U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Old 08-23-2013, 01:42 PM
69,360 posts, read 59,977,179 times
Reputation: 9374


Originally Posted by residinghere2007 View Post
The portion of Obamacare requiring that people with pre-existing conditions be allowed to purchase insurance has already gone into affect. I have a pre-existing condition (asthma, even though I haven't had an asthma attack in over 16 years) so on the open market, prior to Obamacare, I could not have bought any insurance myself. Luckily, my employers covered me, but some employers, before Obamacare went into affect, would not cover specific pre-existing conditions like leukemia, of which the previous poster spoke of.
Thats a lie.. that would have been illegal. Employers could not deny insurance to individual employees if it was offered to the rest of the employees, regardless of pre-existing conditions.
Originally Posted by residinghere2007 View Post
So you base your views on pictures that may have been photoshopped....

Come on now!
So thats the excuse.. everything is photoshopped..
Rate this post positively

Old 08-23-2013, 01:43 PM
Location: Pine Grove,AL
26,448 posts, read 13,762,318 times
Reputation: 5034
Originally Posted by kidkaos2 View Post
Sorry, but reality doesn't agree with that assertion. Reagan collaborated with the leaders of the Democrat party. Obama does not collaborate with Republicans.

Obama makes a speech saying the Republicans won't compromise and are being obstructionist, and liberals just nod their heads in agreement. But that doesn't make it true. Making constant speeches about how bad the opposing party is and how they won't agree with you isn't leadership. Doing an interview and referring to the opposing party as the "enemy" isn't good leadership. Making speeches against corporations and banks isn't leadership. Calling American citizens "bitter clingers" isn't leadership. Threatening to go around congress if they don't do what you want isn't leadership. Saying the police acted stupidly without even knowing the facts first isn't leadership. Saying that denying healthcare to people is the Republicans' holy grail isn't leadership. Blaming the previous administration for problems over and over and over again isn't leadership. Obama is thoroughly partisan. That's fine and appropriate for the campaign trail. But Obama never stops doing it. A good leader switches from campaign mode to governing mode once he's elected. Obama never has. He's a bad leader.
You seriously live in your own little world Speaker Boehner does not even control his own caucus as evidence by votes HE puts up that dont pass.

President Obama has worked with Republicans and when time comes for the actual votes, they bail. That is when he makes his speeches about obstruction. You completely negated that part didnt you ???

Your argument is that the President isnt allowed to tell the truth about the Republican party because that isnt "good leadership", that is hilarious.

President Obama has never threatened to go around Congress when they dont do what he wants because he doesnt even have that power. What he has said is that he will do what is in HIS power(given to him by the Constitution) to make things better, do you have a problem with the President using his constitutional abilities ?

The Presidents comments about "clingers" like many of the other things you have said need context. He was speaking of gun owners in 2008 who clinged to their guns BECAUSE they have been given a false narrative about his ideals, he continued on to say that He wanted to change that and he wanted to show those people that there was no need to cling to their weapons, but People like you will never include that part because it completely changes the perception of the argument you are trying to make about that statement.

Making speeches to show the American People why you believe banks and corporations should be regulated to a certain degree is indeed part of his job, or do you want him to simple release a statement and hope to god everyone reads it instead of watching John Boehner make his bi-weekly press conference ???????

If Blame belongs to the Previous administration then that is where it should be placed. I have never understood the Republican logic of taking blame for something you did not do, Im guessing that logic would not be taken if we were talking about President Romney right now.

