Why aren't liberals angry at Obama for
1) not closing Guantanamo
2) expanding our wars
3) executing US civilians without trials
4) ignoring Congress to pass legislation through executive orders
5) not leaving Iraq according to his promises
6) not EVER leaving Iraq (even after the 'withdrawal' there will still be 15k troops there)
... and NOW he's basically threatening China?!
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/art … 45bff9a2a7
This is unbelievable!
The Republicans are much worse:
They want to bomb, bomb, bomb Iran; gut Social Security and Medicare; de-regulate the Wall Street banksters; cut taxes for the 1%; nominate crooks like Gingrich, mental defective loonies like Bachman, clowns like Perry, and political whores like Romney; pollute the environment; deny global warming; ban all abortions; teach creationism in public school science classes; charterize public schools; prolong the war in Afghanistan, etc.
They're a bunch of nut jobs. We have the British equivalent here. Not a pretty situation.
And what is the name of those Nut jobs over there. Tories?... I'm still trying to figure out your political situation there. It seems you have a United Parliament but yet each of the three nations ( four if including Northern Ireland seperate ) have thier own parliments. Is this correct? Would there be Tories in Scotland as well as England or do they go by another name in their respective parliaments? Never been too focused on U.K politics before. Seems confusing to a few who are not up on all aspects of global politics. I keep up on The Asian bloc and U.S tensions but not much on the U.K. itself other than economy.
In England we have a coalition government between the Tories and the Liberal Democrats, with a Tory Majority (otherwise known as the Con-Dems=) ) Yes, Scotland, Ireland and Wales have their own parliaments. Scotland's leader is Alex Salmond (Scottish Nationalist Party) There are lots of arguments for and against nationalism, however, Salmond does appear to be delivering for his people (at least that's the way it appears) There are very few Tory seats in Scotland. Bad blood left from the Thatcher days (the poll tax riots started in Scotland)
All but one...
... but that still doesn't excuse "not criticizing Obama"!!
Speak out against him! I hear no one demanding he be impeached for such heinous behavior!
Don't get me wrong - there's only one Person worth talking about in the Republican field (well, Huntsman isn't SO bad...).
and the problem is..........?
Funny how you deflect the question and dump on the Republicans while ignoring the disaster that is Obama. Well, not funny actually, just sad.
Maybe it's better to 'bomb, bomb, bomb Iran' to a rhythmic rhetorical beat in a tune that bespeaks of American patriotism -- than to Bomb Macy's!!! Jeez, these so-called Occupiers, blessed by the Democratic Party, are getting their violent feet and their violent mouths well sturdy beneath them...... how sad, I am disappointed in this progression. Mental defects? Loonies? they abound in the Democratic party quite clearly -- name labelling/calling serves no one.
I do agree Bachman is out the door -- she needs to step aside ASAP, can't take her voice anymore, can't stand her usurping of time better spent on other candidates, would never vote for her, even if she had a southern drawl. Same for Paul, Huntsman, Santorum and one other oddball I can't recall-- get out of the debates!!! You are done!!!
You forgot returning all women to pregnancy and barefooted servitude in the kitchen, children to the sweat shops, blacks to slavery and do not forget firing up the furnaces for the Jews.
I can't wait to get my brown shirt out of moth balls. Ridiculous liberal garbage.
Don't be silly, UCV.
Why would the world's biggest Zionists want to fire up the ovens? That makes no sense.
Not to worry. Santa Paul will ride in on his unicorn in 2013 and you will have the Dickensian world you so desperately want...
or maybe not.
Um, we're angry with him about all those things. The problem is, the Republicans are even worse, so that leaves us in the nasty position of either holding our noses and re-electing him or voting our conscience (should a true progressive candidate step forth) and risking splitting the vote and ensuring a Republican victory. I was able to safely vote my conscience (Nader) in '00 due to living in an extremely Republican district, but now I live in a swing area, so it's not so easy. This stupid winner-takes-all system needs to end.
Thanks, Kerryg, you saved me some typing.
Though I feel the need to point out that the Right is mad at Obama for leaving iraq according to his promises, so, what's going on there?
I hope instant runoff voting continues to spread. It worked pretty nicely here in San Francisco for the recent mayoral contest (well, my choice didn't win, but the process worked), and it's the only way to vote your conscience and not "throw away" a vote that would help prevent someone you detest from winning.
In the meantime, it's always a contest between the lesser of two evils. And Obama's that guy for me (as he was in 2008).
"1) not closing Guantanamo"
. . . stonewalled by Congress.
"2) expanding our wars"
. . . huh? OK, there was a Afghan 'surge', but deployments are way down at this point. The only 'expansion' I can see is drone strikes, which while problematic in some ways, at least seem tactically effective.
"3) executing US civilians without trials"
KIA is hardly an "execution."
"4) ignoring Congress to pass legislation through executive orders"
Well, Congress *could* cease to be obstructive. . . but then they might actually improve that 9% approval rating. On balance, I'd prefer that at least a little something gets done. We do actually have some national problems that could use attention, you know.
"5) not leaving Iraq according to his promises"
. . . huh?
"6) not EVER leaving Iraq (even after the 'withdrawal' there will still be 15k troops there)"
Not wild about this, but it's more of the same. . . American "trainers" are all over the globe, and have been for a long time.
OK, there's going to be a smallish Marine base in northern Australia, a new Pacific Rim trade treaty, and the President says that the US will remain an assertive Pacific power--I'm sure THAT'S got Beijing quaking in its (metaphorical) boots. . .
You said it, not me.
Obama hardly ever does what he says, maybe that's why he reads tele-prompters.
The reason is because (honestly speaking, not PC) they are African-American, Ultra Liberal, Stupid, thought it was time for an African-American President, are illegal aliens, only vote Democratic and so much more.
He supports the Wall Street protesters, but get huge sums of money from Wall Street. I'm too sick of him to go on. H
Because he is better than anything the right wing has to offer. After all, we're in this mess because of Republicans and we will never let you forget it!
X, Who controlled Congress when unemployment, and forclosures went up. Bush and the Republican's got us out of the beginning of a Clinton recession, and unemployment went down to 4.5%. Throw some blame at Frank & Dodd. HH
Correct, everyone forgets that Bush and Cheney started the bailout and the war(s).
Because liberals cannot think for themselves...Duh
Maybe they can't admit they totally got taken. Or maybe they think they know it all already; their educated.
Well, the Philippines kicked us out of bases in the 80's or early 90's I think and Japan just recently shut down some bases. I think we have a diminishing stance with SEA and all of Asia as a whole. Just rhetoric at the closest military base left to pretend we're still in control. Maybe they're preparing for an inevitable..' We can't pay back your 5 Trillion in bond purchases at face value ' and gearing up for some miltary action. Pretty tough rhetoric (or should i say weak boasting) out of left field on the day national debt surpasses 15 T. The boiling point is a few months away IMO. China's like "WhAAAAt" what's that all about!'What's the intent.
mel, If they need help, who will they call. One of the problems was our military raping girl's.
In the P\hilippeans they hate us so much they have statute of McArthur, and they speah\k English in their Congress. You must not know any Philippeanos, they love America. Why have so many immigrated here in the last few years? H
" President Obama announced Wednesday that the United States would deploy 2,500 Marines in Australia to shore up alliances in Asia, but the move prompted a sharp response in Beijing, which accused Mr. Obama of escalating military tensions in the region."
Evan, you talk about Obama's problems here as if he was in a vacuum...able to handle everything himself..
You mention "ignoring Congress", when that represents a hostile force that has done its darndest to drive this nation to the brink of collapse and civil war...
