What is it with Obama's face during speeches?

[myrmaad]

That is NOT what I said and I do not appreciate being misconstrued.

 

I was agreeing with what Granny said, that is to say that although people who have served have a different perspective and unique insight, and deserve our respect, that no-one, including them has an exclusive right to an opinion, which by implication means that the opinion of everyone here is of equal merit and is allowed to be heard. Sometimes it is the way that things are said that is the problem.

 

I personally don't like the implication that I said something which I most definitely did not say.

 

 

First of all, I'm telling you all , not just you, Ginny, and I don't want to have to say it again. As far as I'm concerned all three of you said the exact same thing. It's not going to fly with me.

 

Edit:

 

Ok let me step back.

 

I made my reply to Aurelius to make the point, and I'll just clarify, no one here should be made to feel as if their opinion is less valid because they have not served in the military. Our legislators have no such qualms and we have the responsibility to vote them into office to represent our views.

 

Please let me apologize for what must have felt like I was taking your head off above.

[Aurielius]

Oh come on.

You and I both know all the fuss from the right is from people who predominately collect medicare and social security benefits but don't want to pay taxes "to assist those they deem 'undeserving.'"

Before you drag out the old saw about how 'we pre-paid for those benefits", you need to understand that most people will recieve far more benefits in dollars then they ever paid in. Furthermore, in order to fix the Soc sec shortfall all we need to do is raise the payroll tax cap. The Social Security taxation system only taxes a person's “earned” income, i.e., salaries and wages, below a certain amount called the “cap”, which is currently set at $106800, -- (i.e., any income over $106800 isn't taxed).

Take a look at this

http://www.commondreams.org/newswire/2011/09/15-10

And it's not so much about "the rich" but the fact that those at the top get plenty of government handouts, yet they begrudge help going to the bottom where there is no bankrolled lobbying. In fact the tax system we have has indeed been a wealth redistribution but contrary to what assorted wingnuts, spin doctors, and fox mouthpieces proclaim, the funnel has been from the middle to the top. I do have proof and if given a proper thread in which to do it, I would savor elaborating on this.

 

On top of that consider who gets the largest welfare handouts: The Sugar industry and the Oil industry both receive government subsidies and handouts. We have a system that sets up our legislators to have to prostitute themselves for campaign funding and it has bought us a corporate oligarchy while chewing and spitting out the middle class as so much fodder for the machine, and the corporatocracy who owns and spins the media then paints the black man in office as the bogeyman, and the frightened masses buy it.

I will not argue that there are not corporate handouts and bailouts and I am no more in favor of that than the other. I disagree with the concept that a company is 'too big to fail', poor corporate decisions should have the same penalty as poor private decisions. I also think that a flat no exception tax code would be fairer than the current tax muddle we have now. That still leaves the polemics of the president decrying the rich simply because that is an appealing target ( to his base) instead of campaigning on his dubious achievements in office. If memory serves his prior campaign was in theory one of unification which is little evidence now that he is in trouble and has little to show on the positive column of legislative achievements. If by the end of summer the SC rules against Obamacare then he will have no legislative accomplishments whatsoever.

[marharth]

That is implying "Obamacare" was actually a legislative accomplishment.

[myrmaad]

That is implying "Obamacare" was actually a legislative accomplishment.

 

There are some good things in it, but it was certainly no great win. If the SC rules against it, we may be able to finally get Medicare for All i.e the Public Option. The reason I champion this is chiefly because it would remove health insurance from employment so that we would all be truly free to buy whatever health insurance we wanted. If we couldn't afford health insurance we could get minimal standards of care at a better rate for tax payers, and those of us who now pay for coverage would be able to get the coverage we want and insurance companies would have to compete to offer stuff I want, and not compete for something my company is trying to fit to all of their employees.

[SubjectProphet]

For the record, I regret voting for Obummer, I won't vote for him again, I disapprove of everything he is doing, and if he gets into office again I'm leaving America before the true storm comes.

 

I proudly serve the USMC, I love America, but nothing our leaders do make sense. Fine people who can't afford health care? Wait, WHAT? Are you TRYING to put people on the streets here?

 

I supported health care for all for free. I don't support this chaos.

 

 

Obama has increased the unemployment rate so much more than Bush. Oh right, he blames everything on Bush. He uses his teleprompter on every speech, and he stutters without that. He's never truthfully answered a question, just changes the subject. To keep his reputation, he only allows reporters to give him interviews when they don't ask him questions about the econemy, because he has no answers to those questions. And what about the promise to us that we were going to leave Afghan? We're still here!!!!!

 

I wish there was a "none of the above" option for the voting.....

[HeyYou]

I couldn't find where Obama had promised to get us out of Afghanistan... but, it sure does seem to me that he did mutter something about that at one point.

 

Iraq was an unjustified war. Bush wanted it, and Bush got it.

 

Afghanistan was ostensibly to get ONE man. Why we had to overthrow a government to do so, is beyond me. Sure, we didn't like their form of government, but, we don't like N. Korea's government, or China's, or Iran's, or a host of other countries either. We haven't invaded any of them yet..... why is that??

 

I voted for Obama because I wanted something different from the previous eight years. What did I get? Bush 2.0. Same foreign policies, same economic policy, same war-mongering. I am not arguing JUST the financial cost, or the morality of those wars, I am also quite incensed about the cost in lives lost, and utterly changed by the experience of being there. And to what end? To install a government far more corrupt than the one we replaced, to watch opium production skyrocket, and american money used to bribe our enemies NOT to attack our convoys, so that we have the supplies we need so that we can fight them..... and in turn, they use the money we give them to buy weapons to fight US. Where is the sense in that???

 

Congress, so far as I know, hasn't actually declared war on ANY of those nations where we have been fighting. The commander in chief used his plenipotentiary powers to put our troops there. He had to get approval for funding... and congress went along with that. So, they are just as responsible for sustaining those wars, as the two presidents are for getting us in to them in the first place. Bad idea all the way around.

 

Iraq has more terrorists NOW, than were there before we stuck our stick into the hornets nest.

Afghanistan is sliding back into what basically amounts to a civil war. We pull out in 2014, anyone care to give me odds on how long it takes for them to go right back to exactly the way they were before we arrived?

Libya..... we supported the muslim brotherhood to overthrow a dictator.... I would put odds that that one will come back to bite us as well.

Egypt..... MB in power there as well, and we are giving them millions of dollars a year..... Why?? Do we think we can BUY friends? That really doesn't work very well.....

 

Time for dinner. :D

[Deleted472477User]

I was in the Navy, and I don't have the opinion of "if you didn't serve, then you don't get to have an opinion." We ALL get one, like it or not.

 

And I'm voting for Obama again. Any vote I can steal from Mitt "Flip Flop Back-peddling" Romney, I'll do it.

 

There's some back-peddling here, too. Anyone here want a backward bicycle? :D

[SubjectProphet]

I was in the Navy, and I don't have the opinion of "if you didn't serve, then you don't get to have an opinion." We ALL get one, like it or not.

 

And I'm voting for Obama again. Any vote I can steal from Mitt "Flip Flop Back-peddling" Romney, I'll do it.

 

There's some back-peddling here, too. Anyone here want a backward bicycle? :D

 

Both of them suck, dont vote for Obama, just vote for someone else (RP!!!:))

[myrmaad]

Ron Paul was running for the Republican nomination.

 

http://www.thestatecolumn.com/articles/ron-paul-on-a-third-party-bid-i-dont-have-any-plans-for-that/

[saadus]

If there was an option to vote for a new list of candidates, I would vote this year.