You are just as partisan as you claim he is, you judge what he says on a partisan level and you believe that him simply not agreeing with your ideas is partisan and unworthy of leadership and that just isnt true.

but you can keep telling yourself it is. You can keep pretending that Republicans did not meet and agree to deny the President Bipartisanship in both the House and Senate, you can pretend that there isnt a faction in your party that will disagree with that man no matter if he is repeating one of their own talking points word for word, but at the end of the day you know you are wrong.
Rate this post positively
Old 08-23-2013, 01:44 PM
4,829 posts, read 3,948,435 times
Reputation: 14883
Well, PT Barnum was right, and the tripe here just underscores the fact. The truth of American politics has been one of those things that people can't face because if they would they'd actually have to do something radical instead of just bitching about it all. What's radical? For one, reading, yeah I know the John Wayne's don't like that kind of talk but........The more one reads the more one sees the way in which our two party system has enriched those who say it's the greatest thing since sliced bread. It's always been about money and the power that money can buy, nothing more, or less...

Ron Reagan was a pretty decent actor, period. Most people without the political party bias in their brain know that this nation has fallen hard for the movie types, celebrity everywhere, selling everything. Our political desires are to elect those we can "identify with", the grandfatherly Reagan, the folksy Jimmy carter, the tough guy Arnold, the gentleman Bush the first, and the Bush second as another "jes plain ol' folk", these guys got a lot of milage out of very little talent, Carter was probably brighter but alas, having no real direction was a real problem for ol' Jimmy.

I've given up on most of our political party tussles, most pols are just grandiose BS'ers anyway so who really cares about their so called feats while in office, I never really prospered because of a politician. As Dick Gregory once said, if you don't think you're getting screwed, just look in your wallet..............
Rate this post positively
Old 08-23-2013, 02:34 PM
1,111 posts, read 1,230,611 times
Reputation: 833
Originally Posted by KUchief25 View Post
Times are different but much the same. Country was in a mess back then and now. Carter left it for Reagan and Bush left it for Obama. So what does a leader do?? Reagan went out and told the world how great America was and will be at every chance. The American dream can be achieved. He took on the biggest threat not with a war but with idea's. The wall came down and that made every liberal very upset. Why they can't even tell anyone. Reagan spoke of responsibility, accountability, family and country something liberals can't ever imagine. A great leader. A man who loved his country

Now we go to Obama. After being elected he goes on an apology tour across the world telling of how America is wrong, tells us all that we didn't build anything the government did and divides the country on every issue he can think of. There is no American dream just evil people who are trying to steal everything from you. Most important to the great Obama is taking our guns, gay weddings and wars on women according to him. Obama cares nothing about America, he despises it being here even though he is the greatest recipient of this country.

Reagan was a great leader. Obama a divider.

Farewell Speech - President Reagan's Farewell Speech from the Oval Office 1/11/89 - YouTube
I wish I had the time to pick apart everything in here, but a couple that stand out:
"Obama is taking our guns, gay weddings and wars on women according to him."
That sentence comes off like you are saying Obama is taking our guns (which is false) taking gay weddings (which is false, in fact he's in support of them) and taking wars on women (which I'm not sure what that means).
In reality I'd assume that this was just a poorly written sentence, but then you call Obama a divider and say that he cares nothing about America. Obviously the SSM issue wasn't about dividing it was about bringing people together. So I really am confused what you exactly mean there.

"The wall came down and that made every liberal very upset. Why they can't even tell anyone."
Why they can't even tell anyone. Not sure what that sentence means, is it a question?
Which wall are you talking about? The Berlin Wall? As far as the wall coming down upsetting liberals, I don't get that. I'm pretty liberal, I come from a pretty liberal family, I remember us all celebrating when the wall came down, though I don't recall Regan being in office. Obviously you weren't talking the Berlin Wall, so what wall?

