Quote:

---

Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
I disagree.

I rate him as about 40% below minimum acceptable parameters.

While that's better than anyone who ran against him might have gotten, it's still a piss poor job in my eyes.

-F

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by chrisisall:
I wouldn't say "great", but he's still the best choice we had.


The laughing Chrisisall

---

Quote:

---

He certainly isn't an idle president. He hasn't even been in office for a year yet. You can't expect "change" in a 6 month period can you?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by OPPYH:
Obama's health care reform is a HUGE step in the right direction. This is no small, petty plan to please the a few people. This will change America for the better(much better).

This is something that has needed fixing since the 80's. Surely you agree with this.
It proves he is going to try to re-structure America out of Iron, not cardboard.

---

Quote:

---

Obama's been in less than six months, but it's often the first hundred days that set the tone, and where the most sweeping changes can take place. My fear is that Obama squandered his political capital by waffling, and when he decides he wants to really DO something, it may well be too late; the people and the Congress may no longer be under his spell by then.

Mike

---

Quote:

---

You know what we're going to get? We're going to get "universal" health care in the sense that Massachusetts got it under Romney: A law that says you have to carry health insurance, but no incentive for the insurance industry to make such health insurance decent in scope or affordable in practice for huge numbers of people. In other words, you'll pay more than you do now, your employer will pay less, and you'll likely get worse coverage than whatever measly plan you may already have. Unless you're poor - then you can get a waiver and opt out of coverage. Gosh, pinch me now; I must be dreaming...

Mike

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by OPPYH:
I swear to God, that is the scariest assessment of a health care plan I've ever heard. Crap, if that's how it plays out I'll move to Canada so damn fast.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwicko:

You know what we're going to get? We're going to get "universal" health care in the sense that Massachusetts got it under Romney: A law that says you have to carry health insurance, but no incentive for the insurance industry to make such health insurance decent in scope or affordable in practice for huge numbers of people.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by OPPYH:
I swear to God, that is the scariest assessment of a health care plan I've ever heard. Crap, if that's how it plays out I'll move to Canada so damn fast.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by OPPYH:

Quote:

---

You know what we're going to get? We're going to get "universal" health care in the sense that Massachusetts got it under Romney: A law that says you have to carry health insurance, but no incentive for the insurance industry to make such health insurance decent in scope or affordable in practice for huge numbers of people. In other words, you'll pay more than you do now, your employer will pay less, and you'll likely get worse coverage than whatever measly plan you may already have. Unless you're poor - then you can get a waiver and opt out of coverage. Gosh, pinch me now; I must be dreaming...

Mike

---

I swear to God, that is the scariest assessment of a health care plan I've ever heard. Crap, if that's how it plays out I'll move to Canada so damn fast.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
this is EXACTLY how we got stuck with the ruinous, useless, complete fucking scam that is auto insurance.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwicko:

THAT is the thing I fear most about Obama. I don't worry that he's a socialist - I worry that he's more capitalist than anyone can imagine, and that he's only selling us the image of the socialist reformer.

---

Quote:

---

"Obama is a radical Communist. He's going to destroy this country, and we're either going to stop him, or the United States of America is going to cease to exist."
-Ambassador Alan Keyes PhD, candidate for president in 2008
www.archive.org/details/ObamaInauguralMashup/
http://loyaltoliberty.blogspot.com
http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/blog1
http://larrysinclair-0926.blogspot.com

"Yes we can, thank you Satan."
-President Hussein Obama, acceptance speech in Chicago, November 4, 2008
www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.asp?b=18&t=37513&m=688607
MP3: www.archive.org/details/ObamaInauguralMashup/

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by chrisisall:
I wouldn't say "great", but he's still the best choice we had.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by OPPYH:
He certainly isn't an idle president. He hasn't even been in office for a year yet. You can't expect "change" in a 6 month period can you?

