or Connect
TheSandTrap.com › Golf Forum › The 19th Hole › The Grill Room › The (un)Affordable Health Care Act & Debt Ceiling Controversies
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

The (un)Affordable Health Care Act & Debt Ceiling Controversies - Page 5

post #73 of 298
Well, my son is in the Air Force and he likes Obama. Obama has wound down two wars, waged a smaller foot print war and then waged it aggressively. He also got rid of the uncomfortable don't ask, don't tell policy and put people on equal footing.

The probability is high that if a pub were president, that we'd still be waging two wars in a nonstrategic manner.

You ask, what is the strategy? It is to get the hell out of Dodge and let those people kill themselves. If you get in the way, you're just going to get killed yourself.

I think the strategy is to keep tabs on terrorist groups and be ready to take them out when the opportunity arises
post #74 of 298
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Desmond View Post

Well, my son is in the Air Force and he likes Obama. Obama has wound down two wars, waged a smaller foot print war and then waged it aggressively. He also got rid of the uncomfortable don't ask, don't tell policy and put people on equal footing.

The probability is high that if a pub were president, that we'd still be waging two wars in a nonstrategic manner.

You ask, what is the strategy? It is to get the hell out of Dodge and let those people kill themselves. If you get in the way, you're just going to get killed yourself.

I think the strategy is to keep tabs on terrorist groups and be ready to take them out when the opportunity arises

I guess you didn't read the news where Obama wanted to send our military to Syria risking possible escalation with Russia.  Fortunately Putin and the UN smacked him back into reality.

 

I was really trying to refrain from participating in this thread but you're revisionist history here on Obama was too much to take.  We get it, you like the guy.

post #75 of 298
Quote:
Originally Posted by saevel25 View Post
 

 

Of course they will treat him like a rock star. But its not because of Obama himself, its because of the office he holds. Like many people I respect the OFFICE of the president of the united states, I do not respect the man holding that office, meaning I respect the position, I respect the tradition of the president and all the great presidents before him, but that does not mean I need to respect or like Obama as a person.

 

It would be idiotic for any soldier to ruin their military career by not showing respect for the president. He is their commander and chief. Even though you hate your commander, doesn't mean you show it publicly. So to say they treated him like a rock star proves nothing. Many people in normal jobs treat their bosses with respect, yet once they are gone will rip into them because they don't like them. Its understanding the position your in, and acting accordingly.

 

 

 

Yes because it's their job to do so. If they run the military bad, we are still stuck with them running the military. No I don't trust them to run my health care. 

Sorry does not work for me.  My friend stated that it was true adoration and not just respectful acknowledgement.  Many soldiers went out of their way and stood in line to get photos with him.  The cheers and applause was loud raucous and not just respectful.

 

In addition, you do not know President Obama as a person.  You only know how the media and politicians portray him.  So how can you make judgment on him as a person?  I did not like how President G. W. Bush handled things, but I still respected him as the President and a person.  

 

 And as for respect, the TEA does not respect the office of the Presidency. They have demonstrated that with all their actions.

post #76 of 298

So if Obama was a senator, they would give him the same reaction? If it wasn't for the gander of being the president, he would get the same reaction? Just saying, I think the fact that he is President speaks more than he himself.

 

Your right I don't know him personally. If I met him, who knows I might like him. But I can only go on his actions as president, which in fact is related to his character as well. I don't like how he's handle his position as president. I don't like that majority of his messages to this country have been negative, mostly to get people to agree towards his agendas. He'll claim the economy is getting better after he signs some sort of legislation, yet when the economy turns down he will blame it on republicans and wall street. He never takes blame for anything he does wrong. For 4 years, it was always, Look at what I inherited from the previous administration. All I can think about is, Yea we elected you to fix this stuff, stop blaming the previous guy and get shit done. He had both the house and senate on his side, and he couldn't do SHIT. I mean, if he can even unify a few republicans to get stuff passed when he had two majorities on his side, that is just pathetic.

 

He's inconsistent with his direction he wants to take this country. A true leader will set forth a unifying goal, a message people can rally around, and not deviate from that message. A leader will bring the best out of the people around him, will raise the level of effectiveness. Like a good football coach, they will bring the best out of their players. A true leader will bridge the gap between the two Political Parties.