You may think this is extreme, but the hate language, innuendo, and overall tripe (he's not an American/he's a secret Muslim agent/he's an evil communist/socialist out to create white slavery), built to such a level that idiots like Orly Taitz actually felt supported and justified in their lunatic attempts to bring Obama to court...
I do think that Obama, once entering office, became privy to information and perhaps resistance from bureaucratice sources within Defense and Homeland Security that he wasn't necessarily anticipating...
As for China.....the more and more I look at this nation's relationship with Pakistan, and our ongoing struggles in Afghanistan because of Pakistan...I'm wondering if, in some ways, we are fighting a proxy war with the Chinese again..
As for the nonsense someone wrote in this thread about the money we "owe" China....not only is this amount insignificant in terms of debt and debtors holding it (Americans overwhelmingly hold our American debt...not single percentage point China), but they are facing a huge problem...I predict their construction bubble will pop in the near future... But, they have a larger problem still...keeping their population fed...
They're having a huge problem with their pork supplies...
The struggle over rare earths is just starting to heat up, in my book..
I can't believe anyone likes Obama after he embarrasses our country time and time again in his interactions with other foreign leaders.
The truth is public opinion toward the United States has improved all over the world since Obama was elected. Where do you get these off the wall assertions--from Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity? Or perhaps Mark Levin?
I get my 'off the wall assertions' from watching and listening to Obama. The news on either side is biased, and I try to avoid bias.
How do you find out about opinion in other countries by watching Obama? A variety of polls show a substantial improvement in public opinion of the U.S. around the world. Of course improving from where Bush left us was not a great feat.
I'm talking about embarrassing America and Americans.
I don't want to see my President bowing inappropriately before other foreign leaders. I don't want to see him give inappropriate gifts to foreign dignitaries. I don't want to see him on late-night talk shows making inappropriate jokes about disabled people. I don't want to see a president pandering to any special interest group by changing his speech and demeanor. I don't want to see a president who can't talk without a teleprompter.
It's embarrassing to us, and it's embarrassing to other countries as well.
You don't think it's embarrassing to the US and to the UK when Obama gives horrible gifts to your leaders, or when he tries to speak over your Anthem?
It's embarrassing to me, and I know it's embarrassing to some in the UK. Maybe not to you, but I expect my leaders to show a bit of respect.
Not at all, quite admired him when he spoke above the national anthem. Although, I don't believe this was intentional on his part. Horrible gifts, not sure what you're referring to, although I suspect you mean a painting given to the Cameron's. To be honest, I thought Michelle, who had chosen a painting for Dave and Baroness Sam, was by far the most tasteful. BTW. Cameron may be the Prime minister, however, not many in England would consider him a leader, he occupies as un elected. The people here did not want him to lead, that's why he could not secure a majority.
I'm interested to learn about some in the UK who feel embarrassed by this. I live here, and have never met anyone who is (other than daily mail and daily express editors)
I'm not going to go looking for people talking about it on blogs and such if that's what you mean. I have friends in the UK, Japan, Australia, New Zealand, much of Europe, Canada, and Brazil who I talk to on occasion.
Bad gifts? How about a DVD set and an iPod.
His demeanor almost every time he goes overseas makes me hang my head.
I'd be pretty chuffed with a DVD set and ipod. But, we're all different.
Yes, we are. There's no point in arguing it, it's offensive and embarrassing to me some of the things he does, to you it's not.
I agree, but by the same token, you cannot say that what is offensive to you is offensive to many people around the world. Even if you know people from around the world, they are not necessarily the majority.
Listen, when I made my first comment I said some of the things he does is embarrassing to the US. My other comments were in regards to people I have spoken with and news reports from other countries. I didn't say it's embarrassing to everyone and every country.
Obama for all his faults is a far better man to run the US than any corrupt GOPer who will if in charge bomb the US to hatred
Seriously, dude? What you described is trivial compared to THIS embarrassment:
Assaulting the Chancellor of Germany with an unwanted shoulder rub:
The "Pet Goat" moment:
Ha! Ha! Why didn't I think of those bush gaffes?
Did I say anything in support of Bush? Stay on topic instead of trying to put words in my mouth.
Believe me, I know. It is tough to be an Independent. Buzz words set both parties to foaming at the mouth. No wonder we are in trouble. They need your course in how to improve the clarity and capacity of our mind. One free lesson would be a vast improvement.
If only people could realized that there's no such thing as the 'right' group and the 'wrong' group. Left vs right, Gun-control vs Gun-rights, Pro-life vs Pro-choice, Climate change, etc... Every topic there is truth to be found in more than one place.
But, everyone wants to be right. They want to be part of the group that knows better than 'that other group'.
A group, as such, has no rights. A man can neither acquire new rights by joining a group nor lose the rights which he does possess. The principle of individual rights is the only moral base of all groups or associations. Any group that does not recognize this principle is not an association, but a gang or a mob . . . . The notion of “collective rights” (the notion that rights belong to groups, not to individuals) means that “rights” belong to some men, but not to others—that some men have the “right” to dispose of others in any manner they please—and that the criterion of such privileged position consists of numerical superiority. - “Collectivized ‘Rights,’
I couldn't resist, I tried
Wrong. "Corporations are people, too." Mitt Romney/Antonin Scalia, et al
The decision was made easy for the Supreme Court.
When YOUR NAME is spelled in capital letters it is a registered corporation in the eyes of the government. They should know they created the corporation when they issued you a tax id# (SS#)
A human being using proper English only capitalize the first letter of Your Name.
Ignorance of the Law is no excuse and silence equals consent. I know your probably guffawing at this right now, but it is the truth. Look at your license, SS card, anything that you use to conduct commercial transactions. YOUR NAME is capitalized, correct?
What other choice did the Court have, all Corporations are equal. The UNITED STATES OF AMERICA is itself a corporation.
I never thought of that. Do I get a corporate tax break? I'll offshore my money from now on and build condos in Florida. Do I have to be against environmental regulations? I am a conservation proponent. Let's do lunch, I'll expense it on the per diam.
Aliens are behind it. They made all the typewriters stick on caps lock. I heard one talking about it when I gazed in the eye at the top of the pyramid on the dollar bill. I just won it the other day. A guy in a bar bet he could last longer. He put our arms together, laid the bill across our two arms and rested a lit cigarette between them. He didn't last 30 seconds, to his surprise, I let the cigarette burn all the way to the filter. That guy was stupid to make a bet like that with me.
Why would a human being exchange their time, energy, and labor for a fiat currency? A Federal Reserve Note holds no intrinsic value. It is worthless.
A corporation does and will accept Purchase Orders as currency, to a corporation it is business as usual.
I did not believe this when I first heard it but after several years of research and the Supreme Court decision, all the pieces to the puzzle fit together perfectly.
We have been taught lies for over 100 years so much so that the lie has in fact become the truth to the majority. A human being cannot conduct commercial transactions involving credit or anything requiring a paper trail without using your government created Strawman Corporation.
I have written several hubs as I have done my research. I am receiving reads worldwide as many people are awakening to the lies.
Hi Reality. Nice to see you.
Dare I answer your question with one of the most obvious answers: “Because it beats having to carry home a crate full of chickens?”
Nearly 30 years as a corporate Purchasing Agent has taught me a few things about currency and Purchase Orders. They both serve practical daily functions but on a different scale and in different commercial settings. Of these statements, only one is entirely true. I will ignore the very abstract reasons behind your statements to focus on today’s economic reality. From a very practical, day-to-day viewpoint, saying a Federal Reserve Note is worthless is misleading. From a very impractical viewpoint, saying a Federal Reserve Note is worthless IS worthless.
