were issues *before* taking office, Obama hardly did anything to support his top general who was forced to sit back and watch his soldiers die. Yea, all-in-all, I think McChrystal held it together pretty well even though his actions were unacceptable and he should have stepped down if he felt Obama was not giving the situation the attention it deserved.

No argument -- but doing nothing and "letting the market correct itself" wouldn't have been much of an improvement.

The improvement wasn’t worth the money put into it. I cant believe that those were the best options they had…

Sure -- it's not like the Right has enough to howl "SOCIALISM!!!!" over.

Buying it out with the immediate intention of reselling is a huge difference from socialism. Who cares what a few kooks call you? Besides, what exactly did he do with GM that made it so much better? Obama didn’t have a problem with taking over a business.

Well, clearly someone does want them included.

The problem is that no such insurance company exists -- so long as some employers are willing to provide contraceptive services, the insurers will.

And there is little the religious can do about that, except not support the practice in whatever silent private way they want (which is probably one of the best ways they can voice their opinion since they are always vilified for their beliefs). Obama is stopping them from doing just that. Obama is forcing them to make their voices heard.

So does Bush get the blame for that?

The majority of it yes. Bush wasn't the only one who had a hand to play in the bill and certainly not the only one to vote on it.

Actually I do -- but neither Obama, Bush, no any president is singlehandedly "the system."

Agreed, but the president has the most control on the given system unless they are simply the puppet on the podium. At which case I fault them for being a puppet.

Seems no different.

Imagine the people who were taxed by the bill, covered by the bill, or not covered when they planned something on the bill and their outrage against the system/Obama/the supreme court/the republicans/democrats?/insurance agencies/other. I almost want the bill to stand just because I’m worried about the fallout afterwards.

So whose fault is that? Reason #5,286 not to trust them -- they're lazy.

Obamacare is probably going to go down as his biggest mistake -- not necessarily because it's a bad idea, but because of the timing -- Obama should've been focusing on fixing the economy.

Agreed about focusing on the economy, but if he did go through with obamacare, he should have done it in smaller parts. No one can read that bill and make any sense of it. Congress didn’t get enough time to read the final product.

Nevertheless, my point stands -- overhauling the country's entire medical system isn't going to fit on a pamphlet.

And so does mine, he should have broken it up and made it manageable.

Nevertheless, it is within their power to do so, unless someone amends the Constitution.

And he should.

Actually, I don't have to agree that's it's wrong -- I think it's a sharp piece of political maneuvering.

Obama supports gay marriage, but he's gotta know that he doesn't have the political clout to accomplish it on a federal level. he has nothing to gain from failure.

And let's be honest about one thing -- there is no way that a gay marriage amendment would pass Congress -- let alone get ratified by enough states to make it. (maybe in a few years, but now? Not a snowball's chance in hades.)

So he throws his moral support behind those states which pass it, and lets the Right (which gives a lot of lip service to "states' rights") froth at the mouth over states which actually exercise their rights.

So you're absolutely right -- he's using it to get political superiority which dividing the right on the issue -- separating the actual Conservatives (the ones who actually want less government in their lives) from the Religious Reich Right.

It's called "Divide and Conquer" -- and it works.

Then why not allow congress to be the group that stops all gays from the right to marriage? It would have put something that wont hurt the economy on the threshold of freedom and only to be blocked by the ones who are constantly claiming that "they don’t have to agree with the manner in which you use it as long as you deserve it, then it should be yours" and punt the republicans back into the minority next election. Instead, he doesn’t even give it the chance to pass and cowers in the corner the way the right likes to picture him. It 100% wrong to use any group of people as a political football and thats what i was talking about when i said it was wrong.

As do I -- we just seem to disagree as to what we're willing to ignore.

Then why are you defending him so much?

Because Obama's trying hard to distance himself from the "Socialist" label the right has hung on him -- using the government to buy out and dismantle businesses wouldn't have helped his case.