---

Quote:

---

Constitutional law professor Jonathan Turley: "Well it can't get any worse: extreme executive privilege arguments in court, withholding of abuse photos, adoptions of indefinite detentions without trial, restarting military commissions, and blocking any torture investigation. Welcome to Bush 2.0..."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-cusack/a-war-on-terror-by-any-ot_b_
204887.html

---

Quote:

---

In other words, beyond even the outrageously broad "state secrets" privilege invented by the Bush administration and now embraced fully by the Obama administration, the Obama DOJ has now invented a brand new claim of government immunity, one which literally asserts that the U.S. Government is free to intercept all of your communications (calls, emails and the like) and -- even if what they're doing is blatantly illegal and they know it's illegal -- you are barred from suing them unless they "willfully disclose" to the public what they have learned.
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/04/06/obama/index.html

---

Quote:

---

The photo suppression bill is an abomination that is reminiscent of the worst Bush-era excesses. It gives the executive branch the power to withhold an entire category of information from public scrutiny without any review. This law is Example A of the theory of the Presidency that says citizens should just trust the benevolent executive to do the right thing. Even if you oppose releasing some of the photos, I don't see why you would want to give the White House the power to unilaterally decide what's best. It says a lot about the Congress that members are willing to give Obama this kind of power. It says a lot about Obama that he supports this bill.
http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2009/06/house-liberals-trying-block-ob
ama-backed-foia-exemption-torture-photos

---

Quote:

---

Exactly. We already have a law in place -- FOIA -- that is incredibly permissive in what it allows the government to keep secret... But passing a new law because you don't want to abide by the old one and because courts have rejected the President's claimed powers was one of the most defining and abusive strategies of the Bush administration....

The issue is not whether disclosure of these photographs will produce value... The issue is whether or not you believe in transparency in government (a major plank of Obama's campaign), and whether you want the President to have the unilateral, unreviewable power to simply decree that the 4o-year-old FOIA law need not be complied with when it comes to all photographic evidence of detainee abuse.
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/06/05/photos/index.html

---

Quote:

---

It's important to be clear about what "preventive detention" authorizes. It does not merely allow the U.S. Government to imprison people alleged to have committed Terrorist acts yet who are unable to be convicted in a civilian court proceeding. That class is merely a subset, perhaps a small subset, of who the Government can detain. Far more significant, "preventive detention" allows indefinite imprisonment not based on proven crimes or past violations of law, but of those deemed generally "dangerous" by the Government for various reasons (such as, as Obama put it yesterday, they "expressed their allegiance to Osama bin Laden" or "otherwise made it clear that they want to kill Americans"). That's what "preventive" means: imprisoning people because the Government claims they are likely to engage in violent acts in the future because they are alleged to be "combatants."
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/05/22/preventive_detention
/index.html

---

Quote:

---

Liane Hansen has a little chat with "Retired Army Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez, who was in charge of the ground forces in Iraq when some of those techniques were used at the Abu Ghraib prison." During the interview Sanchez relates the following:

"We got a little bit of an insight into what they [CIA] were doing when they did drop off what came to be known as Iceman at Abu Ghraib in the fall of 2003....we clearly understood that they were using some very, very aggressive techniques, and in fact had wound up with this man dead in the course of an interrogation....he was brought to Abu Ghraib and handed off to my conventional forces there at the prison, and we eventually wound up repatriating him to his family to be taken care of and interred."

HOLY CRAP! Sanchez is describing the fact that the CIA and US forces tortured a man to death. Hansen doesn't express shock, disgust, surprise...anything. ...
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/06/06/nyt/index.html

---

Quote:

