Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
felix
Participant[quote=dbapig][quote=felix][quote=dbapig][quote=felix]
Many in the media ignored Obama’s past and his views because of their blind hate of our previous president.[/quote]I mean, can you really blame the media for running away from our previous president…?
I firmly believe Obama was elected ONLY because of Bush. If Bush didn’t exist, USA wouldn’t have selected a man sharing Arican/Black/African-American heritage as the POTUS. Not for another 2 or 3 decades.[/quote]
If you believe as I do that the role of the 4th estate is to inform folks, yes, I do blame the media for not informing folks as best they could about someone running for president. The obligation to inform and present unbiased info should have nothing to do with how one feels about either party or administration.[/quote]
What’s your view on FOX and Limbaugh etc.[/quote]
I don’t listen to Limbaugh but like anyone else he should be entitled to his opinion.
As far as Fox News goes, I wonder where we would be without them. Just recently they were the only ones exposing Acorn and Van Jones. In fact, when a news anchor from another network was asked he said he had no idea about these stories. That’s just mind boggling.
So I’m left to think that if you don’t include watching Fox News among others you won’t know what is happening. It also makes me wonder about the motivation to cover certain stories by other outlets.
Participant[quote=dbapig][quote=felix][quote=dbapig][quote=felix]
Many in the media ignored Obama’s past and his views because of their blind hate of our previous president.[/quote]I mean, can you really blame the media for running away from our previous president…?
I firmly believe Obama was elected ONLY because of Bush. If Bush didn’t exist, USA wouldn’t have selected a man sharing Arican/Black/African-American heritage as the POTUS. Not for another 2 or 3 decades.[/quote]
If you believe as I do that the role of the 4th estate is to inform folks, yes, I do blame the media for not informing folks as best they could about someone running for president. The obligation to inform and present unbiased info should have nothing to do with how one feels about either party or administration.[/quote]
What’s your view on FOX and Limbaugh etc.[/quote]
I don’t listen to Limbaugh but like anyone else he should be entitled to his opinion.
As far as Fox News goes, I wonder where we would be without them. Just recently they were the only ones exposing Acorn and Van Jones. In fact, when a news anchor from another network was asked he said he had no idea about these stories. That’s just mind boggling.
So I’m left to think that if you don’t include watching Fox News among others you won’t know what is happening. It also makes me wonder about the motivation to cover certain stories by other outlets.
Participant[quote=dbapig][quote=felix][quote=dbapig][quote=felix]
Many in the media ignored Obama’s past and his views because of their blind hate of our previous president.[/quote]I mean, can you really blame the media for running away from our previous president…?
I firmly believe Obama was elected ONLY because of Bush. If Bush didn’t exist, USA wouldn’t have selected a man sharing Arican/Black/African-American heritage as the POTUS. Not for another 2 or 3 decades.[/quote]
If you believe as I do that the role of the 4th estate is to inform folks, yes, I do blame the media for not informing folks as best they could about someone running for president. The obligation to inform and present unbiased info should have nothing to do with how one feels about either party or administration.[/quote]
What’s your view on FOX and Limbaugh etc.[/quote]
I don’t listen to Limbaugh but like anyone else he should be entitled to his opinion.
As far as Fox News goes, I wonder where we would be without them. Just recently they were the only ones exposing Acorn and Van Jones. In fact, when a news anchor from another network was asked he said he had no idea about these stories. That’s just mind boggling.
So I’m left to think that if you don’t include watching Fox News among others you won’t know what is happening. It also makes me wonder about the motivation to cover certain stories by other outlets.
Participant[quote=dbapig][quote=felix][quote=dbapig][quote=felix]
Many in the media ignored Obama’s past and his views because of their blind hate of our previous president.[/quote]I mean, can you really blame the media for running away from our previous president…?
I firmly believe Obama was elected ONLY because of Bush. If Bush didn’t exist, USA wouldn’t have selected a man sharing Arican/Black/African-American heritage as the POTUS. Not for another 2 or 3 decades.[/quote]
If you believe as I do that the role of the 4th estate is to inform folks, yes, I do blame the media for not informing folks as best they could about someone running for president. The obligation to inform and present unbiased info should have nothing to do with how one feels about either party or administration.[/quote]
What’s your view on FOX and Limbaugh etc.[/quote]
I don’t listen to Limbaugh but like anyone else he should be entitled to his opinion.