 

Look at Bill Clinton, he got shit done his first term. He was lucky to get re-elected. Then he went more towards the middle, and was able to get a lot of good things passed in his 2nd term. He was able to bring together both Republican and Democrats. He was one of the few presidents who actually didn't go towards his agenda in the 2nd term, usually presidents are more middle ground first term so they can get re-elected. Clinton put his leftism to the side for the betterment of the nation. That is a sign of a Leader.

 

Though I may not agree with all that Bush has done when he was president, he's 10x the leader than Obama is. At least bush was resolve in his message, at least he was straight forward. He wasn't cloak and daggers like Obama is.

 

I could care less about the TEA party. I only agree with the fact we need a smaller influencing central government. But I had this position before they were even formed. So just because my position tends to fall towards them, don't associate me with them. They are just stupid in how they go about things.

post #77 of 298
Quote:
Originally Posted by newtogolf View Post
 

I guess you didn't read the news where Obama wanted to send our military to Syria risking possible escalation with Russia.  Fortunately Putin and the UN smacked him back into reality.

 

I was really trying to refrain from participating in this thread but you're revisionist history here on Obama was too much to take.  We get it, you like the guy.

Let's get the facts straight, and not your revisionist history.

 

It's a fact in international law  that limited retaliation is allowed depending on the crime. Syria violated international law - the question is whether a country who is indirectly affected by their actions, the US, can take action on behalf of the directly affected - the Syrian people - in this case, who have no capacity to retaliate.

 

Obama was going to use these principals of international law and use our Air Force in a limited, and most probably, one time fashion to take out Syria's capacity to wage war with chemical weapons.

 

I don't mind a good argument with decent facts - but let's get it straight, and not some general statement that serves you partisan beliefs.

post #78 of 298

I like the idea of eliminating the primaries. It could also shorten the political season, too, and decrease the number of ads we have to watch.

 

I've never cared for the party system. My true beliefs are a blend, and yet, often times I have to inherently support one thing just because the guy I vote for supports other things.

post #79 of 298
Quote:
Originally Posted by saevel25 View Post
 

 

 

I could care less about the TEA party. I only agree with the fact we need a smaller influencing central government. But I had this position before they were even formed. So just because my position tends to fall towards them, don't associate me with them. They are just stupid in how they go about things.

 

And yet you must have liked the fact that Reagan, H.W. and G.W. all substantially increased the size of government and increased growth in spending in their tenure.  You want the Federal Government to be smaller and cost less? Guess what, so do I.  But don't be fooled into thinking that the GOP is thrifty.  They just want their favorite part of Government to be big.  Both sides are terrible at cutting costs because of who pulls the purse strings.

 

http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2012/05/24/who-is-the-smallest-government-spender-since-eisenhower-would-you-believe-its-barack-obama/

post #80 of 298
Quote:
Originally Posted by saevel25 View Post
 

So if Obama was a senator, they would give him the same reaction? If it wasn't for the gander of being the president, he would get the same reaction? Just saying, I think the fact that he is President speaks more than he himself.

 

I agree, I really think that his position grants him the adoration/respect shown more than his actions. Not too long ago he visited the local Highschool here and gave a speech. My fiance wanted to go to the speech for a chance to see and perhaps get a picture with him. My question to her was "why? You don't like what he's doing and his plans for the future." Her response, "Because he's the President." It's a lot like how people act around any celebrity, they may not like the person/what they've done/how they act, but you put them in the same place as that celebrity and they'll act totally differently and ask for a picture/autograph almost every time. Now, there are definitely exceptions to this. I didn't care to go to the speech at all, since I don't agree with most of his views and plans. However, if I happened to meet him, I would give him the respect he deserves based on the office he holds.

post #81 of 298

Quote:

Originally Posted by boogielicious View Post
 

And yet you must have liked the fact that Reagan, H.W. and G.W. all substantially increased the size of government and increased growth in spending in their tenure.  You want the Federal Government to be smaller and cost less? Guess what, so do I.  But don't be fooled into thinking that the GOP is thrifty.  They just want their favorite part of Government to be big.  Both sides are terrible at cutting costs because of who pulls the purse strings.

 

http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2012/05/24/who-is-the-smallest-government-spender-since-eisenhower-would-you-believe-its-barack-obama/

 

Like I gave praise to Clinton before. I am not a republican. I am an independent. I did not like what Bush did in office, and I did not like him invading Iraq. I did not like him authorizing the first bail out. I do not prescribe to, "To big to fail". Though the failure was totally Clinton's fault on that one, but that's another discussion on historical fact. 

 

I never said the GOP is thrifty. Your just assuming that since I disagree with Obama, I must be a supporter of the republicans. I am not.