---

No health care? Expect a requirement to get it
By LIZ SIDOTI – 5 hours ago
WASHINGTON (AP) — Don't have health insurance? Don't want to pay for it? Too bad.
It's looking like President Barack Obama and the Democratic-controlled Congress are going to require you to pick up the bill.
In Washington-speak, it's called an individual mandate — or a requirement that people who don't already have health insurance to purchase it, much like most states require drivers to have automobile insurance.
Obama long has been wary of the idea, arguing that people cannot be required to buy coverage if they can't afford it. His plan during the presidential primary didn't require all adults to have coverage, only children. He and then-rival Hillary Rodham Clinton, who backed a universal requirement, sparred repeatedly over the issue.
Now in the White House, Obama has set in motion steps toward his broad goal of making health care more affordable, improving quality of care and expanding coverage. Says Obama: "We are not a nation that accepts nearly 46 million uninsured men, women and children."
He largely has left it to the House and Senate to work it out.
But in recent weeks, Congress signaled that legislation overhauling health care was all but certain to require that people have insurance. Of course, details about how to implement such a mandate must be worked out — and there are many — but the overall concept increasingly seems on track to be included in any sweeping health care overhaul that makes its way to Obama's desk.
The president's support for the requirement is recent — and conditional.
In a letter in early June, he told key Senate Democrats writing legislation that he was willing to consider their ideas for "shared responsibility," requiring people to have insurance with employers sharing in the cost. "But," he added, "I believe if we are going to make people responsible for owning health insurance, we must make health care affordable."
He went a smidgen further last week.
"I am confident in our ability to give people the ability to get insurance," he told doctors. Thus, he said: "I am open to a system where every American bears responsibility for owning health insurance, so long as we provide a hardship waiver for those who still can't afford it."
Obama also indicated that if he were giving a little, insurance companies eager for new customers must as well, and called on them to stop denying coverage based on pre-existing conditions. Said Obama: "The days of cherry-picking who to cover and who to deny — those days are over."
Even before the president took office in January, the insurance industry, which killed former President Bill Clinton's health care overhaul, indicated it was willing to accept that trade-off, making a mandate all the more likely.
Democrats have opposed such a mandate in previous years, fearing it would disadvantage the poor. In fact, it was Republicans, including 1996 presidential nominee and former Sen. Bob Dole, who pushed the idea in the 1990s.
These days, it's hard to find many opposed to a requirement.
Insurers like it: A mandate means a ready pool of new customers. Businesses back it: They say employers alone shouldn't shoulder the responsibility to pay for coverage. Hospitals cheer such a provision: They're tired of absorbing the costs of the uninsured seeking medical attention. Doctors support it: They want to stop providing services for free. And advocates for the poor are conditionally favorable: They want adequate subsidies and so-called hardship waivers.

---

Quote:

---

Even so, at least some conservative Republicans likely will argue that Obama is stepping on individual rights by mandating coverage, expanding government's hand in the health care industry and creating a pathway to socialized medicine. Just last week, congressional conservatives offered their own plan. It would not mandate people to carry insurance.
But even Republicans say a requirement is likely.
"I believe there is a bipartisan consensus to have individual mandates," says Iowa Sen. Chuck Grassley, the top Republican on the Senate Finance Committee. The reason is fairness, he says: "Everybody has some health insurance costs, and if you aren't insured, there's no free lunch. Somebody else is paying for it."
It's support like this that's meant Obama has been able to shift positions with seemingly little political peril.
"Because there's a consensus among both the stakeholders and the legislators that this is the direction to go, the president essentially doesn't have a reason not to support it," said Judy Feder, a senior health care official under Clinton who now is at the liberal Center for American Progress.
Still, Congress must figure out how to enforce such a mandate, eligibility for a so-called hardship waiver, tax credits so people can afford health care and subsidies for the poor to help them buy coverage.
House and Senate committees are in the midst of haggling over such issues, and independent analysts expect a final bill to emerge that includes both waivers and sliding-scale subsidies to meet Obama's conditions
"There's no doubt that to be acceptable, it has to be regarded as fair and that you're not requiring people to buy insurance that's not affordable to them," said John Holahan, the Urban Institute's health policy center director.
Any plan is likely to be modeled after one in Massachusetts, which required that virtually everyone have health insurance or face tax penalties.
People who were deemed able to afford health insurance but who refused to buy it during 2007 faced losing a personal tax exemption and the prospect of monthly fines. The law exempted anyone who made less than the federal poverty level and gave them free care. And, those making up to three times the poverty level could get subsidize plans. Businesses with 11 or more full-time employees who refused to offer insurance also faced fines.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SergeantX:
In the interest of clarity, this site seems to track things relatively accurately:

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/

It's not quite as bad as some of us pretend, but it's hardly the sweeping change that was supposedly his mandate.

---

Quote:

---

Still, Obama is essentially saying that some prisoners will face neither courts nor military commissions of any sort, but will be imprisoned anyway. This is not a good sign for him keeping his promise on habeas corpus for enemy combatants. So we rate the promise Stalled.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SergeantX:
At this point I think he's mostly worried about the fallout of releasing prisoners who have been tortured. Are they going to promise not to tell anyone about it? No, they'll sing it from the rooftops and fill the tabloids (and the rare MSM media with the balls to publish it) with stories of US depravity.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Jongsstraw:

Healthcare is ...(cough, cough) very important!

---

Quote:

---

On another note....what's he going to do with the increasing North Korean taunts aimed at him?

---

Quote:

---

Obama's taken more shit from Kim Jong Il than he has from anyone else.