I can take a wad of federal reserve notes from my local ATM machine to exchange them for some milk in one store and to pay my landscaper and my barber before giving the rest to my nephew to spend at a university in another country. Do I care if gold or silver backs those printed notes? Not at all! I know, as do the folks who accept them from me, the Federal Reserve Bank backs them to the hilt. Furthermore, the signatures of the Treasurer of the US and the Secretary of the Treasury serve to certify them as “legal tender for all debts public and private.” In the real world, that translates into the full backing of the US Government. Federal Reserve Notes serve a practical commercial purpose much like a bank draft or a check. I can exchange them for goods and services at the same value that the receiver expects to get when he passes them on. Although I can’t demand gold or silver from the bank like I could decades ago when under the gold or the silver standard, I can still use them to purchase gold and silver on the open market.It is a fact, a business will accept a Purchase Order (PO) as a promise to pay for goods, or services, after they have been delivered. It serves much like a Federal Reserve Note. However, its acceptance as a promise to pay is dependent upon the reputation and credit worthiness of the buyer. Furthermore, no one is obligated to accept a PO in payment of debts.
Corporations do not issue a purchase order to buy a quart of milk for the coffee machine. Someone has to use a few $1 bills from the petty cash box. Federal Reserve Notes and purchase orders both serve a commercial function in our society and therein lie their value.
What would you do with a basement full of Lincoln greenbacks? Quill, you still have faith in the credit of the United States, I do not. I realize at this time in history it is only a matter of time until the dollar dies.
It is used for debt public and private, making it an instrument of debt not wealth. There is also no Laws mandating the acceptance of Federal Reserve Notes by any business. A day may come when a sign on your grocers window says "NO DOLLARS ACCEPTED".
The dollar will fall as the world's reserve currency not if but when. Almost anything of value is better then an accumulation of Fed Notes. I work for food and shelter but I instantly turn Fed notes in to objects of value when I receive them.
You are a great conversationalist and I am overjoyed when you take your time to hold a discussion with me. Even though my beliefs are silly to you, you still take the time to respond.
First they ignore you!
Then they laugh at you!
Then they fight you!
Then you win!
I don't agree with that. I am the only source of truth in the universe.
No, but you're agonizing over the President's personal inability to choose appropriate gifts, as if he doesn't have advisers out the wazoo to help him with those choices, as if it's somehow "important" and "embarrassing," as if anyone with half a brain gives a rat's ass.
Then, you wax poetic about there is no "right" or "left," and how "everyone wants to be right" while you are nitpicking about gift choices when we have real problems to worry about, like people going hungry, or losing their homes because they can't afford their medical bills, or our men and women dying in other countries.
I'm not the one agonizing over gifts, that's just one of the things I said that people keep harping on. Overall, he is an embarrassment to me. We could certainly get into more 'real' political issues, but then everyone just blames the other side for nothing getting passed.
When you have two parties, and one party says 'lets do this to create jobs' and the other says 'we'll do that if you do this for us' and the first party responds 'well, we don't want to do that, so we'll do this and this'...
The problem isn't on either side. It's on both sides. I'm just embarrassed by our President, that's all.
You want to talk about real issues? Let's talk about healthcare. We have a 1.5 trillion dollar deficit, failing medicare/medicaid and social security, and a high rate of unemployment.
So, why would the government force healthcare on all Americans, when it can't pay for it, and fine people who choose not to have healthcare?
Let's face it diplomacy and protocol aren't your strong suit. Other countries with several Muslim exceptions seem to like him just fine.
So, you try to downplay me instead of what I'm saying? Do you really think a box-set of DVDs is a proper gift of diplomacy?
I don't see why not assuming they contained American music or non-pornographic Hollywood movies. A bottle of French perfume or Champagne would be inappropriate. I'm no expert on gift protocol and I doubt that you are either. You probably were influenced by some right wing ideologue. I assume Presidents select something representative of our country which they believe the recipient or his family would enjoy. I could be wrong, but I don't care enough to research the subject of traditional gifts given by US presidents.
If you disagree with something substantive and important Obama has done why don't you say so instead of going for the capillaries.
You make a lot of assumptions... you don't know what is proper, I'm *probably* influenced by right-wing ideologue...
I do know a little about what a 'proper' gift is. For instance, Gordon Brown presented Obama with a pen-holder carved from the wood of the Resolute's sister-ship, the Gannet. Obama gave him DVDs. It doesn't take a genius to see the difference. Just like the iPod he gave to the Queen.
So, you don't care enough to research the subject, but you care enough to criticize me about it?
If you ever do want to see what leaders usually exchange, just do a search for 'gifts to Obama' to see what leaders have given him, or searches on 'foreign political gifts' or anything like that.
It's good to see an American president with a touch of humility, I don't find it at all embarrassing unlike other Presidents!
Oh, and I've seen him talk without a Teleprompter, Bush might have had a bit more credibility in the world if he had used one. What, he did!
There is a difference between humility and showing subservience.
In Japanese culture, bowing is used to show respect, as well as superiority(not the best word for it, but I'm tired right now). The longer and lower the bow, the more submissive it is. They can also be apologetic.
He has bowed to King Abdullah, Hu Jintao(granted, that was more of a proper, respectful bow, than a subservient bow), the Queen, and Viktor Yushchenko... there might be others, I don't really care, I'm just tired of watching my President present himself this way.
emrid, You are correct about how others see the US now. We are no longer held in high esteem by our allies, and our enemies no longer fear us. That's not exactly what Ralph is showing you.
I know people in many countries that have changed their opinion of he US. H
Why are you worried about what other countries think? If you want to participate in the American economy on an level feirld, become a state. Otherwise we make a huge profit.I'm not talking the Bahamas (it would be a good move for them, thogh), you know what I mean.
Friends and business don't mix? Why do we think it mixes well with our enemies?
That "bowing" issue is nonsense propogated by people who have much emptiness between the ears, especially when it comes to diplomacy.
Anyone who talks about this disparagingly is immediately on the "I am a political idiot" list...
In terms of public speaking, Obama is one of the best orators to have held the presidency... So many of his opponents bash the "teleprompter"....but they somehow voted for lack of a brain Bush (who, it seems, can barely read based on his failure to be able to read his own teleprompter) and "write the answers on my hand" Palin...
As for jokes.....if one is insulted by Obama, one must also have been irate over brainless Bush...
Or is it just the hypocrisy talking?
Again, people keep trying to put me into arguments that I haven't made. I haven't said anything about Bush.
You think bowing is nonsense, but it shows that you don't know what a bow means in different countries. Calling someone an idiot because you can't talk about a point they make only shows immaturity.
Obama is a great orator, as long as he has a teleprompter. So what? He's not good at actually speaking. Why would anybody care how good a president is at reading a speech? He doesn't write his speeches.
It is hypocritica--no debate there. But, being a member of the Far Left, I think he could have done lot more.
True....he could have pulled one of these:
Emrid....I call people like that "idiots" because they have a tendency (personally documented) to be purely partisan agitators who live in denial of reality.... Nixon bowed to the Chinese....but yet that is somehow lost information?
Perhaps you would criticize Bush, Nixon, Obama, and any other American leader who partook in a foreign custom during official events/visits?
Yet demand that other nations' flags dip before ours (as seen when the Olympics come to the United States)?
It is called courtesy...
Concerning Obama's speaking...I have heard him plenty of times with no teleprompters... He may not always be the best...but I'd like to put his critics in his place and see how well they do. Again...what politician isn't using a teleprompter...or for that matter...writing and trying to read from their hands?