"Reagan spoke of responsibility, accountability, family and country something liberals can't ever imagine."
This line is just wrought with pure ignorance, with no standing in reality. More of a troll statement than anything else, so really just kind of kills any other "point" you were attempting to make.
Nice try though, might want to give it another go. I do think comparing presidents of different times and ideals is an interesting concept, it's just you failed miserably at this one.
Rate this post positively
Old 08-23-2013, 02:42 PM
1,111 posts, read 1,230,611 times
Reputation: 833
Originally Posted by KUchief25 View Post
Reagan belived in America. He believed in the people. I'm not arguing his policies were right or wrong. The man was a great president. Obama thinks America is wrong. That is where the problem is. Show me where Obama has spoken about America like Reagan did? The "light" of the world so to say which the US is. Now if you don't believe that then you are on Obama's level. The US was ready to go down in '80 and Reagan brought us back with his policies (not gonna debate that in this thread) and mostly his attitude that the US is great. First thing the man did was get our hostages back. USA........USA......USA.......we need that attitude back and Obama isn't bringing it.
I didn't read on before I replied to your first post.
So what you're saying is that a great leader is one who ignores the negative and acts as a cheerleader?

You mentioned family before, if you have a son or daughter and they were criminals or drug addicts would you just keep telling them how wonderful they are, blindly complimenting them and telling them everything is great?

Also, I forgot in your first post you went back to that old misinterpretation of the infamous "you didn't build that" speech. This thing has been discussed to death but once again Obama was talking in terms of how ALL OF AMERICA...yep ALL OF AMERICA!!!! works together to create the infrastructure of this country "those roads, that bridge that you cross to get to your company, you didn't build that, other hard working AMERICANS did"
Rate this post positively
Old 08-23-2013, 02:58 PM
Location: Long Island, NY
19,787 posts, read 12,845,520 times
Reputation: 5650
Originally Posted by KUchief25 View Post
Again I didn't start this thread to argue policy decisions by either president. If you want to go into debt spending there are many threads on that.
Of course you don't want comparisons of policy. You merely want to post made up crap based not in fact but from your narrow false viewpoint. The purpose was to lionize Reagan and denounce Obama. You have failed. I and others have discredited every point in post #1.
Rate this post positively
Old 08-23-2013, 03:08 PM
Location: Los Awesome, CA
8,654 posts, read 5,617,066 times
Reputation: 3363
Obama is ten times the president Reagan was and he still has time left to improve...
Rate this post positively
Old 08-23-2013, 03:10 PM
Location: Barrington
60,336 posts, read 41,242,665 times
Reputation: 19449
The Reagan years:

Promised to balance the budget.

Debt ceiling raised 18X over two terms.

The Federal Debt increased 190 % during Reagan's two terms.

Last president to increase Payroll taxes and then spent them.

Amnesty to undocumented workers.

Put the W into the War on Drugs.

Slashed taxes for high income earners.

Raised taxes seven of the eight years and the tax increases impacted the Middle Class and low income earners the most.

Funded terrorists organizations, but who knew at the time.

Iran- Contra

Unemployment peaked at 11% and recovered with low paying and often part time jobs. ( Sound familiar?)
Rate this post positively
Old 08-23-2013, 03:10 PM
16,213 posts, read 9,453,868 times
Reputation: 8409
Originally Posted by pghquest View Post
Thats a lie.. that would have been illegal. Employers could not deny insurance to individual employees if it was offered to the rest of the employees, regardless of pre-existing conditions.

So thats the excuse.. everything is photoshopped..
Employers could not deny offering it but insurance companies could.

And everything is photoshopped IMO. I don't trust images anymore, even though I never really trusted them anyway. Also, people who use youtube and random photoshopped pic creations aren't all that bright IMO as anyone can cut and paste an image from a video to suit their needs.
Rate this post positively
Old 08-23-2013, 03:21 PM
Location: Northridge/Porter Ranch, Calif.
23,692 posts, read 30,229,927 times
Reputation: 7232
Originally Posted by NJBest View Post
Except for the fact that she was a nutcase. It's almost as if a reality TV writer wanted to put a twist in the election... all of a sudden Palin and Biden showed up from nowhere.
How is she a "nutcase?"

Is it because she is a successful person who just happens to be a Republican? I mean, we can't have that, can we?!
Rate this post positively
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.

Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 08:26 AM.

© 2005-2021, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top