Again, it was a questionable move, but it was the one that sucked the least.

If being labeled a socialist was among his concerns, he never would have implemented obamacare.

[Nathan Poe]

The improvement wasn’t worth the money put into it. I cant believe that those were the best options they had…

believe it -- choices aren't always between "good" and "bad"; sometimes it's between "bad" and "worse."

Buying it out with the immediate intention of reselling is a huge difference from socialism. Who cares what a few kooks call you? Besides, what exactly did he do with GM that made it so much better? Obama didn’t have a problem with taking over a business.

Face it -- anything Obama does, the Rabid Right is going to howl "SOCIALISM!" and people who don't bother to pay attention to anything except who yells the loudest (far too many in this country) are going to believe it. You think a politician doesn't care what people think of him? Especially in his first term?

And there is little the religious can do about that, except not support the practice in whatever silent private way they want (which is probably one of the best ways they can voice their opinion since they are always vilified for their beliefs). Obama is stopping them from doing just that. Obama is forcing them to make their voices heard.

You make that sound like a bad thing -- why shouldn't people make their voices heard?

The majority of it yes. Bush wasn't the only one who had a hand to play in the bill and certainly not the only one to vote on it.

Which is why I neither credit nor blame him for it. Do you?

Agreed, but the president has the most control on the given system unless they are simply the puppet on the podium. At which case I fault them for being a puppet.

Last I checked, there are three branches of government, and the president is only one. They all have equal power, although the president (by virtue of being one man), gets the most attention.

He's a third of the system -- give him a third of the blame.

Imagine the people who were taxed by the bill, covered by the bill, or not covered when they planned something on the bill and their outrage against the system/Obama/the supreme court/the republicans/democrats?/insurance agencies/other. I almost want the bill to stand just because I’m worried about the fallout afterwards.

Make up your mind, then.

Agreed about focusing on the economy, but if he did go through with obamacare, he should have done it in smaller parts. No one can read that bill and make any sense of it. Congress didn’t get enough time to read the final product.

And probably wouldn't have bothered if they had -- in this political climate, Obama could've pushed a cure for cancer and the Right would obstructed it on general principle. (in all fairness, he could've probably eaten a live kitten in a press conference and the Left would've defended it for the same reason)

And so does mine, he should have broken it up and made it manageable.

Not disagreeing -- but it is what it is.

And he should.

And he would, if he thought he could. But no such amendment is going to pass on this issue in this political climate, and you know that perfectly well.

And if it fails the first time, how long do you think it'll be before anyone tries again?

Then why not allow congress to be the group that stops all gays from the right to marriage?

What part of "Obama supports gay marriage" is unclear? He doesn't want anyone to stop it.

It would have put something that wont hurt the economy on the threshold of freedom and only to be blocked by the ones who are constantly claiming that "they don’t have to agree with the manner in which you use it as long as you deserve it, then it should be yours" and punt the republicans back into the minority next election.

Sacrifice an issue he happens to believe in for a few political points? he's doing much better (IMO) doing what he's doing -- letting them run in circles as it is.

Instead, he doesn’t even give it the chance to pass and cowers in the corner the way the right likes to picture him.

He doesn't give it the chance to pass because he knows (as I do, and as you do -- admit it) that it has no chance. If the right wants to misrepresent prudence as cowardice, that's going to blow up in their face soon enough.

It 100% wrong to use any group of people as a political football and thats what i was talking about when i said it was wrong.

Is it any less wrong to make them suffer by proposing the amendment knowing it will fail, just to paint the Right as the bad guys? At least this way, the idea still stays on the table.

Then why are you defending him so much?

Why are you attacking him so much? I give the man the blame he deserves -- and no more.

If being labeled a socialist was among his concerns, he never would have implemented obamacare.

True enough -- but perhaps some ideas are worth the risk. Health care was a big issue to him, and come hell or high water, he was going to do it.

[odis]

believe it -- choices aren't always between "good" and "bad"; sometimes it's between "bad" and "worse."

