|
Post by redleg on Nov 11, 2013 9:34:12 GMT -5
He was not. He was elected because he wasn't the Republican candidate. In a very real sense, he was elected because George W. Bush was a failure, and perhaps a little bit because no one liked or trusted Sarah Palin, or John McCain for rolling over when the GOP foisted her on him. What people really wanted him to do was (1) roll back the excesses of the Bush administration, and (2) fix the economy. He has not done (1), indeed, he has added his own excesses. And he largely ignored (2) in his pursuit of health care reform. Obama's goal with health care reform was either to get his name in the history books for Doing Something, or secure a large body of new gimmes who the Democrats can count on for votes. Or both. Basically, the man is a failure in every important way. I think health care has been in the wish list for many way before Obama. This was perhaps the first attemp. And you can't sit there and ignore what the repubs have done to this debate. AND the corporate propaganda machine. This wasn't a "first attempt", this was just the first time the Marxists had the majority to force it through regardless of what the American people wanted. And the Repubs, in the persons of Lee and Cruz, have brought the debate out in the open instead of leaving it behind the closed doors of Congress. It's the propaganda machine that's fed what little support that Puppettax has.
|
|
|
Post by redleg on Nov 11, 2013 9:35:58 GMT -5
I'm sure having others pay for their health care, and a lot of other things, is on a lot of people's wish lists. I think I read at the socialist site Workers' World that they believe automobile insurance should be an entitlement, too. Someone wanting something is not, by itself, sufficient reason for government to do it. The Democrats are trying to secure votes by giving people things. The problem is that this is unsustainable; the more you give away, the less time it will take to crash the country. joefriday used to bemoan the fact that the Republicans wouldn't roll over and start supporting Obama once ACA passed. I'll tell you what I told him: that's not their job. It's also illegal. There is nothing at all in the Constitution that authorizes the Federal government to steal from one group to pay to another group. There are multiple places in the Federalist Papers where the Founders warn specifically against exactly that.
|
|
|
Post by redleg on Nov 11, 2013 9:38:44 GMT -5
I'm sure having others pay for their health care, and a lot of other things, is on a lot of people's wish lists. I think I read at the socialist site Workers' World that they believe automobile insurance should be an entitlement, too. Someone wanting something is not, by itself, sufficient reason for government to do it. The Democrats are trying to secure votes by giving people things. The problem is that this is unsustainable; the more you give away, the less time it will take to crash the country. joefriday used to bemoan the fact that the Republicans wouldn't roll over and start supporting Obama once ACA passed. I'll tell you what I told him: that's not their job. No, national health care has been a desire for democrats. Other countries have it. Everything else sounds like a right winged play book. You don't think the repubs "give things"? You consider most repubs tough individualists not needing any enabling or pampering? Reality says otherwise. And who is this joefriday? He seems like a very important and strong individual the way he is talked so much about here. So what? Other countries are dropping it, because it's bankrupting them. And we are not "other countries". We have spent the last 100 years or more bailing out those "other countries", so why should we emulate them? Many of the problems we have today are because far too many of the Republicans want to be Democrats, and give things to those that will vote for them. They have no more authority to do that than the Dems do.
|
|
|
Post by douger on Nov 11, 2013 9:40:41 GMT -5
That's some real nice revisionist history. Start with the election of Barack Obama to the Senate in 2004 and his election as president in 2008 for proof that he was in the Senate for a few more than 145 days and work your way up from there. Really? What bills did he sponsor? What bills did he even vote on, other than "present"? And looking at the exact records, you are correct. At best, from the day he was installed in the Senate til he announce his exploratory committee, the Senate was in session 304 days. He essentially stopped being a Senator as soon as he announced his candidacy for President. To be fair, so did McCain, but McCain had had 22 years of Senate experience before that, out of 26 years. However, my point stands. In those 304 days, what did he do? And why is his entire past before being installed in the IL Senate sequestered? Is there a constitutional requirement for a senator to have met a certain number of bills introduced or passed before he can consider running for president? I'm sure you could point that out to me, right? Does your review of "exact records" show recorded votes by Obama from the time he announced his exploratory committee? Speaking of history, at that point, Obama's candidacy was considered quite the long shot. Hillary Clinton had been dubbed the presumptive nominee. Oh. The proper term is "elected," not "installed." The same as the 43 presidents that preceded him.
|
|
|
Post by redleg on Nov 12, 2013 23:12:29 GMT -5
Really? What bills did he sponsor? What bills did he even vote on, other than "present"? And looking at the exact records, you are correct. At best, from the day he was installed in the Senate til he announce his exploratory committee, the Senate was in session 304 days. He essentially stopped being a Senator as soon as he announced his candidacy for President. To be fair, so did McCain, but McCain had had 22 years of Senate experience before that, out of 26 years. However, my point stands. In those 304 days, what did he do? And why is his entire past before being installed in the IL Senate sequestered? Is there a constitutional requirement for a senator to have met a certain number of bills introduced or passed before he can consider running for president? I'm sure you could point that out to me, right? Does your review of "exact records" show recorded votes by Obama from the time he announced his exploratory committee? Speaking of history, at that point, Obama's candidacy was considered quite the long shot. Hillary Clinton had been dubbed the presumptive nominee. Oh. The proper term is "elected," not "installed." The same as the 43 presidents that preceded him. No, he was installed. He had nothing at all to recommend him other than the color of his skin and the fact that he was pliant as silly putty. He was the perfect useful idiot for the racists in the Democrat Party to use to both push a Marxist agenda, and make sure that no other black gets elected President for generations. My point about his voting record is that he didn't have one. He voted Present on nearly every piece of legislation in both IL and the US Senate.
|
|