Right. Kissing cheeks represents friendship and equality. Holding hands represents the same.
Bowing represents subservience.
What Bush did there was completely correct. Thinking that it is the same, or worse, than what Obama did just shows your lack of understanding of Arab culture.
Do you want to talk about Nixon bowing? Post a picture and we can talk about it. I would guess it would be a proper bow of respect(a slight bow, slight angle of back) compared to a bow of subservience(deep bow from waist).
My party is truth and nothing more.
You seem to be the one criticizing Bush for partaking in a proper foreign custom. There is nothing wrong with acting properly.
There is difference between a bow of respect and courtesy and a bow of subservience. There is even more of a difference between a bow of subservience and a kiss/holding hands showing equality and friendship.
Right, but if he can't talk about a subject without a speech in front of him, that's a ding. If he can talk about a subject with a speech on a teleprompter, who cares?
Here's a link to a Pew report on public opinion of the US in a number of countries around the world. Opinion is pretty positive outside the Arab world:
Obama More Popular Abroad Than At Home, Global Image of U.S. Continues to Benefit
As the global economy begins to rebound from the great recession, people around the world remain deeply concerned with the way things are going in their countries. Less than a third of the publics in most nations say they are satisfied with national conditions, as overwhelming numbers say their economies are in bad shape. And just about everywhere, governments are faulted for the way they are dealing with the economy.
Yet in most countries, especially in wealthier nations, President Barack Obama gets an enthusiastic thumbs up for the way he has handled the world economic crisis. The notable exception is the United States itself, where as many disapprove of their president’s approach to the global recession as approve.
This pattern is indicative of the broader picture of global opinion in 2010. President Barack Obama remains popular in most parts of the world, although his job approval rating in the U.S. has declined sharply since he first took office. In turn, opinions of the U.S., which improved markedly in 2009 in response to Obama’s new presidency, also have remained far more positive than they were for much of George W. Bush’s tenure.
http://www.pewglobal.org/2010/06/17/oba … n-at-home/
I didn't turn my back on other elected officials at all... Which "body" was this? Head up a** Congress?
The House is dead...the Senate is basically dead... The right controls one completely and the other mostly, for many (regionally based) Democrats have sided with the GOP over important issues...
The last thing that I would ever want is a monarchy, or an oligarchy for that matter...but the latter is rather what we have been left with..
I wanted more out of Obama and the Democratic Party overall.. I did hope for more bipartisanship..
I can't demand he be impeached for heinous behavior because:
1) The true person who should have been impeached was, instead reelected to a second term and enabled to do whatever the heck he wanted..or rather, whatever his v.p. wanted...(who am I talking about I wonder?). If he got away with it, there is nothing to pin on Obama...such actions would be nothing but partisan hypocrisy.
2) He hasn't done anything that rises to the levels of what you describe. It seems you may be turning your back completely on another body of elected officials here, Evan..
I think many, if not most, authentic liberals who understand what liberalism is and why they are liberals have been greatly disappointed by Obama - but there are two crucial points to consider here;
First; no matter how non-liberal genuine liberals recognize Obama to have governed (if you can call it that), they are still easily and just about unanimously going to re-vote for him over any Republican.
Secondly, and more significantly; the vast majority of Obama's supporters are not liberals, they don't know what liberalism or conservatism is, and whatever he actually does or doesn't do is inconsequential as to how they vote. For too many Americans how they determine who they support and who they oppose politically is not based on any philosophic foundation but is all appearance over substance and bandwagon-ism over critical thinking.
How do conservatives still like all the republican candidates, but Mitt and Huntsman? It is unbelieveable.
Let Hillary announce that she is going to seek the Democratic nomination.
It will be an Obama bloodbath!
The way things are, I don't see one man or woman making a difference, even if they want to. The lobbyists and the elite are way too powerful. Alone, one person cannot make a difference, they don't stand a chance.
Agreed. We have to stop meeting on the low-class threads here (a recent discovery).
I have limited ambition...re: threads. What can I say
Ah, I will get thinking cap on...But it's usually an anti-war, or pacifists perspective. Most people aren't that interested.
One year ago, I would have agreed. When we look around, however, are we still seeing apathy? Times area changing, me thinks.
I hope so, I just remember our futile efforts in the SDS days. Glance at some of my Hub writing to get more of my
thoughts if you are interested in an expliction of whaaat I mean./
I am an independent from Florida. There are a lot of us down here. Charlie Christ (R) waited too long to declare himself an independent and walk away from those greedy, brain dead, neurotic Yankee Republicans that got themselves elected into our legislature. They usurped his executive orders & hung him out to dry. Real Floridians love Charley. He is all about manatees, limited development, fishing regulations, education, and prohibiting offshore drilling. Try it here and you will wish you hadn't . . . law or no law. Trust me.
Independents finally had a real candidate. We didn't know what to do. We don't have a machine like you petty, trifling, off task, boneheads (Democrats and Republicans) do. All of you are too easily manipulated by agitating agitators like Glen Beck and Michael Moore. They are both full of Black Cow. The last six presidents have mangled the place beyond recognition. Here's a short list:
Lift ceiling on interest rates, sell out to foreign interests, legalize derivatives, allow insurance and other institutions go into banking, real estate backed securities (which you mistakenly call mortgage backed securities), legalized organized crime, sent an expeditionary force to the middle east (played into the enemies hand), botched Afghanistan, emptied out the treasury x2 and gave it to crooks and foreign concerns, paid back TARP by confiscating private assets from relatively healthy regional and community banks and redistributing to the very same (too big) crooks and foreign concerns, borrowed jillions from our enemy, China.
I didn't mention manufacturing. We don't like, want or need your industrialist, robber baron system down here. We make the best stuff in the world (Space Coast) and do it without unions, low pay or crappy benefits. We are rebuilding with regional industry that won't be traded on Wall Street or have CEO's.
As far as Obama is concerned . . . he and his wife, Michelle have won the hearts of our youth. He has been an inspiration to the disadvantaged. They love him. He has been betrayed and abandoned by his party. Real left wingers hate him! As for me, he won't get my vote, but I'll ask him to go fishing and take him to Squid Lips for a beer. He would take me up on it, too. He's the first president, ever, that I can say that about.
Republicans . . . you put us in the toilet. Democrats . . . you are splashing in the water. Get up, dry off, clean up and vote independent! The way it looks . . . the South won't have to rise again. The North will fall.
Liberals weren't his only supporters. You had borderlines Republicans, Progressives and Dems who wanted him. Republicans are much worse, just business, corporate, business, corporate, ponzi scheme, bailouts, and the remnants of their recent greed get-rich quick programs trickle-down in the later years. ALL of this is on Bush's watch. Inflated housing prices from 2001 to 2007, Katrina, 9-11, Cheney, WMDs still hiding are they?. Going back to a same rhetoric Republican is not the answer nor is Obama-talk.
Basically, it is futile until 2016. There will not be any sudden turnarounds. 2008 was the depression, You cannot just jump out of it with a new leader with so much disagreement in the house and senate. Bottom line is politicians are dirty and cannot be trusted. I hate to say it but now I trust lawyers more than politicians & wall street bankers.
To All, All that's needed is to look at California, New York, etc. Where unions are king,the states feel the sting. They used to borrow from the federal gov't, now they can't. H
You are kidding, right? You think unions are the problem? What about Florida? We are a strong right to work state. There are almost no unions here. Try economic policy, financial institutions (not banks, they have been robbed), organized white collar crime, foreign influence, mismanagement, export of manufacturing and services . . .