I am having problems agreeing with the idea that the stimulus that spent 787 billion was better spent than spending a quarter of that to support the government during a tax holiday/tax cut for however long it would last. With o%/a lower tax rate, people will want to spend their money before it ends, generating an albeit short influx of consumer spending. The influx will have lasting effects and if it’s done properly,

Face it -- anything Obama does, the Rabid Right is going to howl "SOCIALISM!" and people who don't bother to pay attention to anything except who yells the loudest (far too many in this country) are going to believe it. You think a politician doesn't care what people think of him? Especially in his first term?

Then he can act like it instead of confessing that he forgets about the plights of the average man....

You make that sound like a bad thing -- why shouldn't people make their voices heard?

Because then people like yourself complain about how they are so extreme. They are just defending their beliefs and you’re attacking them for it.

Which is why I neither credit nor blame him for it. Do you?

As I keep saying, I fault Obama for not catching like he promised.

Last I checked, there are three branches of government, and the president is only one. They all have equal power, although the president (by virtue of being one man), gets the most attention.

He's a third of the system -- give him a third of the blame.

He’s got a little less than a third, the only reason I keep pointing to him is because he sits on the largest share.

Make up your mind, then.

Already did, I am just pointing out that if you’re not 100% sure what your doing will stand, you need to take precautions in the event that it falls. Fortunately the Supreme Court did not strike down the whole bill (which is unfortunate in itself that they did not strike down the mandate)

And probably wouldn't have bothered if they had -- in this political climate, Obama could've pushed a cure for cancer and the Right would obstructed it on general principle. (in all fairness, he could've probably eaten a live kitten in a press conference and the Left would've defended it for the same reason)

This is true but he should have at least given them the chance.

And he would, if he thought he could. But no such amendment is going to pass on this issue in this political climate, and you know that perfectly well.

And if it fails the first time, how long do you think it'll be before anyone tries again?

2 years when everyone who opposed it gets elected again.

What part of "Obama supports gay marriage" is unclear? He doesn't want anyone to stop it.

I didn't say he did. It’s a baited trap that many can't say yes to. Proposing a bill is the easiest way to "divide and conquer" as you put it and he wouldn't have to use people as a political foot ball. All he has to do is propose it and let the republicans try to defend it every time he brings\ it up. He needs to stand up and say this is a freedom owed and can be given that will not hurt our economy at all.

Sacrifice an issue he happens to believe in for a few political points? he's doing much better (IMO) doing what he's doing -- letting them run in circles as it is.

He’s playing it safe in the one spot he can easily win the gamble.

He doesn't give it the chance to pass because he knows (as I do, and as you do -- admit it) that it has no chance. If the right wants to misrepresent prudence as cowardice, that's going to blow up in their face soon enough.

your wrong, as I have already stated and can demonstrate again, there are a ton of republicans who are in favor of it and there is not a single democrat who would get re-elected if they voted no. not only does that bill have a chance to pass, it would also give him the baseball bat to club the republicans with.

Is it any less wrong to make them suffer by proposing the amendment knowing it will fail, just to paint the Right as the bad guys? At least this way, the idea still stays on the table.

What’s to force it off the table if it fails? I’m not aware of any double jeopardy rule for proposing bills.

Why are you attacking him so much? I give the man the blame he deserves -- and no more.

I am. As I have stated, I don’t Obama for all of Obamacare, for my cousin, and for not finding a better solution in some of the non-war but conflicts we have had. I disagree with many things he’s done, but I will fault him for everything that I think he could have done a better job on.

True enough -- but perhaps some ideas are worth the risk. Health care was a big issue to him, and come hell or high water, he was going to do it.

that’s fine, then find a way to not make it cost so much by making things implemented slowly over the next 50 years,
Or allowing more time for everyone to read the bill even if they don’t read it like he promised he would do during his run for presidency? He did it and he wanted to do it. Fine. But he did it all wrong imho.