As far as Fox News goes, I wonder where we would be without them. Just recently they were the only ones exposing Acorn and Van Jones. In fact, when a news anchor from another network was asked he said he had no idea about these stories. That’s just mind boggling.
So I’m left to think that if you don’t include watching Fox News among others you won’t know what is happening. It also makes me wonder about the motivation to cover certain stories by other outlets.
ParticipantMy point wasn’t that I support or don’t support certain views. I’m pretty easy going and I don’t care what others do as long as it doesn’t affect me. My point was that holding the same views as those that have been part of the fabric of this nation almost from the outset isn’t being a radical.
Your point about times changing is well taken and change clearly was expected to occur. That is why there is an amendment process. The problem many folks have isn’t change. It is how that change is coming about.
Courts or administrators are deciding how we should live by giving interpretations to the Constitution that none here could believe those who wrote the document intended. In fact, the change may actually completely not what was intended when one examines contemporaneous documents.
ParticipantMy point wasn’t that I support or don’t support certain views. I’m pretty easy going and I don’t care what others do as long as it doesn’t affect me. My point was that holding the same views as those that have been part of the fabric of this nation almost from the outset isn’t being a radical.
Your point about times changing is well taken and change clearly was expected to occur. That is why there is an amendment process. The problem many folks have isn’t change. It is how that change is coming about.
Courts or administrators are deciding how we should live by giving interpretations to the Constitution that none here could believe those who wrote the document intended. In fact, the change may actually completely not what was intended when one examines contemporaneous documents.
ParticipantMy point wasn’t that I support or don’t support certain views. I’m pretty easy going and I don’t care what others do as long as it doesn’t affect me. My point was that holding the same views as those that have been part of the fabric of this nation almost from the outset isn’t being a radical.
Your point about times changing is well taken and change clearly was expected to occur. That is why there is an amendment process. The problem many folks have isn’t change. It is how that change is coming about.
Courts or administrators are deciding how we should live by giving interpretations to the Constitution that none here could believe those who wrote the document intended. In fact, the change may actually completely not what was intended when one examines contemporaneous documents.
ParticipantMy point wasn’t that I support or don’t support certain views. I’m pretty easy going and I don’t care what others do as long as it doesn’t affect me. My point was that holding the same views as those that have been part of the fabric of this nation almost from the outset isn’t being a radical.
Your point about times changing is well taken and change clearly was expected to occur. That is why there is an amendment process. The problem many folks have isn’t change. It is how that change is coming about.
Courts or administrators are deciding how we should live by giving interpretations to the Constitution that none here could believe those who wrote the document intended. In fact, the change may actually completely not what was intended when one examines contemporaneous documents.
ParticipantMy point wasn’t that I support or don’t support certain views. I’m pretty easy going and I don’t care what others do as long as it doesn’t affect me. My point was that holding the same views as those that have been part of the fabric of this nation almost from the outset isn’t being a radical.
Your point about times changing is well taken and change clearly was expected to occur. That is why there is an amendment process. The problem many folks have isn’t change. It is how that change is coming about.
Courts or administrators are deciding how we should live by giving interpretations to the Constitution that none here could believe those who wrote the document intended. In fact, the change may actually completely not what was intended when one examines contemporaneous documents.
Participant[quote=dbapig][quote=felix]From what I have seen, you are correct in your assessment of those folks at these events. Many of those interviewed even say they voted for Obama. They are upset because they didn’t expect what he is trying to do.
Even my wife, an independent, who voted for Obama, thought she was voting for something totally different than what we are getting. My in-laws, a surgeon and nurse both voted for Obama but are also very dismayed over what has been happening and up in arms about the drastic changes proposed to health care.
[/quote]Claiming some/many/most of the marchers voted for Obama doesn’t mean anything.
Assuming they did vote for Obama and they are unhappy with what the administration is trying to do, well they obviously didn’t do their homework. Reforming healthcare was a pretty prominent goal of Obama campaign.
