jump to last post 1-9 of 9 discussions (62 posts)

I just don't get it...

  1. pageantgirl31413 profile image85
    pageantgirl31413posted 7 years ago

    In just about any post about President Obama, someone brings up that if you don't like him it's because your a republican. Do people actually expect that only republicans dislike him? I mean seriously, I've talked to a lot of people, including a lot of people that voted for him that don't like his politics or decisions or wish they hadn't voted for him. I guess the reason I'm writing this is to says to those who use that excuse, open up and look around. It's not just republicans anymore. I don't like his politics and I am NOT a republican!

    1. Drew Breezzy profile image79
      Drew Breezzyposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      or your racist if you don't like him (rolls eyes)

    2. Friendlyword profile image61
      Friendlywordposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Not liking the President's politics is completely different than the insane hate right wing nuts have for their President.   There are Oil Barrons and Insurance company executives hiring Goons to destroy the man for Corporate Profit. But, there is nothing wrong with your legitimate policy difference with President Obama. Please tell me you understand that portraying the First Black President as Hitler or a Witch Doctor is sick, twisted, insane, and evil.

      1. ledefensetech profile image70
        ledefensetechposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        So what do you think about Valarie Jarrett and her running public housing in Chicago into the ground while she made a multimillion dollar salary?  She'd have made out like a bandit if the Olympics had come to Chi-town as they have to bulldoze her handiwork to the ground because maintenance has been so spotty it would cost more to fix than to destroy.  But it must be OK, because she's one of the Anointed Ones from our Glorious Leader.  How could he make a mistake such as that.  Oh wait, he also had Van Jones working for him too.

        How is that any different from the Oil Barons and Insurance company executives.  Looks like we're exchanging one set of goons for another set of goons to me.  Some of us are just better at ignoring race when it comes to screwing people over than others.

        1. Friendlyword profile image61
          Friendlywordposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          Why do these one or two slumlords bother you more than the millions of slumlords out here in our cities? Hum.  Anyway, like Sally said give us some solutions.  Tell us what President Ledefensetech would be doing instead of President Obama. Please be specific. No more bitching and moaning.

          1. ledefensetech profile image70
            ledefensetechposted 7 years ago in reply to this

            You didn't answer my question.  But to answer yours, they bother me because they are close to a person who holds an office that has far too much power, much more than was originally invested in the office by the people who established our government.  They believed, quite rightly, that such power could do great harm.

            Obama has surrounded himself with slumlords, Communists, terrorists and thugs.  I'm not quite sure what that says about him personally, but giving people like that any sort of power is a bad thing.

            As for what I'd do.  Well first the IRS and Federal Reserve would be gone.  Next I'd get the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Amendments repealed. That should put us square on the road to recovery.  Next, hmmmm.  I'd repeal the Fair Labor Standards Act, an oxymoron if there ever were one, and I'd lobby for the elimination of the FDA, FCC and all government agencies that attempt to control the economy. 

            As for healthcare, I'd ask the states to seriously consider eliminating the state boards and barring the AMA from any regulatory decisions.  I'd also eliminate the patent monopoly that drug companies enjoy after they develop a drug.  Finally I'd eliminate all forms of welfare, corporate and otherwise.

  2. ledefensetech profile image70
    ledefensetechposted 7 years ago

    It's just a way for his supporters to confuse the issue now that more and more people are turning against his policies.

  3. Uninvited Writer profile image81
    Uninvited Writerposted 7 years ago

    I have never heard anyone say it is only Republicans who don't like him. His policies have not had enough of a chance to know if they will or won't work, if they don't I will be the first person to admit that. However, I feel you have to give someone a chance first. People did not start attacking Bush from the minute he was elected, only after he did things they did not agree with.

    1. Lisa HW profile image81
      Lisa HWposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Bush has a reputation from not being particularly visible until 9/11; and, in general, he has often been called names that suggest he wasn't very visible for most of his Presidency.  People have given numbers regarding how many press conferences Bush held versus Obama.  Obama has made himself very visible, and he's attempted to make those major changes he promised right from the start.  As a result, he's been more of a target.

      1. fred hensel profile image53
        fred henselposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        Deservedly so.Obama talks and Bush worked.

    2. fred hensel profile image53
      fred henselposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      They started attacking Bush before he was inaugurated.

  4. ledefensetech profile image70
    ledefensetechposted 7 years ago

    UW, anyone even slightly acquainted with history could tell you his policies won't work and why they won't work.  It's not just a matter of letting his polices work and watching the outcome.  I, personally, might cut him more slack if I could find one example of his policies actually working in the real world, but you can't.  That is why more and more people are opposing his policies.

    1. Uninvited Writer profile image81
      Uninvited Writerposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      There you go again, assuming just because someone disagrees with you they don't know history at all... Then you'd better tell the entire G20 that they are doing it wrong, maybe they will listen to you...

