Originally Posted By Mr X ***The people who voted for President Obama weren't voting for a watered down health care reform that doesn't disrupt the status quo.*** Have you read the bill? I'll say this much, it's more impressive than Social Security was when IT first passed, and that is now considered a watershed event. To put it in modern terms, at the time S.S. became a reality, essentially all it did was give money to folks who managed to live to 98 years old or so. A lot has changed since then. I think you're too cynical.
Originally Posted By Spyderman Sport Goofy stop being an idiot. He is not sending 40,000 more troops to Afghan, the healthcare bill hasnt been finalized yet, and he has already done more in his first 10 months than any president in history. Easily the hardest working President in generations. At the very least give him the curtesy of a full year or if you are that concerned than write to him (as well as to your represenitive and senators).
Originally Posted By DAR Why can't we send a few fighter jets in there first and weaken things a little?
Originally Posted By Mr X I liked all of post 22 except for "Sport Goofy stop being an idiot". Sport Goofy brings up valid points, worthy of discussion. He's certainly not being an idiot in voicing his concerns. I have concerns too (and I've been accused of being an Obama cheerleader from time to time lol). Also, I wouldn't say he's done the most of any President in the first 10 months, not by a longshot. I do feel he has set some of the groundwork though. ***Why can't we send a few fighter jets in there first and weaken things a little?*** Dude, there's nothing there to hit. They're already in the stone age, what are we going to "send them back to"? The Jurassic?
Originally Posted By Sport Goofy << Why can't we send a few fighter jets in there first and weaken things a little? >> Probably because there is no conventional air force to employ fighter jets against. Fighter jets are designed to combat other aircraft. They're not very effective against IEDs and suicide bombers.
Originally Posted By Sport Goofy << I think you're too cynical. >> I'm not sure it has anything to do with cynicism. It's just the lens of reality instead of wishful thinking. We have very real structural problems in our government that need to be addressed. The only solutions that have been forwarded thus far have been band aids. You give credit to Obama for stabilizing the economy -- I do, too. However, almost nothing has been done to make amends to the root causes of the economic crisis that would prevent another episode. There also continues to be a completely lopsided approach to bolstering the economy that gives more money to the wealthy people that got us in this mess and almost nothing to those most in need. In an era where we need to completely overhaul the legislative process to eliminate the influence of corporate lobbying interests, we have an enormous health care reform bill that was written almost entirely by health care industry lobbyists. It doesn't reign in costs, and it doesn't extend the life of Medicare. This is not change we can believe in. We can go on about the wars ad nauseum, but it never appeared that a de-escalation option was on the table. What people don't realize is that the conservative movement, as small as it may be, is being very vocal and cantankerous about their demands on the president. They are obstructing progress every step of the way. Having a silent majority of supporters for the President doesn't counter the opposition. The President needs strong progressive voices out there needling him to make decisions in the opposite direction. I am supportive of the President, but I am not going to give him the benefit of the doubt on these issues. The progressive movement needs to be even more vocal now to counter the threat of complacency and structural corruption in our government. Otherwise, we'll never see the change that was promised in 2008.
Originally Posted By Mr X All I wrote and "I think you're too cynical" is all you copy/paste? I think that's part of the problem for you. You are not paying attention to what others are saying (save for direct criticism), so I have to wonder what else you're ignoring. Just sayin... For the record, I hardly think you hold the copyright to "the lens of reality", relegating all other comments to wishful thinking territory. Just sayin...
Originally Posted By Mr X Other than that though, I appreciate your comments! I'm not sure "strong progressives" will really reject him though, when push comes to shove. They've got their own agenda too, but they also know they can't win without a popular centrist to throw crumbs at them.
Originally Posted By Spyderman >>liked all of post 22 except for "Sport Goofy stop being an idiot". Sport Goofy brings up valid points, worthy of discussion. He's certainly not being an idiot in voicing his concerns. I have concerns too (and I've been accused of being an Obama cheerleader from time to time lol).<< Your right. That was uncalled for and I appologize. I just get worked up because of all the ignorance, lies and republican nonsense that I keep hearing everywhere I go which is just not true.
Originally Posted By Spyderman Just out of curiosity, which president did more in their first 10 months in office than Obama? Aside from Washington and the founders of course.