And the other issues (bailing out banks/Big3) was an issue that he inherited. Only if Bush Administration or his officials did their work right, we wouldn’t have all these bailouts.
And the in-laws (surgeon and nurse), well the health care reform isn’t for the surgeon and nurses in a sense. It’s for the general public. The medical establishment want better return on their investment (who wouldn’t right?), which the general public just cannot support any more. What did they expect out of Obama campaign calling for reform of the health system?
And your wife who’s an independent, so what did she vote for? I’m sure it’s something different from what Bush stood for? In that regard, she got what she wanted imho.[/quote]
I would think the fact that some voted for Obama does mean that they aren’t necessarily racists, fringe elements or haters.
True, they could have done better research into what Obama really stood for, but I think the media let these folks down by not exposing Obama’s real intentions or background. And I think Obama went out of his way to portray himself as a a moderate. And while health care reform was on the agenda that doesn’t mean these folks supported all or even most of what he is now proposing.
If Obama wants to put an end to pre-existing conditions or being dropped from coverage or work to limit drug costs and enact tort reform, he could do that very easily with almost unanimous bipartisan support and for almost no cost to taxpayers what so ever. Folks too also almost unanimously support these.
Next, blaming the financial crisis on Bush means you aren’t doing your homework. Bush and McCain both warned of massive loan problems emanating from Dem run and overseen, Fannie and Freddie, and rule forcing loans to be made to folks with dubious credit.
And the Dems (Clinton signed the bill in 2000)had a big part in allowing dubious financial instruments to be exchange traded. These mortgage instruments had been illegal since the depression.
And by the way, it’s almost a year later and the Obama Administration and our Congress has done nothing to end this trading.So while you contend these folks who voted for Obama got what they wanted, I think it is pretty obvious they haven’t got what they wanted and they are willing to stand up and say so. Worse still for the Democratic party and Obama is that these folks now feel, rightfully imo, that they were deceived.
Participant[quote=dbapig][quote=felix]From what I have seen, you are correct in your assessment of those folks at these events. Many of those interviewed even say they voted for Obama. They are upset because they didn’t expect what he is trying to do.
Even my wife, an independent, who voted for Obama, thought she was voting for something totally different than what we are getting. My in-laws, a surgeon and nurse both voted for Obama but are also very dismayed over what has been happening and up in arms about the drastic changes proposed to health care.
[/quote]Claiming some/many/most of the marchers voted for Obama doesn’t mean anything.
Assuming they did vote for Obama and they are unhappy with what the administration is trying to do, well they obviously didn’t do their homework. Reforming healthcare was a pretty prominent goal of Obama campaign.
And the other issues (bailing out banks/Big3) was an issue that he inherited. Only if Bush Administration or his officials did their work right, we wouldn’t have all these bailouts.
And the in-laws (surgeon and nurse), well the health care reform isn’t for the surgeon and nurses in a sense. It’s for the general public. The medical establishment want better return on their investment (who wouldn’t right?), which the general public just cannot support any more. What did they expect out of Obama campaign calling for reform of the health system?
And your wife who’s an independent, so what did she vote for? I’m sure it’s something different from what Bush stood for? In that regard, she got what she wanted imho.[/quote]
I would think the fact that some voted for Obama does mean that they aren’t necessarily racists, fringe elements or haters.
True, they could have done better research into what Obama really stood for, but I think the media let these folks down by not exposing Obama’s real intentions or background. And I think Obama went out of his way to portray himself as a a moderate. And while health care reform was on the agenda that doesn’t mean these folks supported all or even most of what he is now proposing.
If Obama wants to put an end to pre-existing conditions or being dropped from coverage or work to limit drug costs and enact tort reform, he could do that very easily with almost unanimous bipartisan support and for almost no cost to taxpayers what so ever. Folks too also almost unanimously support these.
Next, blaming the financial crisis on Bush means you aren’t doing your homework. Bush and McCain both warned of massive loan problems emanating from Dem run and overseen, Fannie and Freddie, and rule forcing loans to be made to folks with dubious credit.
And the Dems (Clinton signed the bill in 2000)had a big part in allowing dubious financial instruments to be exchange traded. These mortgage instruments had been illegal since the depression.