      1. ledefensetech profile image70
        ledefensetechposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        It's funny how France and Germany ignored the rest of the G20 and they're seeing real economic growth.  Just wait, the rest of the world will sink into depression more and more over the next few months. 

        By the way, you never cited an example where a society successfully spent it's way out of a depression.  Try to find one, rather than attempting to confuse the issue.

        1. profile image0
          A Texanposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          Whats also funny is France and Germany are leaning more right these days, Coincidence?

          1. ledefensetech profile image70
            ledefensetechposted 7 years ago in reply to this

            Well there's right and there's right, if you get my meaning.  Russia could also have been said to go to the right, but doing it their way is still the wrong way to go.  It's more accurate to say that their economic policies have become more free as opposed to more regulated.

            1. Misha profile image74
              Mishaposted 7 years ago in reply to this

              Umm, yes. Not only economic, civil liberties are significantly increased, in fact more than economic ones. Why do you think it is the wrong direction?

              1. ledefensetech profile image70
                ledefensetechposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                By nationalizing industries, Russia will wind up curtailing civil liberties as well.  When you nationalize something you give it government backing and that has the effect of withering the market because the government backing kills competition.  Less competition means less choice.  Less choice means that living expenses goes up and the standard of living declines.  That causes political unrest, which leads to curtailment of civil liberties.  There are plenty of occurrences throughout history I could name. 

                Getting rid of Communism was only a part of the solution for Russia, now they have to complete their market liberalization.  Like the US, the current Russian economic model owes more to the National Socialist model than a free market one.

                1. Misha profile image74
                  Mishaposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                  Umm, looks like one of us is having a temporary lapse of reason. I will readily admit that it is me if you show me how one can nationalize state property... And Soviet State owned all of it, and then some...

                  1. ledefensetech profile image70
                    ledefensetechposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                    Sorry Misha, I was talking about how Putin began nationalizing certain industries after he assumed power from Yeltsin.  The evolution of the Russian economy since then has been more along the lines of the National Socialist model than the Communist one.  Both types of economies are examples of centralized control of the economy, the state being the agent of control.

        2. Friendlyword profile image61
          Friendlywordposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          Your right... You cant spend your way out of a depression. You need a massive war to do that...Wait a minute...Didn't Bush try that? Yea, I think he did. And he put this country into a recession that President Obama is trying to save us from. You sound scholarly for a minute then you conveniently ingnore the fact that President Obama is setting up policies that will improve our economy over the long term.  He is not just SPENDING his way out of a depression. Go do your research.

          1. ledefensetech profile image70
            ledefensetechposted 7 years ago in reply to this

            Try again, we didn't get out of the Depression until 1946-1947, after the end of WW II.  We'll see if you still feel the same way a year from now.

          2. Friendlyword profile image61
            Friendlywordposted 7 years ago in reply to this

            By the way Thank God for Congressmen Alan Grayson from Florida. It is so refreshing to finally see a Man speak up in the Democratic Party.
            http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036677/#33249445
            http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036677/#33249516

            1. ledefensetech profile image70
              ledefensetechposted 7 years ago in reply to this

              Sorry to disappoint, but Alan Grayson is just another political shill.  The Repbublicans didn't start the "death panel" rumors, the public did:



              http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.actio … 4697241980

              I'd rather see more members of Congress vote their conscience and not vote according to a party line.  Either party.

              1. Friendlyword profile image61
                Friendlywordposted 7 years ago in reply to this
                1. Friendlyword profile image61
                  Friendlywordposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                  Now you did it! You gonna git me banned. Saying the death panel rumors were started by regular people is an outright lie. It was started by bought and paid for Republican politicians. Grassley, Palin, And of Course Betsy. Check out Betsy's Waterloo. You are a smart man, so you know that was a false statement. Stop assuming everybody else is stupid.

                  http://thepoliticalcarnival.blogspot.co … an-vs.html

                  1. ledefensetech profile image70
                    ledefensetechposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                    The problem is that I don't essentially disagree with those death panel rumors.  Government run healthcare is basically unsound.  Look at all the trouble Social Security is having today.  They're going to have to cut benefits soon.  That, too, will happen with government run healthcare, sooner or later.  It may not be in our lifetimes, but it will happen.  I'm not willing to pass that sort of legacy off to my kids or grandkids. 

                    The problem we have with healthcare is that there are not enough providers, we have massive government intervention already that strangles competition and we have regulations that benefit doctor's salaries at the expense of their patients.

                    http://mises.org/story/3708

                    That is one thing I don't hear anyone talking about.  It really does come down to simple economics.  If you increase the supply of healthcare, healthcare costs will go down.  Why you do think that politicians aren't asking questions related to healthcare supply?

                2. Friendlyword profile image61
                  Friendlywordposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                  "panels designed to determine the type of treatment that severely ill people should be granted and what has been called end of life counseling."