Originally Posted By Sport Goofy << All I wrote and "I think you're too cynical" is all you copy/paste? >> C'mon X, I may have only copy/pasted a snippet, but I think I responded to a lot of your points. Even though this is a healthy exchange of ideas, I don't think we need to go tit for tat by cutting and pasting every argument and providing a counter-argument.
Originally Posted By Mr X ***I just get worked up because of all the ignorance, lies and republican nonsense that I keep hearing everywhere I go which is just not true.*** Me too. ***Just out of curiosity, which president did more in their first 10 months in office than Obama? Aside from Washington and the founders of course.*** I would suggest FDR to begin with. "Once the formalities were over, Roosevelt quickly settled down to work. He began by ordering all the nation's banks to close for a few days, in a much-needed "holiday" to pacify panicking investors. Then he made the first of his special radio addresses to the American people, which were eventually known as Roosevelt's "Fireside Chats." These talks, which were written in an intimate, homey style - very different from the impersonal lectures that political leaders usually gave on the radio - were effective at creating the illusion that Roosevelt was speaking one-to-one with families across the country. His upbeat, self-assured manner was effective and helped renew popular confidence in the government. Once the banks reopened, people began to redeposit their savings. The immediate financial alarm was over, partly thanks to that well-timed Fireside Chat. Roosevelt next ordered Congress to convene for a special emergency session. The first three months of this session, known as the "Hundred Days," saw a flurry of activity as new laws were hurriedly introduced to try to tackle the country's worst economic problems. Recalling Roosevelt's pledge at the Democratic Party convention the year before, the policies of the new administration were described as "The New Deal." Actually, when Roosevelt had used that phrase previously, he did not have a specific set of policies in mind. The New Deal was more of a random collection of ideas and initiatives than a carefully planned agenda. However, the expression captured the imaginations of Americans everywhere and became inseparable from Roosevelt's presidency." <a href="http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/1879366/franklin_roosevelts_first_year_as_president_pg2_pg2.html?cat=37" target="_blank">http://www.associatedcontent.c...l?cat=37</a> Kennedy also accomplished a great deal. Even Reagan set a tone that can't be easily denied.
Originally Posted By Mr X ***C'mon X, I may have only copy/pasted a snippet, but I think I responded to a lot of your points. Even though this is a healthy exchange of ideas, I don't think we need to go tit for tat by cutting and pasting every argument and providing a counter-argument.*** Okay, fair enough.
Originally Posted By fkurucz <<Will the deficit hawks in Congress scream about the additional $40B a year that 40,000 troops costs?>> Of course not. But heaven forbid that this "Christian Nation" of ours guarantee access to healthcare to all its citizens.
Originally Posted By fkurucz <<The cost of 40,000 more troops in Afghanistan would pay for universal health care. Priorities?>> Th eplunder of the US continues unabated. Very disappointing to say the least.
Originally Posted By fkurucz <<They're already in the stone age, what are we going to "send them back to"? The Jurassic?>> I read the other day that the #1 killer in Afganistan these days is hunger. So it appears that our "Nation Building" mission has been a dismal failure.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan <<Will the deficit hawks in Congress scream about the additional $40B a year that 40,000 troops costs?>> That's too much to hope for. I don't think they'll even stop referring to Obama as a socialist even with this.
Originally Posted By WilliamK99 So with the extra 40 billion, you figure 10 billion to the military and 30 billion to all of the contractors and other corporations who are bilking the Government for billions of dollars annually... I am against this build up of troops mainly because this "war" is basically about making money for an elite few, not fighting terrorism...
Originally Posted By Hans Reinhardt "The Talaban gave refuge to Bin Laden and Al Qaeda." Al Qaeda is gone from Afghanistan. Why then should we waste money and lives fighting the Taliban?
Originally Posted By Dabob2 < The progressive movement needs to be even more vocal now to counter the threat of complacency and structural corruption in our government. Otherwise, we'll never see the change that was promised in 2008.> I agree. As I said a while back, too many progressives think that the finish line was election day 2008. They're thinking "Mission Accomplished" as prematurely as some other guy did. It's not accomplished at all. The election made it POSSIBLE to be accomplished, in whole or in part, but that's all. And because too many progressives have sort of kicked back after last year's election, it's allowed the right wingers to regain the energy. Congressmen and others are hearing THEIR voices (loudly), and of course they always hear the lobbyists and corporate interests. Last year they heard us too, but this year not so much. We showed last year that we CAN out-work the right-wing. But we have to continue to do it.