And by the way, it’s almost a year later and the Obama Administration and our Congress has done nothing to end this trading.So while you contend these folks who voted for Obama got what they wanted, I think it is pretty obvious they haven’t got what they wanted and they are willing to stand up and say so. Worse still for the Democratic party and Obama is that these folks now feel, rightfully imo, that they were deceived.
Participant[quote=dbapig][quote=felix]From what I have seen, you are correct in your assessment of those folks at these events. Many of those interviewed even say they voted for Obama. They are upset because they didn’t expect what he is trying to do.
Even my wife, an independent, who voted for Obama, thought she was voting for something totally different than what we are getting. My in-laws, a surgeon and nurse both voted for Obama but are also very dismayed over what has been happening and up in arms about the drastic changes proposed to health care.
[/quote]Claiming some/many/most of the marchers voted for Obama doesn’t mean anything.
Assuming they did vote for Obama and they are unhappy with what the administration is trying to do, well they obviously didn’t do their homework. Reforming healthcare was a pretty prominent goal of Obama campaign.
And the other issues (bailing out banks/Big3) was an issue that he inherited. Only if Bush Administration or his officials did their work right, we wouldn’t have all these bailouts.
And the in-laws (surgeon and nurse), well the health care reform isn’t for the surgeon and nurses in a sense. It’s for the general public. The medical establishment want better return on their investment (who wouldn’t right?), which the general public just cannot support any more. What did they expect out of Obama campaign calling for reform of the health system?
And your wife who’s an independent, so what did she vote for? I’m sure it’s something different from what Bush stood for? In that regard, she got what she wanted imho.[/quote]
I would think the fact that some voted for Obama does mean that they aren’t necessarily racists, fringe elements or haters.
True, they could have done better research into what Obama really stood for, but I think the media let these folks down by not exposing Obama’s real intentions or background. And I think Obama went out of his way to portray himself as a a moderate. And while health care reform was on the agenda that doesn’t mean these folks supported all or even most of what he is now proposing.
If Obama wants to put an end to pre-existing conditions or being dropped from coverage or work to limit drug costs and enact tort reform, he could do that very easily with almost unanimous bipartisan support and for almost no cost to taxpayers what so ever. Folks too also almost unanimously support these.
Next, blaming the financial crisis on Bush means you aren’t doing your homework. Bush and McCain both warned of massive loan problems emanating from Dem run and overseen, Fannie and Freddie, and rule forcing loans to be made to folks with dubious credit.
And the Dems (Clinton signed the bill in 2000)had a big part in allowing dubious financial instruments to be exchange traded. These mortgage instruments had been illegal since the depression.
And by the way, it’s almost a year later and the Obama Administration and our Congress has done nothing to end this trading.So while you contend these folks who voted for Obama got what they wanted, I think it is pretty obvious they haven’t got what they wanted and they are willing to stand up and say so. Worse still for the Democratic party and Obama is that these folks now feel, rightfully imo, that they were deceived.
Participant[quote=dbapig][quote=felix]From what I have seen, you are correct in your assessment of those folks at these events. Many of those interviewed even say they voted for Obama. They are upset because they didn’t expect what he is trying to do.
Even my wife, an independent, who voted for Obama, thought she was voting for something totally different than what we are getting. My in-laws, a surgeon and nurse both voted for Obama but are also very dismayed over what has been happening and up in arms about the drastic changes proposed to health care.
[/quote]Claiming some/many/most of the marchers voted for Obama doesn’t mean anything.
Assuming they did vote for Obama and they are unhappy with what the administration is trying to do, well they obviously didn’t do their homework. Reforming healthcare was a pretty prominent goal of Obama campaign.
And the other issues (bailing out banks/Big3) was an issue that he inherited. Only if Bush Administration or his officials did their work right, we wouldn’t have all these bailouts.
And the in-laws (surgeon and nurse), well the health care reform isn’t for the surgeon and nurses in a sense. It’s for the general public. The medical establishment want better return on their investment (who wouldn’t right?), which the general public just cannot support any more. What did they expect out of Obama campaign calling for reform of the health system?