                  Hey everybody this is an outright lie. The government Health Care Plan would Pay for end of life counseling to  find out what type of treatment a severely ill person WANTS, NOT WHAT THEY WOULD BE GRANTED.  That's a lie created by Repuplicans Politicians. They are just slick liars tryin scare Grandma and Stupid people.

                  1. Misha profile image74
                    Mishaposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                    Rep politicians lie, I'll give you that. Yet Dem politicians lie too. With the same frequency, give or take. It's a professional requirement, if you did not know. smile

                  2. ledefensetech profile image70
                    ledefensetechposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                    Do you know why, economically speaking, end of life counseling is needed in a government monopoly of healthcare?  Would you accept those panels if they were instituted by private insurance companies?  Why or why not?

    2. Moonchild60 profile image82
      Moonchild60posted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Not enough time has gone by to make any serious judegment calls yet. Things have to be worked on, passed through and tried....more time is necessary and then we will have a clear picture of what he did well and what he did wrong.  Problem is too many people choming at the bit to jump all over his sh** and say "See see he's no good, he's a liar.." and whatever.  Lets be patient and wait for some real tried and true facts.  That would be new.

      1. ledefensetech profile image70
        ledefensetechposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        Moonchild, that is exactly what I mean.  Many of the President's proposals have been tried at different times throughout history and they've always ended badly.  Or would you rather wait until it's too late to change course before admitting there was probably a better way to do things. 

        To be fair, I think that McCain would have been worse for us because he'd have made the changes slower and not build up as much resentment as Obama has.  So in a perverse way I'm grateful to him for moving so quickly because he's opened quite a few people's eyes to the dangers of his agenda.

  5. Sally's Trove profile image84
    Sally's Troveposted 7 years ago

    Give the guy and his administration a break.  Look what they inherited.  Everybody knows you have to take care of old business before you can step into the new, unless you want to trash everything that came before you.

    We Americans are very short on the idea of 5, 10, 20, and god forbid, 100 year plans.  We want everything right now.  But a president gets 4 years, at best 8 years, to implement a plan.  This guy hasn't been in office for even a year.

    Take a look at the little ones in your families.  For the youngest of them, it will take a good two years for them to start pooping in the toilet instead of in their diapers.

    Everybody, young or old, gets caught up in a learning curve, that is, if they want to go forward and not backward.

    1. Misha profile image74
      Mishaposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      How long of a break Sally? Just give an exact number please. Preferably a bit shorter then a presidency term, or it does not make any sense, you know. smile

      1. Sally's Trove profile image84
        Sally's Troveposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        Sorry, Misha, no exact numbers.  If I could do that, I'd have hit the Power Ball payout at least once.

        1. ledefensetech profile image70
          ledefensetechposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          So if you don't know, how can you tell the rest of us to cut him some slack?

    2. ledefensetech profile image70
      ledefensetechposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Sally he inherited problems that have been compounding for a century.  Instead of reversing direction, he's continued in the wrong direction.  So no, he doesn't deserve any slack.  We're, all of us, about to get a lesson in why the New Deal failed in the 30's.  We've seen this all before, but most people haven't bothered to learn it.  So yes, there is a learning curve, but it's one the entire country is on, not just the President.

      1. Sally's Trove profile image84
        Sally's Troveposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        That's an interesting point.  And who let those problems compound?  It wouldn't be the American people, would it?  So why now is the responsibility of fixing things on "him"?  To your point, the entire country is on a learning curve.  So why don't we support the guy that got elected and do our duty to see that things go forward instead of backward?

        1. ledefensetech profile image70
          ledefensetechposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          Because he's doing all the things that got us into this mess in the first place.  Can you as an individual, spend money and expect to build wealth without spending money on the right things?  Why is the government so different?

          It's our duty to make sure our government doesn't overstep its bounds.  So yes, we do have a duty to support people who will return government to its roots.  The current President, like all of the 20th century Presidents shows no signs of doing that.

          1. Sally's Trove profile image84
            Sally's Troveposted 7 years ago in reply to this

            Seems like the question's been asked and answered.  We have a duty here, so let's step up to it.  After all, we elected him.  We'd be turncoats to walk away, unless, of course, he violated a law that would lead to impeachment.  Did he?

            1. ledefensetech profile image70
              ledefensetechposted 7 years ago in reply to this

              You may have voted for him, I didn't.  His stated policies when he was running and since he's been in office don't match mine, so why exactly should I not "walk away" from him?  Just because a person has a particular office doesn't mean that you have to check your common sense at the door.  What he's doing doesn't make sense.  It seems more like he's rewarding political cronies at the expense of everyone else than trying to fix our problems.