Being from Illinois, I can see how you have a dim view of unions. We don't like them either. Hello?! However, it is not reality based to say they are even that much of a factor in causing this mess.
I have heard that talk before . . . years and years ago. You don''t hear it much anymore. Right behind segregation in importance, it is the mainstay of Ku Klux Klan rhetoric.
Nonsense all...you have shown your true colors...
I need not show you proof of Nixon's bow....the "interweb" is full of them already..
Bush was an idiot who couldn't speak if the teleprompter was speaking for him...
I have no problem with men kissing and holding hands... You were the one who mocked customs and courtesies (or rather, showed a lack of depth on the topic/a need to selectively choose one while minimizing another...simply partisan brain drain..nothing more).
Again, I used to watch Obama speak every day...and most of his messages are done without teleprompters.... There are those who only listen when the Pres does a really, really official speech, and then presume that this is how they all are..
It seems you have a little too much "rah rah republican" on the mind...
So wait, everything I said is nonsense?
I would like to ensure we are talking about the same thing, and an illustration would be helpful in a discussion of the event. If you want to talk about it, post a picture and I'll walk you through it. If the bow is improper, I would say so. I don't know, I haven't looked.
Ok, so first you say all politicians are using teleprompters, but Bush is an idiot for using one? And I'm the one showing my colors?
I didn't mock customs and courtesies. I said it is inappropriate for our President to perform a subservient bow to another leader. We can talk about what is a proper and what is an improper bow, but you seem to think it's all 'nonsense' and 'partisan brain drain'. You don't even know what party(s) I support.
Obama's bow to Saudi King:
Obama's bow to Hu Jintao:
The second bow is appropriate, a slight bow to show respect. The first bow is what, 45 degrees or more, and possibly with bent knees. There are different types of bows.
Hmm.... that's strange considering that I'm not a Republican...
For not being "right wing", you do a good job defending them while attacking Obama. Actions speak louder than words.
As I said, the Nixon bow is on the internet, and I don't care to discuss it...I have already expressed that I have no problem with the POTUS engaging in customs and courtesies....foreign dignitaries do the same when they come here.. Now, if, when the Saudi delegation came to the U.S., Obama's female staff showed up in full veils and such, then perhaps I would agree with you... But, for foreignors who may (in their own nations/cultures) stand against women political figures (for example), they have to suck it up and move on. In the U.S. women can wear pants, shake hands with the big boys, and broker deals.
Why don't you want to actually address my points about different types of bows?
You say I do a good job of defending 'right wing' while attacking Obama. I think my previous posts have been pretty clear. My 'defense' of Bush was in relation to you comparing Bush properly adapting the Arab customs to Obama's not properly adapting.
Again, since you continue to ignore me, kissing cheeks and holding hands is a sign of friendship and mutual respect. A slight bow is a sign of respect. A deep bow is a sign of subservience.
Anything else you take from my arguments is up to you. I'm not acting the 'republican apologetic' that you think I am.
The topic just happens to be Obama, which is why I'm talking about him.
Did you notice how I said Obama's bow to Hu Jintao wasn't inappropriate?
You seem to think I have a side, but I told you before my only 'party' is truth. If Obama does something good I will acknowledge it. If he does something bad I will acknowledge it.
When Mr. o went to Japan he offered to apologize for Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The Emperor refused his offer. However,Mr O did show how low he could go
Remember, you began with a lot more criticism than just a bow.. You have deflected away my comments about Obama's well documented public speaking without teleprompters... I do not know what speeches Obama has written/co-written...but 1) how many Presidents have been writing their own speeches over the past 50 years? 2) the President has spoken many times without anything in front of him..just a microphone in his hands.. He is human, and is not always on his "A" game....but it's good to know that Obama's "B"/"C" game made Bush's "A" game look like a failing grade...(which it was).
I further saw you/see you as biased because, while criticizing Obama's speaking, you have selected to leave out 1) the former president, 2) the former GOP presidential contenders, and 3) the current GOP contenders..(along with the rest of your posts here that I did not comment on). Further, you somehow like to put forward that Obama has lowered U.S. credibility/respect in the world... That is ludicrous. Simply bring Bush back in, and let us see where we have come from... We are much better off now than we were 10-12 years ago, at least in terms of our appearances abroad. As for the economy, we are simply seeing now what was already happening 10 years ago..wars hid the downturn, and tax cuts (while waging two wars...stupidity taken to its core) made it worse in the long run.
That's the truth, but I don't think you'll be agreeing with me... Ergo, I think there is much more of a bias in your words than you like to make out..
I'm sorry, I haven't fully responded to your points because you have completely brushed mine aside. I tend to treat people the way they treat others.
We have differing opinions on what constitutes A/B/C game. I'm sure I could post good speeches and poor speeches for Obama, both with and without a teleprompter. Some of the things he says and does in speaking is completely unforgivable to me.
The reason I have spoken about Obama is pretty simple. The OP is about Obama.
I'm not going to hijack a thread. However, you choose to read that as a defense for the Rs on my part, which it isn't.
Do you have any idea how many problems there are with U.S. credibility? For example, I was in Brasil and watched the news report time and time again that U.S. soldiers in Iraq were strapping bombs to themselves, setting up mines on the roads, and blowing up innocent people just for the heck of it. If you think the U.S. media has a problem, you should see some other countries' medias.
Once again, I haven't made any position towards Bush here. If you want to talk about Bush make a topic for it.
"4) ignoring Congress to pass legislation through executive orders"
Long long tradition there. America is still stuck with affirmative action by executive order (LBJ)
Rest i agree with...
The original topic here has nothing to do with Obama's speaking skills or how the U.S. is perceived abroad.
It specifically asks how liberals still support the POTUS.
Being liberal, I am providing my perspective. I am showing why he is still supported.
If you go back to our original posts, you will find that I'd answered every point you made.
In terms of support for the president abroad, Bush would receive protests and jeers...even shoes thrown at his head during press conferences... World leaders bend over backwards to get photo ops with Obama (latest seen while he was in Australia). The right criticized Obama for travelling around the world after getting elected (which was undeserved), and look at the response he overwhelmingly received.
Now, compare the response he received to the aforementioned treatment of Mr. Bush...
There is no comparison.
http://www.pewglobal.org/2009/07/23/con … the-world/
http://www.pbs.org/frontlineworld/stori … razil.html
It seems, in Brasil, anti-Iraq opinion predates Obama, and is not linked to him, aside from his inheriting the war..
http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/art … 1836.shtml
Most people are smart enough to know that Iraq was the product of a corrupted GOP leadership hijacked by neo-conservatives (primarily from the Project for a New American Century). They know that Bush was a dupe....a stooge....a crony....a liar. It's too bad more Americans haven't realized that the GOP hasn't changed a bit.
Liberals will support Obama, for he is the best choice out of the few we are given.
Obama, not Bush. That's why I'm talking about Obama. I don't see what's so difficult to understand. If you want to talk about Bush, post a thread and I'll contribute if I feel like it.
Really? You called the 'bowing issue' nonsense (http://hubpages.com/forum/post/1870649) without actually discussing it.
I tried to clarify for you that there are different meanings attached to different bows in different countries(http://hubpages.com/forum/post/1870740).
You responded by comparing the bowing to Bush's kissing cheeks(http://hubpages.com/forum/post/1870773), again, not addressing what I actually said.
I explained the difference, stating that Bush's actions were appropriate, yet a bow like Obama's is considered subservient(http://hubpages.com/forum/post/1870785).
You replied that what I said was nonsense, but at the same time conceded there was nothing wrong with Bush's actions. You then said I mocked the customs of others, when I only stated my feelings about Obama inappropriately bowing(http://hubpages.com/forum/post/1870801).