 

Yes I want the federal government smaller. I want the states to be able to do more, since they have a greater sense of the needs of their citizens. Look at Massachusetts. A republican governor passed a health care bill because that's what the citizens wanted. What if a state like Texas doesn't want it? What if the citizens there are so against it, why should they be forced on the Federal government's programs? That is my point, what is good for on state isn't good for another. If something comes up, like civil liberties back in the 60-70's. Were you have southern states denying people the right to vote. Then yes that is were the federal government can step in, to ensure the liberties and rights of its citizens, not enforce welfare programs upon states that don't want it.

post #82 of 298
Quote:
Originally Posted by saevel25 View Post
 

Quote:

 

Like I gave praise to Clinton before. I am not a republican. I am an independent. I did not like what Bush did in office, and I did not like him invading Iraq. I did not like him authorizing the first bail out. I do not prescribe to, "To big to fail". Though the failure was totally Clinton's fault on that one, but that's another discussion on historical fact. 

 

I never said the GOP is thrifty. Your just assuming that since I disagree with Obama, I must be a supporter of the republicans. I am not.

 

Yes I want the federal government smaller. I want the states to be able to do more, since they have a greater sense of the needs of their citizens. Look at Massachusetts. A republican governor passed a health care bill because that's what the citizens wanted. What if a state like Texas doesn't want it? What if the citizens there are so against it, why should they be forced on the Federal government's programs? That is my point, what is good for on state isn't good for another. If something comes up, like civil liberties back in the 60-70's. Were you have southern states denying people the right to vote. Then yes that is were the federal government can step in, to ensure the liberties and rights of its citizens, not enforce welfare programs upon states that don't want it.

It's tough to compete in a global economy when you have federal law and the laws of 50 other State entities dealing with the same laws.

 

That's one reason why the Feds must take over certain laws ... our ability to compete.

 

Of course, and I must put this out there for the haters -- we need to make those laws efficient, easier to use, workable, and more affordable - that means, I don't necessarily agree with Obama on many issues, nor do I agree with most Pubs on this matter.

 

We need to compete and 50 something laws on the same subject do not help.

 

For example, when doing my legal thing, and I terminate a dealer, I must review our contract with him, federal law, and the law of the state where the dealership is located. It's not exactly efficient...

post #83 of 298

That is true, I never said we need to be a confederacy, but there is a balance between local power and federal power. Like with certifications, Its crazy that engineers or lawyers need to take exams in every state they move to. I agree in that part, their could be a federal standard that allows them to have some sort of mobility in their job certifications. I agree their needs to be an overhaul in our regulation and laws. We have over 40,000 pages of federal laws and regulations. That's just crazy.

 

 

 

post #84 of 298
Quote:
Originally Posted by newtogolf View Post

The entire concept of healthcare in this country is backwards.  Doctors and health care companies should be paid when we're healthy, not when we're sick.  Today, doctors and hospitals are predominantly paid when we're sick (excluding pre-natal care, accidents, etc) what's their incentive to keep us healthy?


 



I agree 100% there is no money in healthy Americans. Watch the Golf Channel for 20 mins and I bet you see at least 5 commercials for some sore of medication. Take this pill for golfer's elbow, but side effects may include Anal Leakage, Blood Clot, Thoughts of suicide and a mean case of the yips. Thats exactly where the money is..........
post #85 of 298
Quote:
Originally Posted by saevel25 View Post
...Though I may not agree with all that Bush has done when he was president, he's 10x the leader than Obama is. At least bush was resolve in his message, at least he was straight forward. He wasn't cloak and daggers like Obama is...

 

An interesting thread as we've been watching what's likely to happen with this spat on your side of the pond. That said, how can you think Bush (I assume you mean Dubya) was 10 x the leader Obama is? I'm surprised GW Bush knew what day it was half the time.

post #86 of 298
Quote:
Originally Posted by misty_mountainhop View Post
 

 

An interesting thread as we've been watching what's likely to happen with this spat on your side of the pond. That said, how can you think Bush (I assume you mean Dubya) was 10 x the leader Obama is? I'm surprised GW Bush knew what day it was half the time.

Just a minute now... Bush was sober, believe it or not, during those years. Just like Obama, Clinton, and Bush, we like our Presidents to have finished their wild cocaine, weed, and booze days years before they take office. We want those brain cells battered before we elect them. And if you want sex in the Oval Office, why not? Just don't lie about it.

 

Bush and Obama both lack leadership qualities in different ways.