---

Quote:

---

We've got a ship tracking their cargo ship to Myanmar. We have UN approval "to ask them to board", but not to actually board. If they just say no, will he go ahead and board it anyhow?

---

Quote:

---

Should he? What about the July 4th missile surprise Kim has announced?

---

Quote:

---

There are people on TV talking about war.

---

Quote:

---

Kim has already declared the 1953 cease-fire truce void, so technically we are at war.

---

Quote:

---

What if his missiles actually hit something, here or in S. Korea or Japan? Then what? What if China backs N. Korea like they'd likely do? What could/would Obama do?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwicko:
To do so would be tantamount to an act of war against North Korea, just as much as if THEY did that to one of OUR ships in international waters.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwicko:
As for what Obama would likely do, I'm sure he'd respond appropriately. I'm not at all convinced that China would back North Korea. We're a bit more important to them than Kim is, I'm afraid. For all their shared communist ideology, the Chinese really DO seem to like American cashy money quite a bit.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
ha....

You won't even recognize America in 4 years. And watch gas shoot up to eight bucks a gallon after he gets reelected. Obama is a piece of shit. He's nothing but Bush Jr. with blackface on.

Name one thing he and his Democratic Congress hasn't reneged on since his campaign.

He's a LIAR!

That's what you idiots get for voting an Illinois politician into the White House.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by OPPYH:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
ha....

You won't even recognize America in 4 years. And watch gas shoot up to eight bucks a gallon after he gets reelected. Obama is a piece of shit. He's nothing but Bush Jr. with blackface on.

Name one thing he and his Democratic Congress hasn't reneged on since his campaign.

He's a LIAR!

That's what you idiots get for voting an Illinois politician into the White House.

---

I didn't vote for Obama, but he's in charge so you'd better get used to it. And while we are at it....what is the key? You call those who voted for Obama "idiots", without any retaliation whatsoever. It appears you have truly achieved RWED invulnerability. Both sides seem to adore you. Are you a vampire?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by WASHnwear:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by OPPYH:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
ha....

You won't even recognize America in 4 years. And watch gas shoot up to eight bucks a gallon after he gets reelected. Obama is a piece of shit. He's nothing but Bush Jr. with blackface on.

Name one thing he and his Democratic Congress hasn't reneged on since his campaign.

He's a LIAR!

That's what you idiots get for voting an Illinois politician into the White House.

---

I didn't vote for Obama, but he's in charge so you'd better get used to it. And while we are at it....what is the key? You call those who voted for Obama "idiots", without any retaliation whatsoever. It appears you have truly achieved RWED invulnerability. Both sides seem to adore you. Are you a vampire?

---

I think one of the "keys" in this case is that Jack doesn't have a rep for being a Kool-Aid-chugging, my-Bush-right-or-wrong cheerleader. If memory serves he's expressed views from "both sides of the aisle."

And just for clarity's sake, that's not a jab disguised as a response. For my own part, I was Kool-Aid-chugging, my-Obama-right-or-wrong cheerleader (one of Jack's aforementioned "idiots", I guess) 'til a few months after he took office. And now, like many others, I've got the hangover to prove it. It's not that I completely regret letting him take me home...but he looked a lot better last night at the bar.



donttalkbackjustdrivethecarshutyourmouthiknowwhatyouaredontsaynothinkeepyourhandsonthewheeldontturnaroundthisisforreal

Still...what would Rorschach do?

---

Quote:

---

Anyway, whether China backs the US or North Korea will most likely depend on who seems to be the aggressor. China has aspirations, and it also has enough of the US public and private debt to really hurt the US economy if it so chose. If the US was seen as the aggressor, it would be an ideal opportunity for China to assert itself on the world stage, to show itself willing to square up against the big guys in defence of a smaller weaker nation. It would help to garner political capital through out the region, and among many of the US-unfriendly states (especially Oil producers) that China has been trying to curry favour with, such as Iran. If North Korea were the aggressor, it would be an ideal opportunity for China to assert itself on the world stage and prove itself a friend to the states with all the inherent economic privilege that could bring.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwicko:
I was Kool-Aid-chugging, my-Obama-right-or-wrong cheerleader (one of Jack's aforementioned "idiots", I guess) 'til a few months after he took office.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
I think we're a more informed bunch than the majority.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by chrisisall:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwicko:
I was Kool-Aid-chugging, my-Obama-right-or-wrong cheerleader (one of Jack's aforementioned "idiots", I guess) 'til a few months after he took office.