Sensing you needed extreme clarification, I posted examples of different types of bows, appropriate and inappropriate(http://hubpages.com/forum/post/1870810)
You responded that I'm just right-wing, and continued to ignore my points(http://hubpages.com/forum/post/1870830).
Can you follow that?
There are many reasons why some like Obama, and there are reasons why some don't like Obama. I don't know what the news campaigns about Obama are worldwide, but I know from America and Brasil that public opinion is greatly affected by the presentation of news. Worldwide media wasn't fair to Bush from what I saw. I don't really know about Obama cause I haven't been travelling. All I know are what the people I speak with around the globe think.
You completely miss the point about media. The point was clear intentional presentation of lies. Like I said, I only know about Brasil for the time, but everybody hated Bush because he was sending in suicide bombers to blow up hospitals according to their news.
Long..your last sentence says a lot.
I did discuss the bowing, as nonsensical and a non-issue only raised by the daft. I stand by that 100%. I provided rebuttal, but you choose to focus on trivia. There are established customs and courtesies provided for diplomats and officials for every nation. They are well understood (except maybe by you and those who think as you do). You can find these sources on the "googles" as well. The Bush kissing commment was a joke to someone else...not to you. That is quite clear..reread if you must.
If I am to answer to why liberals still stand behind the POTUS and one is witnessing (as in this forum) people poke at things like Obama's oratory or his bowing, then it is only reasonable to provide context in which to actually judge.
Perhaps you prefer looking at issues in a vacuum, but I don't. Let us look at the quality of the politicians we have and judge them accordingly. Again, Obama has shown to be above and beyond most presidents, and nearly all that have been recorded for us to see.
In terms of "right wing", I have spoken of the right wing itself, and I have spoken of you. You are only at this point attached with them in my eyes because you are talking the same nonsense that they do. If the forum is about liberals supporting Obama, and I am representing a liberal who supports him, what are you? Unless your a liberal who doesn't support him, you are definitely to the "right" of me.
You are right, worldwide media was not fair to Bush...they needed to call for his arrest, and for the removal of him and his VP (the actual president) from office for war crimes and abuse of power.
You tried to paint Obama as unpopular around the world, and brought up a comment made in Brasil about Iraq. I countered with actual facts, including two perspectives from Brasil...all of which contradicted your claim. That is clear. As for the credibility of the United States, it has always been spotty, at best. There may be people abroad who love our Presidents, but there are a lot of foreign and domestic issues that haunt our national reputation. As for Brasil's report about American suicide bombers, that is on them...they have been stern critics of our engagement in Iraq from the beginning...as more Americans should have been.
http://www.politicsdaily.com/2011/03/01 … e-but-can/
While a liberal, per se, I am not 100% in that arena. In terms of Libya, I have wondered "why did it take so long?" While the anti-war left and the moaning and groaning hypocrites on the right criticized Obama for his treatment of that north African nation, I commend how this regime change has, overall, taken place.
Again, I reiterate, Obama is the best person for the job out of everyone in the running...and there is no one in the GOP who has any credibility or ability to do anything that I, as a liberal, want to see get done. If your view is different that is one thing. To continue about bowing, again, trivializes all of this and completely skews the issue brought up in the original post.
You did not 'discuss' the bowing. You refused to talk about the meaning of bowing in different cultures. You say there are established customs and courtesies, but you can't be bothered to actually back up your claims. Instead you shift burden of proof to me.
It doesn't work that way. If you want to say it was standard and a non-issue, you have to provide support for your statement. Otherwise, they are just hollow words.
Right... and your context is a perfectly proper exchange from Bush, and an incident of bowing you refuse to discuss or even post a picture of...
Great context...(I need a New Year's resolution not to be sarcastic in 2012).
Ok, how has he shown to be above and beyond? What has he done to help America.(not other people's view of America, let's talk about us).
Just make up your mind what you want to call me instead of playing games. 'Right wing' 'right of me'... there is no point in even making those remarks unless you mean something by them... since you call it nonsense(but you can't refute what I say) I assume it's derogatory.
Ok, cool. Let's discuss Bush in a Bush thread. Changing the topic is hijacking.
No, you misunderstand what I said. I said Obama does embarrassing things when he interacts with foreign dignitaries. I didn't say he is unpopular. Even the popular kid's voice can crack.
Hey, you have the problem with the bowing issue, or you wouldn't have started this. If you have a problem, why don't you man up and discuss it instead of brushing it off?
Man up about bowing?
That's even more ridiculous than discussing the bowing.
If you can't use the googles to find the pictures of Nixon or to look up customs and courtesies that is on you. I said from the very beginning that all this was a waste of time, why you'd continue to pursue it is on you...
My points are plainly made.
There is nothing else left to say.
Listen, if you want to say 'there are customs and it's not a big deal', without providing any substance to your claim, then it doesn't mean anything. When you extend that to say my claim(which has substance) is right-wing, brainwashed, whatever, then you cross from a hollow argument to unfounded accusations.
I posted plenty about customs and examples, which you ignore, yet you continue to say I'm wrong.
Again, if you want to say something isn't an issue, try to man up and provide some substance.
The proponderance of those people who have criticized the President over bowing are overwhelmingly found in the GOP/right wing camp. I have been listening and reading their b.s. for years.
If you are not amongst them that is fine. I'm just letting you know that you are using their ridiculous arguments. Do you remember when Obama put on "ethnic" dress in one of the nation's he visited? He had a white turban-like hat on with matching white outfit? There was only one political faction criticizing him, and they used the same justifications (though bogus ones) that you do.
Again, you may not be one of them, but you sound a lot like them.
My claims are my claims. I research on my own without people giving me links...I have provided key words for google searching. You have the interwebs at your fingertips. I will not spoonfeed you, or anyone else for that matter.
The issue, again, is why/how liberals support Obama...
I have overwhelmingly answered this, but you can't get over bowing..
Misplaced priorities? I think so.
"Man up"? Please.
If you continue to reference customs in reference to Obama's bowing, I will continue to tell you that there are different meanings with different types of bows in different cultures.
Like you said, you have the interwebs at your fingertips. Look it up.
I have a problem when our President shows subservience. It's one of(a small one, but one of) the many reasons why I don't support Obama.
Blah blah blah......
Thanks for showing your true colors. It is clearly evident from your writing that you ARE far to the right of me. It is also clear that this forum thread was not geared towards you....but rather to folks like me, who were being questioned about supporting Obama..something that I have repeatedly answered to in this thread regarless of the frivolous exchanges that you have enabled.
The thread is about 'how do liberals still like this guy'. The OP didn't ask only liberals to post their opinions. Otherwise it would be 'Liberals, how do you support this guy?'.
I voiced some of my reasons for not understanding how people support Obama. Well within the scope of the thread.
I have posted said pictures of Nixon bowing to the Chinese premier in several forum threads here in the past. You are not the first person here on Hubpages who has tried to criticize the President for bowing...you, however, are the only one to try to now point to the degree of the bow... I call this running from pillar to post in terms of actually discussing political/governance issues.
Being that I have already done this many, many times with many, many people, I don't feel the need to oblige your requests that I do the footwork for your "research".
Do your own....
I know what bow you are talking about. You just don't understand that different angles and presentations of bows mean different things in different cultures. I pointed out two of Obama's bows, one appropriate, and one very much inappropriate.
But, you can't bother to address it so you dismiss it. After all, addressing it would take so much more work than dismissing it repeatedly(or would it?).
The fact is, you responded to me. You put yourself into the discussion. If you want to do that, don't expect to just say I'm wrong and ask me to go figure out why. Hollow arguments.