 

Obama is too professorial -- he says it once or twice, but believe it or not, he expects Congress to come up with ideas. He is a constitutional lawyer, and he knows his job, for the most part, is acting as an executive, carrying out the laws that Congress passes. Of course, he uses that to his advantage and is inconsistent. The problem is that Americans expect an Imperial Presidency, not a laid back, brooding intellectual - Give us more communication, backslapping, and drinking with Congress ... get it done.

post #87 of 298

The ironic thing is that if the tea partiers/repubs would have just gone ahead and raised the debt ceiling without shutting down the government at all, this would have turned into a big win for them.  The same day that the government shut down is the same day that the exchanges became available, and somehow the government was not prepared for the online turnout.

 

(John Stewart made a great observation regarding this ... saying basically that how can you, Obama, run your entire campaign on the premise that millions don't have health care and you want to provide it for them, and then be shocked and unprepared when millions want health care?  That would be like 1-800-flowers getting surprised by Valentines Day)

 

But since there can only be one "top story," and the tea partiers chose to make that top story their incompetence and stubbornness, they prevented the news agencies from making all of last week about the incompetence of Obama and his online ACA program.

 

Way to shoot yourself in the foot there Cruz-y.

post #88 of 298
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Desmond View Post
 

Just a minute now... Bush was sober, believe it or not, during those years. Just like Obama, Clinton, and Bush, we like our Presidents to have finished their wild cocaine, weed, and booze days years before they take office. We want those brain cells battered before we elect them. And if you want sex in the Oval Office, why not? Just don't lie about it.

 

Bush and Obama both lack leadership qualities in different ways.

 

Obama is too professorial -- he says it once or twice, but believe it or not, he expects Congress to come up with ideas. He is a constitutional lawyer, and he knows his job, for the most part, is acting as an executive, carrying out the laws that Congress passes. Of course, he uses that to his advantage and is inconsistent. The problem is that Americans expect an Imperial Presidency, not a laid back, brooding intellectual - Give us more communication, backslapping, and drinking with Congress ... get it done.


Oh, I gathered that Bush was sober during his term(s)...that's the worrying thing. He wasn't on anything and he was still like that??

post #89 of 298

That is partial true with Obama. The problem is that he's never wants anything to look bad on him. He rather spin everything away from him, nothing is ever his fault. Instead of trying to be the middle man between the two houses of Congress, he goes on TV and berates them for not working together. I mean come on, they have a 10% approval rating, how is rallying the public going to work? That suddenly those 10% is going to make them work harder, and work together.

 

What he should be doing is being a impartial mediator between the two, trying to get something done. In times like this when things need to get done, you need to put away your agenda and be impartial. Obama isn't capable of doing that. Anything that doesn't fall towards his side or makes him look good, he discredits, and then goes in front of the nation and says the other side isn't working with him. So not only does he not mitigate well, he then berates his opposition on TV. Like that is going to help improve his standing. Who would want to work with a president that does that. Would you? I wouldn't, because you know your going to get ripped by him. Rather just not deal with those type of people at all.

post #90 of 298
Quote:
Originally Posted by Golfingdad View Post
 

The ironic thing is that if the tea partiers/repubs would have just gone ahead and raised the debt ceiling without shutting down the government at all, this would have turned into a big win for them.  The same day that the government shut down is the same day that the exchanges became available, and somehow the government was not prepared for the online turnout.

 

(John Stewart made a great observation regarding this ... saying basically that how can you, Obama, run your entire campaign on the premise that millions don't have health care and you want to provide it for them, and then be shocked and unprepared when millions want health care?  That would be like 1-800-flowers getting surprised by Valentines Day)

 

But since there can only be one "top story," and the tea partiers chose to make that top story their incompetence and stubbornness, they prevented the news agencies from making all of last week about the incompetence of Obama and his online ACA program.

 

Way to shoot yourself in the foot there Cruz-y.

 

 

Yea the republicans dug them selves a hole in this. They thought they had a movement with these Tea party members, getting momentum to shift towards their side. They did, they won great strides in the house at the last election, but they played with fire, and now they got burned. I think that is the reason why the house left it up to the senate to get it done. I think the head of the house just decided he was done trying to work this through. He knew that many of them would cave at the deadline, so he let the senate get the win on this one.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: The Grill Room
TheSandTrap.com › Golf Forum › The 19th Hole › The Grill Room › The (un)Affordable Health Care Act & Debt Ceiling Controversies