ForumGarden

If you originally voted for the big "O" last election, now that time has passed, would you vote for him again?!

Didn't vote for him the first time..................

Did you, cars?

If so, have you rethought any of it yet?

Or is it really still too soon to say?

I voted for Nader.

I'm not happy with some of Obama's stuff but for me it's way too early to call it based on what we have seen so far. Some things I am happy about. I'm just happy the bush era is finally over. That alone is a blessing in my view. I don't see Obama being remotely close to disgracing us as bush did.

NO!



I'm seeing all the opposition to O's "hurried" pushed through health care program, that I now wonder if people that voted for him maybe having second thoughts! The existing health care program does in fact definately needs major reform! However, why the mad push to get it passed without giving chance for concerned senator's refinement inputs?

Lot of opposition, the Hagerstown Town Hall was out west of Baltimore yesterday, people were not happy with responses.

I agree, they should take more time for a better bill. And honestly, it is becoming such a controversial issue, I think a debate on it should be set up. It seems Washington is taking it to the people, but still not listening or responding to them.

Awful pushy is an understatement....feels more like a bulldozer to me.

cars;1229545 wrote: [S IZE=3]If you originally voted for the big "O" last election, now that time has passed, would you vote for him again?! : thinking:[ /SIZE]


Well, I've heard some of his music, which is very good, although it doesn't very often get airtime. Used to be *very* popular, they say.

cars;1229545 wrote: If you originally voted for the big "O" last election, now that time has passed, would you vote for him again?!
I don't know if you could tell from my posts, but I didn't vote for him. I voted for Bob Barr because the right man for the job doesn't sound presidential.



I truly believe the country would be in better shape with Ron Paul at the helm, but I am also interested like you, cars, in what Obama supporters think.

RedGlitter;1229556 wrote: it's way too early to call it based on what we have seen so far


I agree very much with this. Any political leader appointed very recently will have a terrifically hard time of it, especially one as different as Mr. Obama.

From an outsider's point of view, he's just what's needed to drag the nation kicking and screaming into the 20th. century.

Bill Sikes;1229593 wrote: I agree very much with this. Any political leader appointed very recently will have a terrifically hard time of it, especially one as different as Mr. Obama.



From an outsider's point of view, he's just what's needed to drag the nation kicking and screaming into the 20th. century.
I'd rather stay in the 21st.

Just seems to me Obama wants to build a new house because the old one had a few broken windows.

Do you really want to change over presidents now? Wouldn't that be a bit silly?

We've had this debate in australia...........what's the alternative?

Start voting them out when they come up for re-election.

RedGlitter;1229556 wrote: I voted for Nader.

I'm not happy with some of Obama's stuff but for me it's way too early to call it based on what we have seen so far. Some things I am happy about. I'm just happy the bush era is finally over. That alone is a blessing in my view. I don't see Obama being remotely close to disgracing us as bush did.


I voted for Obama & agree with you Red...glad to see the Bush era over. I like some of his policies...not happy with his choice of Tim Geithner:mad:.

Accountable;1229594 wrote: I'd rather stay in the 21st.


:yh_rotfl

btw HI, ya little snob you

...

I voted for Obama. Can't say I'm entirely happy with some of the issues that I feel he's mucking up but I'm hoping he's got better things up his sleeve.

almostfamous;1229673 wrote: :yh_rotfl

btw HI, ya little snob you

...

I voted for Obama. Can't say I'm entirely happy with some of the issues that I feel he's mucking up but I'm hoping he's got better things up his sleeve.


Me too & if only the party of "No" will shut up, stop badgering him, etc. They did the same to Clinton...who btw went to Korea, got those two women reporters out & the right wing freaked out.:-5 Didn't see them do anything.

Why'd they freak out?

qsducks;1229679 wrote: Me too & if only the party of "No" will shut up, stop badgering him, etc. They did the same to Clinton...who btw went to Korea, got those two women reporters out & the right wing freaked out.:-5 Didn't see them do anything.
That "party of no" is only pushing out misinformation to make the Pelosi side look bad so they can take the next election. They're not badgering anyone. They're stoking a fire not caring who gets burned.