And your wife who’s an independent, so what did she vote for? I’m sure it’s something different from what Bush stood for? In that regard, she got what she wanted imho.[/quote]
I would think the fact that some voted for Obama does mean that they aren’t necessarily racists, fringe elements or haters.
True, they could have done better research into what Obama really stood for, but I think the media let these folks down by not exposing Obama’s real intentions or background. And I think Obama went out of his way to portray himself as a a moderate. And while health care reform was on the agenda that doesn’t mean these folks supported all or even most of what he is now proposing.
If Obama wants to put an end to pre-existing conditions or being dropped from coverage or work to limit drug costs and enact tort reform, he could do that very easily with almost unanimous bipartisan support and for almost no cost to taxpayers what so ever. Folks too also almost unanimously support these.
Next, blaming the financial crisis on Bush means you aren’t doing your homework. Bush and McCain both warned of massive loan problems emanating from Dem run and overseen, Fannie and Freddie, and rule forcing loans to be made to folks with dubious credit.
And the Dems (Clinton signed the bill in 2000)had a big part in allowing dubious financial instruments to be exchange traded. These mortgage instruments had been illegal since the depression.
And by the way, it’s almost a year later and the Obama Administration and our Congress has done nothing to end this trading.So while you contend these folks who voted for Obama got what they wanted, I think it is pretty obvious they haven’t got what they wanted and they are willing to stand up and say so. Worse still for the Democratic party and Obama is that these folks now feel, rightfully imo, that they were deceived.
Participant[quote=dbapig][quote=felix]From what I have seen, you are correct in your assessment of those folks at these events. Many of those interviewed even say they voted for Obama. They are upset because they didn’t expect what he is trying to do.
Even my wife, an independent, who voted for Obama, thought she was voting for something totally different than what we are getting. My in-laws, a surgeon and nurse both voted for Obama but are also very dismayed over what has been happening and up in arms about the drastic changes proposed to health care.
[/quote]Claiming some/many/most of the marchers voted for Obama doesn’t mean anything.
Assuming they did vote for Obama and they are unhappy with what the administration is trying to do, well they obviously didn’t do their homework. Reforming healthcare was a pretty prominent goal of Obama campaign.
And the other issues (bailing out banks/Big3) was an issue that he inherited. Only if Bush Administration or his officials did their work right, we wouldn’t have all these bailouts.
And the in-laws (surgeon and nurse), well the health care reform isn’t for the surgeon and nurses in a sense. It’s for the general public. The medical establishment want better return on their investment (who wouldn’t right?), which the general public just cannot support any more. What did they expect out of Obama campaign calling for reform of the health system?
And your wife who’s an independent, so what did she vote for? I’m sure it’s something different from what Bush stood for? In that regard, she got what she wanted imho.[/quote]
I would think the fact that some voted for Obama does mean that they aren’t necessarily racists, fringe elements or haters.
True, they could have done better research into what Obama really stood for, but I think the media let these folks down by not exposing Obama’s real intentions or background. And I think Obama went out of his way to portray himself as a a moderate. And while health care reform was on the agenda that doesn’t mean these folks supported all or even most of what he is now proposing.
If Obama wants to put an end to pre-existing conditions or being dropped from coverage or work to limit drug costs and enact tort reform, he could do that very easily with almost unanimous bipartisan support and for almost no cost to taxpayers what so ever. Folks too also almost unanimously support these.
Next, blaming the financial crisis on Bush means you aren’t doing your homework. Bush and McCain both warned of massive loan problems emanating from Dem run and overseen, Fannie and Freddie, and rule forcing loans to be made to folks with dubious credit.
And the Dems (Clinton signed the bill in 2000)had a big part in allowing dubious financial instruments to be exchange traded. These mortgage instruments had been illegal since the depression.
And by the way, it’s almost a year later and the Obama Administration and our Congress has done nothing to end this trading.So while you contend these folks who voted for Obama got what they wanted, I think it is pretty obvious they haven’t got what they wanted and they are willing to stand up and say so. Worse still for the Democratic party and Obama is that these folks now feel, rightfully imo, that they were deceived.
-
AuthorPosts