              1. Sally's Trove profile image84
                Sally's Troveposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                The "we" I speak of is the majority who voted him in (and let's not pick nits about electoral and popular votes).  Maybe I agree with him, maybe I don't; maybe I voted for him, maybe I didn't.  But he's what I've got to work with.  I can bemoan the fact that he was elected, or rejoice in it.  Doesn't matter.  He's the President, my fellow citizens voted him in.  So these are the shoes I get to wear and I can throw them in the trash if I don't like them, and go barefoot, or make them work.

                Good that we live in a place where we have choices we can make and voices we can exercise.

                1. ledefensetech profile image70
                  ledefensetechposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                  Oh yeah, because there was so much to choose from in the last election.  I'm glad you feel so great about being free to exercise your vote, but a choice between two equally bad outcomes is not a choice at all.  Which is why so much of the "majority" that voted him in is turning against his policies.  It is interesting to note how much of the other 50% are now getting involved in politics, many for the first time, and they're not interested in what the "majority" of 2008 had to say.

  6. Mighty Mom profile image91
    Mighty Momposted 7 years ago

    What would it take -- which initiative, domestic or abroad -- to convince anyone that he's doing something "right"? I'm just curious.

    1. ledefensetech profile image70
      ledefensetechposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Repealing the income tax, scrapping the Fed and IRS would be good first moves.

      1. Misha profile image74
        Mishaposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        That I would support. smile

  7. jiberish profile image76
    jiberishposted 7 years ago

    For christmas, I'm sending the Whitehouse a copy of Economics 101.

    1. ledefensetech profile image70
      ledefensetechposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Economics in One Lesson by Harry Hazlitt:  http://www.fee.org/pdf/books/Economics_ … lesson.pdf

      What You Should Know About Inflation:  http://mises.org/books/inflation.pdf

      Will Dollars Save the World:  http://mises.org/books/dollarssave.pdf

      All of those resources are free, so they don't even have to spend taxpayer money to educate themselves.

    2. pageantgirl31413 profile image85
      pageantgirl31413posted 7 years ago in reply to this

      lol, I always love to read your comments jiberish. They always give me a laugh smile

  8. Sally's Trove profile image84
    Sally's Troveposted 7 years ago

    Well, this was fun, ledefensetech.  But, yawn, time to go to bed.  Wonder where pageantgirl went off to.  Didn't she start all this?  smile

    1. ledefensetech profile image70
      ledefensetechposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Can't come up with any refutations, so you leave the field.  Typical.  If you can't defend your position, you shouldn't try to tell people what they should do.

    2. pageantgirl31413 profile image85
      pageantgirl31413posted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Sorry, made some dinner for my husband for when he gets home from work and got the babies to sleep.

      I didn't mean to start a debate but I should of known it would. I am just so tired of people calling me a republican or racist because I don't believe in his politics nor do I think he's doing a good job. I think it's great that we have a black president but I don't think that's a reason for us to like him. I pay attention to his choices and I don't like them. Such as the bail out of companies that really needed to crash in order to learn from it. Rather, they just took the money and gave bonuses or vacations to their workers. Nor do I agree with him sending more troops to Afghanistan. That is more personal to me since I come from a military family and I have both my husband and brother being deployed over there next year.

      1. ledefensetech profile image70
        ledefensetechposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        I'm conflicted about the Afghan thing too, but we need to decide what we're going to do.  Hell I didn't agree with it when they sent my dad to Somalia, but he signed up so he went.  In Afghanistan we need to fight to win or we need to leave.  Simple binary solution set.  Doing things half-@$$ will only turn Afghanistan into another Vietnam.

        1. profile image0
          A Texanposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          Its interesting that people who have actually fought or are close to someone who has fought seem to understand that Wars cannot be won by halfassed measures!

          1. ledefensetech profile image70
            ledefensetechposted 7 years ago in reply to this

            I've talked to a lot of Vietnam vets.  Plus wars are by their very nature destructive.  We have a moral duty to make any wars we fight of as limited a duration as possible to limit the damage we do.  Otherwise we rightfully incur the wrath of those whose lives we destroy.  It's just not as easy as saying "War is bad".  I wish more Progressives understood that.

        2. Misha profile image74
          Mishaposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          You can't win a guerrilla war. Well, you can strictly speaking, by eradicating ALL opponents including children, women, and elders - but it is not something your own population will tolerate. So the solution set is not even binary...

  9. pageantgirl31413 profile image85
    pageantgirl31413posted 7 years ago

    Like I've said many times before. We need to get away from republicans AND democrats. They are all money hungry, greedy politicians. Our choices for presidential candidates has been horrible. I wish they would bring in someone good for once.

    1. Friendlyword profile image61
      Friendlywordposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      From Venus or Mars? Ha! I think Obama and the Democrats are the best we can do on this planet. And I'll take Chicago Democrats over Texas Republicans any day.  That didn't work out to well for us.

 
working