Citizens are taking to the streets and townhall meetings to find out the truth because they're not getting it from Washington (either side), and the news media are trying to work it into a froth to help their ratings. Truth and liberty are only inconveniences that keep getting in the way of this sideshow.





Obama's pulled enough out of his sleeves, thankyouverymuch. And Clinton done good.

Interesting note on the news this morning within the bill-if your present health care system makes changes, you can be automatically "dropped" into the government run system, whether you want to or not.

I know for us, AC, one of the benefits of being a teacher is a good health care plan for retirement. Looks like that will not be an incentive much longer for teachers.

You know what I really worry about. My husband will be put into their system. Who will consider how useful he is to society, and who will set themselves up as the "health gods" to decide that? For it is a moral decision, and I do not believe the proposed system would help him anymore than the present.

Right now, I take care of him. He gets scheduled doctor visits, and no rehab. Never had rehab more than a few times, he was too slow to suit the protocals. Would the propsed system offer him something better? No, it would not. It would give him as little care of possible.

fuzzywuzzy;1229686 wrote: Why'd they freak out?


They freak out about everything...they are wankers

Accountable;1229865 wrote: That "party of no" is only pushing out misinformation to make the Pelosi side look bad so they can take the next election. They're not badgering anyone. They're stoking a fire not caring who gets burned.



Citizens are taking to the streets and townhall meetings to find out the truth because they're not getting it from Washington (either side), and the news media are trying to work it into a froth to help their ratings. Truth and liberty are only inconveniences that keep getting in the way of this sideshow.





Obama's pulled enough out of his sleeves, thankyouverymuch. And Clinton done good.


The reason I don't bother to watch Fox news with Hannity & Co., and yes Clinton did good..now if he can just go to Iran & get the 3 Americans outta there who trespassed by accident.

fuzzywuzzy;1229686 wrote: Why'd they freak out?


Probably because it looks really bad when a former President of the US goes and accomplishes something the current president can't. That's my best guess anyway. Not my personal opinion because I think it was a class act and I put people's safety before another person's image.

Accountable;1229865 wrote:



Obama's pulled enough out of his sleeves, thankyouverymuch. And Clinton done good.


Well, we have three more years of him so there will be more and I choose to be hopeful.

almostfamous;1229938 wrote: Well, we have three more years of him so there will be more and I choose to be hopeful.


Was watching msnbc last night & some commentators only think O will be a one term prez...I hope not. 8 yrs of bush/cheney set us back big time in terms of their policies towards women.

It's too early to tell that, QS. It depends on policies enacted, the grass root movements just starting to take place, and the questions that are still be asked, because the questions being asked now are not answered.

chonsigirl;1229949 wrote: It's too early to tell that, QS. It depends on policies enacted, the grass root movements just starting to take place, and the questions that are still be asked, because the questions being asked now are not answered.


Yeah, I watch msnbc at night & it gets conflicting on to who to believe, but I've always been a dem...I just don't like the rhetoric coming from the right wing. It seems nobody is answering anything and when they do, it's confusing.

Yes, sometimes they have panels and both sides, and then the issue is just confused and they end up picking at each other. All the stations do that.

If you look at history-Obama has the potential for a one term (like Carter) or a double term (like Clinton). Depends on the next set of elections, and how the House and Senate will change according to party lines. That is at least an indication of where the people are leaning.

chonsigirl;1229955 wrote: Yes, sometimes they have panels and both sides, and then the issue is just confused and they end up picking at each other. All the stations do that.

If you look at history-Obama has the potential for a one term (like Carter) or a double term (like Clinton). Depends on the next set of elections, and how the House and Senate will change according to party lines. That is at least an indication of where the people are leaning.