---

Ah HA!
And NOW you realize what a commie-Lib, socialist Mao-mother***** he is, and how WRONG you were to support him & his brownshirt cause! You realize NOW that Bush was just a good guy doing what he believed to be right for all freedom-loving, dictator-hating standup Americans!!!

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwicko:
Thanks, WNW, for a just about perfect analogy. That's pretty much the same feeling I've got, and I too was an Obamaniac.

As for 6ix, I tend to not take him very seriously most of the time, and he IS an equal-opportunity offender; he doesn't care much for the Bushies either.

Mike

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
Washnwear and Oppyh,

Thanks for those unprompted comments

I don't mean nothing personal when I call people idiots even though I'm sure it comes across that way.

Yes. I thought Bush was the worst president we've ever had. I have a long history of posts to proove that. This is something altogether different though. What I liked about Bush was that nobody trusted or liked him. His every move was scrutinized.

O'Bama has put us on the fast track to ruin and all we read about is their new dog, or their trip to Broadway that would have cost me 8 years of my life savings to pay for, or the fact that he made ammends by paying for a trip to Paris, or the fact that J Crew stock was in the stratosphere when Ms. O and the little tykes were wearing outfits fashioned by them.

What danger lurks beneath. It may be easy to think that most Americans are aware of what's all going on by posting here frequently, but I think we're a more informed bunch than the majority.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwicko:

Quote:

---

Anyway, whether China backs the US or North Korea will most likely depend on who seems to be the aggressor. China has aspirations, and it also has enough of the US public and private debt to really hurt the US economy if it so chose. If the US was seen as the aggressor, it would be an ideal opportunity for China to assert itself on the world stage, to show itself willing to square up against the big guys in defence of a smaller weaker nation. It would help to garner political capital through out the region, and among many of the US-unfriendly states (especially Oil producers) that China has been trying to curry favour with, such as Iran. If North Korea were the aggressor, it would be an ideal opportunity for China to assert itself on the world stage and prove itself a friend to the states with all the inherent economic privilege that could bring.

---

Couldn't agree more with that assessment, Citizen. Seems the only real way for the U.S. to "win" in this situation is by simply refusing to play, or waiting for North Korea to overplay its hand.

---

Here's a question I have and perhaps someone here can enlighten me.

Does this N. Korean "mystery" ship cause any other country any degree of alarm or apprehension? And I mean in the way that it has apparently caused the U.S. more than a little concern. I understand that the reason is that a missle might just be pointed right at Hawaii, so we're really the only ones threatened. But still . . . The way I understand it is the UN has given the U.S. authority to board the ship and search it's contents if it is felt to be neccesary. But . . . why us? Why do WE have to be the ones to be shadowing this ship and possibly board it to find out exactly what they have on board? Why put the U.S. in that position if we are so hated around the globe?

*********************************************

"It's okay! I'm a leaf on the wind!!!"
"What does that mean?!?!?!"

Quote:

---

Originally posted by RIPWash:
Here's a question I have and perhaps someone here can enlighten me.

Does this N. Korean "mystery" ship cause any other country any degree of alarm or apprehension? And I mean in the way that it has apparently caused the U.S. more than a little concern. I understand that the reason is that a missle might just be pointed right at Hawaii, so we're really the only ones threatened. But still . . . The way I understand it is the UN has given the U.S. authority to board the ship and search it's contents if it is felt to be neccesary. But . . . why us? Why do WE have to be the ones to be shadowing this ship and possibly board it to find out exactly what they have on board? Why put the U.S. in that position if we are so hated around the globe?

---

Quote:

---

I understand that the reason is that a missle might just be pointed right at Hawaii, so we're really the only ones threatened.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwicko:

Quote:

---

I understand that the reason is that a missle might just be pointed right at Hawaii, so we're really the only ones threatened.

---

I'm curious; how many missiles do you suppose WE have pointed at THEM? Do you think THEY might feel "threatened", too?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwicko:

Quote:

---

I understand that the reason is that a missle might just be pointed right at Hawaii, so we're really the only ones threatened.

---

I'm curious; how many missiles do you suppose WE have pointed at THEM? Do you think THEY might feel "threatened", too?

---