No.....not at all.
I don't see the "inappropriateness"....and I think those who do have missed the proverbial boat.
As I said, I have been reading and listening to people bash Obama over bowing for years... Simply because you now wish to discuss the degree of the bow smacks, in my mind, of frivolity. I dismiss what I find to be unimportant...and bowing is definitely in this category.
"How do liberals still like this guy?"<---thread topic
I explained it clearly.
Again, if you are a liberal showing why you don't like Obama, that is one thing, however, looking through all of your posts, I don't see any of this.
Again, bowing was not mentioned in the thread topic, and I don't think a single liberal is giving bowing any thought whatsoever....people don't care. It's a non-issue (as I have said repeatedly).
It is your issue, clearly...and perhaps you should open a new topic about foreign relations and bowing/customs and courtesies...for that obviously was not the topic up for discussion.
I did not respond to your original comment about bowing to start discussing bowing, but to point out how brain-dead such arguments are.
I still agree with this view 100%.
On a side note, if we are to compare politicians and their customs and courtesy display ability (and the pride/discontent Americans feel about them), then looking at Nixon's picture juxtaposed with his "service" to this nation speaks volumes.
Let us say Nixon bowed "appropriately".....he also severely tarnished the office of the Presidency in front of the American people...he abused his power as president, and he became an embarrassment and laughing stock...something no other political leader ever wants to emulate...
But at least he got the bow right? Nonsense.
Obama has done a great job overall. He definitely has my vote, and if he decides to bow low in front of a foreign leader, I don't mind at all. I know who the United States is and the role we play in the world. No low bow will shake that..nor will dressing up in native attire....nor will bad dancing (as Bush did on one of his visits to an African nation who's name I can't bring to my mind right now, but perhaps you remember the video clip I am referring to?).
I responded to something you said, and it was only a small percentage of my actual statement. It is this minority portion that you have decided to magnify to the proportions we see here. This was a dead issue to me a long time ago, and will continue to be such...
I hope you can also look past the trivia and deal with substantive issues. There are so many to choose from...are there not?
Ok, you don't think it's important. That has nothing to do with the actual culture that you so fervently reference. The fact is, the degree and length of a bow in certain cultures changes the meaning. If you don't care that doesn't make it frivolous.
The OP didn't directly question Liberals and Liberals only. I pointed that out already. The best it could be classified as is a rhetorical question meant to stimulate discussion.
For you, it's a non-issue. For me, it's not. Are you more important than me?
The topic is Obama and his actions/lack of actions.
Yes, and obviously your opinion is 100% fact. If anyone disagrees they are trivial and stupid. Do you hear your arrogance?
You still haven't posted a picture so I'm not going to comment on the bow. Nor have I said that a bow defines a person. All I said is I don't appreciate my President performing subservient bows.
We can agree and disagree about many points. I don't have a problem with that.
Then drop it
Yes, there are many issues. I talk about a lot of them on various sites. I mentioned bowing here and people started talking about it. When someone comments on what I say, I respond. It's no big deal except for Liberals who decide that it is a big deal.
Thanks for identifying yourself as "other" than a liberal.
I was right... You tried to appear unbiased, but your real colors shine through... Good job.
"Let's talk about healthcare. We have a 1.5 trillion dollar deficit, failing medicare/medicaid and social security, and a high rate of unemployment. So, why would the government force healthcare on all Americans, when it can't pay for it, and fine people who choose not to have healthcare?"<--emrldphx
Let us see you discuss substantive issues, shall we?
Let us begin with discussing the deficit...
Was the war in Iraq funded? Yes or No
How much has this war cost the United States treasury?
At least one trillion dollars... $1,000,000,000,000! We don't know how much black budget money has been doled out....we will never know. It must be in the billion to several billion dollar range. We then have to tally the costs that are left out of this...and what is to come in the future for the men and women returning home from service.
How many Americans have served in the military since 9/11?
The much increased GI Bill payments have to be made...the new dependence on the VA has to be supported...and the new unemployed and homeless veterans will have to be taken care of...
So let's cut taxes? The U.S. must really rank low in math comprehension.
This is just Iraq....and Afghanistan is only one of over a hundred nations who receive money that should, largely, be reinvested in this nation (how about at least stopping the robbery of Social Security?).
Were tax cuts in a time of war (Dick Cheney's "blank check" policy...greatly affecting his defense industry stock portfolio) a good idea? Yes or No
Who would ever cut revenue when government obligations are obviously going to go up? Why were War Bonds not sold? I realize that we didn't "officially" declare war on Iraq, but this wasn't obscure Vietnam, or so we were told. This was our response to our generation's Pearl Harbor (something the Project for the New American Century neocons were hoping and praying for)....and we then decide to screw our own society over by raising the demand for taxation while at the same time cutting the sources of the needed revenue and failed to work truly to raise the money and support that was needed. Ten years later...look at the mess that has been created.
Blunderbuss Bush blathered about "drunken Wall Street" as the economy collapsed around him...but it was rather the intoxication of power that the minority elite dominating the Republican Party fell victim to that set the stage for what has transpired.
Concerning health care, the typical private sector "mini-med" plans are illusory insurance...they do not actually provide the benefits that comprehensive health care does. The GOP will point to the deficit, deficit, deficit, but that is largely their own creation.
Having a government stake in health care...forcing competition through the providing of benefits that the current corporate oligarchy running our Nixon-approved (red flag warnings there) health care system does not, is important. The health care plan put forward is a bi-partisan creation... It is too bad the GOP has to cater to their corporate bosses......their real base (as Bush said in a speech he gave while running for president).
Unfortunately, we can't get back the treasure we have lost (continue to lose) to Iraq...just like California couldn't get back the money Enron defrauded them of.
I will have more later...
Well put. You nailed it. Now we need a solution. That is what I have been writing about...in general.
Right... I have no quarrel with you on this. I'm ticked at our Government's spending among other things.
What do you want to do? Raise taxes in a recession?
I'm a staunch advocate of lower taxes being beneficial to an economy. Our problem is we way overspend the revenues from taxes, not that our taxes are too low. Our taxes are high enough right now.
Are you trying to teach me something? Or are you still assuming that I'm a staunch Bush apologetic?
I point to the deficit because it's ridiculous. How long do you think we can keep adding 1, 1.5, 2 trillion dollars to our debt each year?
Is it your opinion that the insurance companies are rolling in cash?
Ok... We have problems, I don't think there is much disagreement there.
"Who would ever cut revenue when government obligations are obviously going to go up? "
Liberals just don't get it. Since Reagan the republicans effort, at least it appears to me, was to expand the national debt i.e use debt for national defense measures or the DEMS will use it to create more cradle to gave socialism -a guaranteed recipe for the destruction of any economic system. With the republican plan, one can always pull out of a war or shut down a defense industry factory . I know of no example of a federal [liberal] social program ever being shut down. So Miguel, when you say one trillion has been spent on wars, why don't you point out what you're real complaint is : one trillion could hv been spent on liberal social programs. Either way , war or social programs, the debt was was going to be created!
We have to also discuss the unfunded "No Child Left Behind" Act.
The party of the "fiscally conservative" worked hard to turn a projected surplus into definite deficit with no sign of "the end of the tunnel"...
I am not just writing to you. I should not have to cater my writing style to you...right?
I am not ticked off at government spending. Government has a role to play in education and health care, among other issues. Don't place the Iraq war spending criticism in the same area of "government spending"....that was government robbery...that had nothing to do with "out of control government spending" and everything to do with using us as an ATM in order to push the agenda of big business. You may see these as all the same issue...but I do not.