If O raises taxes on the middle class to pay for this health care I pretty much have an idea that he will be one term.

qsducks;1229940 wrote: Was watching msnbc last night & some commentators only think O will be a one term prez...I hope not. 8 yrs of bush/cheney set us back big time in terms of their policies towards women.
In what way? New laws? Old laws repealed? This is something I've apparently missed.

chonsigirl;1229955 wrote: Yes, sometimes they have panels and both sides, and then the issue is just confused and they end up picking at each other. All the stations do that.



If you look at history-Obama has the potential for a one term (like Carter) or a double term (like Clinton). Depends on the next set of elections, and how the House and Senate will change according to party lines. That is at least an indication of where the people are leaning.
I predict Clinton. The best thing that could happen for Obama is to have a Republican-majority or tied congress. Then they could dig tranches on each side of the aisle and nothing would get accomplished. The economy would recover naturally and he could take credit for it.



Since I'm making off-topic predictions, I'll also predict this: Obama picks Hillary for VP second term, setting her up for a Presidential run in 2016.

Accountable;1230080 wrote: I predict Clinton. The best thing that could happen for Obama is to have a Republican-majority or tied congress. Then they could dig tranches on each side of the aisle and nothing would get accomplished. The economy would recover naturally and he could take credit for it.



Since I'm making off-topic predictions, I'll also predict this: Obama picks Hillary for VP second term, setting her up for a Presidential run in 2016.


I shall remember that prediction-(gag me with a spoon, I can't stand Hilary!)

We will never know the behind the scene of the Democratic Convention, future promises, and all. But they know, we shall see how it plays out.

But your thoughts on Congress are probably correct, it usually balances out that way for two term presidents.

chonsigirl;1229873 wrote: Interesting note on the news this morning within the bill-if your present health care system makes changes, you can be automatically "dropped" into the government run system, whether you want to or not.



I know for us, AC, one of the benefits of being a teacher is a good health care plan for retirement. Looks like that will not be an incentive much longer for teachers.



You know what I really worry about. My husband will be put into their system. Who will consider how useful he is to society, and who will set themselves up as the "health gods" to decide that? For it is a moral decision, and I do not believe the proposed system would help him anymore than the present.



Right now, I take care of him. He gets scheduled doctor visits, and no rehab. Never had rehab more than a few times, he was too slow to suit the protocals. Would the propsed system offer him something better? No, it would not. It would give him as little care of possible.


I don't remember if I posted this here or not.



http://www.ncpa.org/pdfs/PIIS0140673609601379.pdf



This is the paper "Principles for allocation of scarce medical interventions" by Ezekiel Emanuel, special advisor for healthcare at the Office of Management and Budget, and Rahm Emanuel's brother.

The main thing I heard around work from those who voted for President Obama is they wanted change from the old regime. Well, change is what they got. Unfortunately we will all pay ($$) for it.

cigar898;1230083 wrote: The main thing I heard around work from those who voted for President Obama is they wanted change from the old regime. Well, change is what they got. Unfortunately we will all pay ($$) for it.


I just wanted something besides McCain/Palin....don't mind McCain but I loathed Sarah...total idiot

qsducks;1230093 wrote: I just wanted something besides McCain/Palin....don't mind McCain but I loathed Sarah...total idiot


Don't you wish you had voted for Ron Paul now? :yh_rotfl:yh_rotfl

qsducks;1230093 wrote: I just wanted something besides McCain/Palin....don't mind McCain but I loathed Sarah...total idiot


Don't be too hard on Sarah. Hell, she's only a woman.

That is a scarey paper, AC.

It is I said earlier, they have set themselves up as "gods" to come up with an ethical/moral system like that. Under that system, my husband would receive little or no care at all.

Some hospitals have a system similar in some ways, not all, to that proposed for what emergency services would be available. I lived through it, a very scarey 48 hours until a bed they thought my husband could have, became available. (along with the surgical procedure) What could have been done in that 48 hours if they had not waited for a system like that! What permanent damages that he now has may have been lessened!

It is upsetting to think that others would have to live through something like that. It is not an acceptable system.