In terms of taxes, I would put them at the same place they were when Clinton was President. There are plenty of jobs to get done that the government can help out with. We need to spend dollars smarter....as I mentioned concerning education spending. Private businesses are hooking themselves like leeches to systems like education... The relationship between publishers and districts, for example, needs to be completely reevaluated.
In terms of the health care oligarchy, ask yourself, how much does marketing, profits, and administration add to expected outlays add to the premium paid by the individual purchasing a policy?
I've never invested in healthcare companies, so I'm not familiar with any of their balance sheets. United Health Care operated on a 5% profit margin last year, so there's not a lot of room on their end. Like I said though, I'm not familiar with that market, and I wouldn't touch it with a 10 foot pole anytime soon either.
I want to add something more to taxation..being that we are at war...in two official places and eyeballing a third (Iran), it would make sense to find ways to raise revenue similar to war bonds.
We cannot continue to falsely believe that we can wage war around the world and take care of our domestic issues without raising more funding. If we are at war then we need to act like it...find a way to pay for it without undermining everything else... If this cannot be done, then don't go to war...especually when it is a piece of fiction like Iraq.
I suppose your right.... Raising revenue in support of World War 2 was just a socialist agenda... Nice.
I said one trillion (more) has been spent on Iraq....not "wars".. You may think this is unimportant, but I would much rather spend to help lower health care costs and alter the atmosphere in the health industry than to enrich warmongers through a b.s. war...a war based soley on lies and manipulation.
Perhaps you think the war in Iraq was needed? We have shown that you can't just "pull-out"... It took 10 years to extricate from Vietnam...it has taken longer to get out of the Iraq we never should have been in... As for Afghanistan, we will never be able to leave... We won't actually be leaving Iraq either...our dollars will be going there for a long, long time to come.
Don't isolate "liberals and dems" as those supporting health care reform...Republicans have supported the very same ideas that the new health care system entailed.
Socialism already exists....it is just directed at Dyncorp, Halliburton, GE, and many, many others.
It's funny how quickly I'd get responses about trivia like bowing, but how long it takes to get a response about substance.
No. I used your quote to begin this new line of thinking. I argued against it...namely health care. I supposed you would have something to back yourself up. I noticed you were out trying to bolster uncertainty about the poll showing Fox Schmews to cause brain drain, so I thought sure you would have something to say herein.
If you are in agreement with what I have written, however, that is another story.
Health care is a problem. Governmental health care isn't the answer though.
I looked at the poll in that post, and when I look at a poll I automatically check the methodology. It made me laugh, so I posted how absurd it was. I would have done the same thing if it said that FOX news viewers are 40% more educated on political topics.
I'm at home all day, around the computer all day, but I actually have a lot going on. Sometimes I hit topics while I have other processes running or some down time. Sometimes I can only hit a couple points, and I tend to go for less in-depth topics so I don't get swamped. Beside, I have 5 debates running right now, and I'm launching a new website. So sorry if I don't always respond right away, or if I don't care to go looking into exact figures for a market to see what can be done about it.
Don't worry about it.
Regarding health care, however...if the industry itself is incapable of enacting much needed reforms (providing coverage for more people and not limiting access to those without pre-existing conditions for example), then how is change supposed to take place?
5% is about right from statistics I have seen, but in terms of dividends to individual shareholders, it is 11-14/15% rate of return.
My understanding is that recently a lot of the liberals and Democrats are showing a high disapproval of him.
Define "a lot".
I'd wager what you heard was largely misinformation.
There are liberals who are completely anti-war who gave him a hard time over Libya. I'd disagree with them on that. There are those who criticize him for not pulling out of Iraq immediately after getting into office, but I (though entirely against Iraq) realize that this is not so easily done. The same for Afghanistan, although I do support our actions over there.
From the polling I have seen, at least 70% of Democrats asked support his reelection.
I'd definitely wish to reevaluate the calculations going into the rate of return. I will be looking much more into the costs incurred by these insurance companies.
With this said, I think tort reform is an absolute must.
I do question the issue of profiting at all from health care. However, I thought it was interesting how (in the Time article) the fear held by patients towards having their records digitized and the relationship this has on cost. People are afraid of being dropped from their coverage, or having their rates altered. If one cannot purchase auto insurance, the state steps in, providing risk pools through which insurance companies are required to take a number of "at risk" drivers. There are ways to alter the structure of our health care industry/insurance industry in order to benefit the population at large in terms of service provided and the cost at which it is supplied.
http://nymag.com/news/politics/liberals … t-2011-11/
Johathan Chait explains why liberals are unhappy but should still support Barack Obama
Here is my explanation: Liberals are dissatisfied with Obama because liberals, on the whole, are incapable of feeling satisfied with a Democratic president. They can be happy with the idea of a Democratic president—indeed, dancing-in-the-streets delirious—but not with the real thing. The various theories of disconsolate liberals all suffer from a failure to compare Obama with any plausible baseline. Instead they compare Obama with an imaginary president—either an imaginary Obama or a fantasy version of a past president.
So, what if we compare Obama with a real alternative? Not to Republicans—that’s too easy—but to Democratic presidents as they lived and breathed?
One variant of liberal disappointment has taken the form of resurgent Clinton nostalgia. Hillary Clinton, removed from the undertow of partisan combat in her role as secretary of State, has enjoyed soaring approval ratings, while Bill has burnished his credentials with a book on fixing the economy. If Bill Clinton (or Hillary Clinton—admirers tend to blur their identities) were in charge, pine their devotees, they wouldn’t have rolled over on the economy. They’d have fought the Republicans on the stimulus and won. “If Hillary gave up one of her balls and gave it to Obama,” James Carville told a Christian Science Monitor breakfast last year, “he’d have two.” Clinton was known for his slogan “It’s the economy, stupid,” and has become one repository for frustrated Democrats who believe Obama failed to attack the economic crisis with enough vigor. “No one ever had to tell Hillary that,” a bitter Clinton primary supporter recently remarked to the Daily Beast. More--
http://nymag.com/news/politics/liberals … t-2011-11/
I'm one of these people. I really wanted Hillary to win in 2008. I was so sad that she didn't. And then I felt compelled to vote for Obama despite the fact that I would like to see a Democratic leader with balls for once!
I simply think Obama has not done enough. I think he deserves a second term, but I'm dissatisfied with his silence about Occupy Wall Street's concerns and his wishy-washy stance on GLBT rights, as well as the fact that he hedges to Republican pressure on too many important issues, like when he failed to pass universal health care. But I'm more dissatisfied with Congress and the Supreme Court at the moment, especially since the Supreme Court a few years ago said that a corporation counts as a person and can then legally buy elections with unlimited donation amounts.
by LucidDreams3 years ago
I am not saying ALL Republicans are, I am just wondering why anyone would actually stay with a party that is clearly not on the same page as most of America? Most (not all) but most who are die hard right Republicans...
by Scott Bateman7 months ago
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/20 … ouseholds/
by Jimbo'daNimbo4 years ago
http://twitchy.com/2012/10/07/democrats … -stickers/Again....no big surprise. There are no rules for the liberals.
by TMMason5 years ago
Earlier today, The Blaze reported on the bi-partisan lawsuit that congressional members filed this week against the White House. Now, President Barack Obama’s administration is speaking out, claiming that the War...
by pisean2823116 years ago
how do you see his upcoming two years?
by Ralph Deeds7 years ago
Paul Krugman's column in the NYTimes today 1-5-08 is entitled "Fighting Off Depression." In it he called the recent economic numbers "terrifying," not just in the U.S. but around the world....
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.