Big hugs to you dear. I don't want to imagine such a scene. :-1

Accountable;1230080 wrote: I predict Clinton. The best thing that could happen for Obama is to have a Republican-majority or tied congress. Then they could dig tranches on each side of the aisle and nothing would get accomplished. The economy would recover naturally and he could take credit for it.



Since I'm making off-topic predictions, I'll also predict this: Obama picks Hillary for VP second term, setting her up for a Presidential run in 2016.


Another off-topic......imagine what she'll look like by then.....who'd wanna see her on TV? Scary thought.......

Accountable;1230104 wrote: Don't you wish you had voted for Ron Paul now? :yh_rotfl:yh_rotfl


No & I voted for Hillary in the primarys

hoppy;1230106 wrote: Don't be too hard on Sarah. Hell, she's only a woman.
She's a sociapath

Given the same choices as in the last Presidential Election I would vote for Obama again, however, it sickens me to see the mis-information that is being generated by both the far left and the far right.

Bill Maher (social & political commentator) has referred to America as a stupid country, and he is right



YouTube - Bill Maher rant on American stupidity

Lon;1230156 wrote: Given the same choices as in the last Presidential Election I would vote for Obama again, however, it sickens me to see the mis-information that is being generated by both the far left and the far right.

Bill Maher (social & political commentator) has referred to America as a stupid country, and he is right



YouTube - Bill Maher rant on American stupidity


I would also vote for Obama again & Bill Maher is correct. I watch these protesters on tv and think...can't we just talk about instead of shouting about it? In my heart I think they have no idea what they are talking about. Probs half of them are on Medicade/Medicare

Lon;1230156 wrote: Given the same choices as in the last Presidential Election I would vote for Obama again, however, it sickens me to see the mis-information that is being generated by both the far left and the far right.

Bill Maher (social & political commentator) has referred to America as a stupid country, and he is right



YouTube - Bill Maher rant on American stupidity
Now THERE's a reliable source. :yh_rotfl:yh_rotfl

Accountable;1230176 wrote: Now THERE's a reliable source. :yh_rotfl:yh_rotfl


You dispute the stats that Maher quoted?

Lon;1230195 wrote: You dispute the stats that Maher quoted?
I don't watch Maher; you mean he said something that wasn't bile? I find that hard to believe.

Accountable;1230218 wrote: I don't watch Maher; you mean he said something that wasn't bile? I find that hard to believe.


You know, this is what bothers me, is when folks rush to judgement. Granted, Maher can be caustic, but he was quoting verifiable stats about Americans knowledge of certain facts. So because you don't like Maher and you think his commentary is bile you dismiss him. Incredible!! This is exactly the point I was trying to make about both the far right and the far left.

He's a frickin' comedian! I'm not dismissing politicians, pundits, or other people who take a small bit of truth, sauce it liberally with opinion and inuendo .... okay fine I'll listen.

eta: I reject your calling me far right or far left.

Accountable;1230256 wrote: He's a frickin' comedian! I'm not dismissing politicians, pundits, or other people who take a small bit of truth, sauce it liberally with opinion and inuendo .... okay fine I'll listen.



eta: I reject your calling me far right or far left.


Are you saying that humour has no truth? Ah----don't recall calling you far anything.

Well that's 4:34 I'll never get back. Not that anyone would ever accuse Maher of being far left. I don't watch him because of his sneering, insolent bile that he spews, regardless of his politics. Thank you for a completely unnecessary reminder. There are hundreds of places to dig up statistics. I prefer some kind of path to the original source.

Lon;1230258 wrote: Are you saying that humour has no truth? Ah----don't recall calling you far anything.
My post was subtle but it definitely mentioned a small bit of truth. And yes you did.Lon;1230231 wrote: You know, this is what bothers me, is when folks rush to judgement. Granted, Maher can be caustic, but he was quoting verifiable stats about Americans knowledge of certain facts. So because you don't like Maher and you think his commentary is bile you dismiss him. Incredible!! This is exactly the point I was trying to make about both the far right and the far left.