Send News. Want a reply? Read this. More in the FAQ.   News Forum - All Forums - Mobile - PDA - RSS Headlines  RSS Headlines   Twitter  Twitter
Customize
User Settings
Styles:
LAN Parties
Upcoming one-time events:

Regularly scheduled events

Report this Comment
Use this form to report the selected comment to the moderators. Reporting should generally be used only if the comment breaks forum rules.

52. Re: Differences Jul 25, 2012, 11:21 Wowbagger_TIP
 
RollinThundr wrote on Jul 25, 2012, 10:48:
It more speaks to his inexperience in being a good leader, which he isn't, and how naive he was in most of his "Yes we can" bullshit. When you have voters thinking Obama is going to pay their mortage, and beliving the man is going to have a tranparent presidency when in reality it's been nothing but, you know there's a bit o confusion.

IMO forcing any service on US Citizen's is unconstitutional. Period.
The only real problem with the constitutionality of the bill was that they tried to avoid calling the penalty a tax. USSC fixed that and said it's a tax. We've already decided, as a country, that nobody will be turned away from medical care. You show up at an emergency room, you get treated. It's that simple. This bill actually tries to get more people chipping in to pay for that instead of making only those of us with health insurance pay for it, along with the government, as is currently the case.

So, since we've already decided that universal health care is a right, we have to ask why we've implemented that in the most wasteful and expensive way possible. The health care bill takes some steps in the right direction to improve it, but still falls far short of where we need to be to get costs under control. For all the whining from the right about health care rationing by Obama, that's exactly what the Republicans are practically demanding. It would be hilarious if it wasn't so scary. The level of cognitive dissonance within the GOP is just staggering.

As for being a good leader, I think he's done ok. It's a matter of opinion, of course. I don't think Romney would be better. He's the biggest flip-flopping, finger-in-the-air type of politician we've seen in a while. He criticizes one day, then tries to take credit the next. It's ridiculous.

Yeah, Obama may have been naive in some of the promises he made, but I don't think there's a president who's ever lived up to all of their campaign promises once elected. Once they get into that office, everything changes. They get more information, have to decide on things in very great detail, and then live with the consequences. How much detail have you heard from Romney on anything that he wants to do? Easy answer: almost none.

I'm not happy having to choose between a D and an R again. I wish there was another choice. As it stands though, right now Obama is the only one that has given any specifics on what he will do. Romney, so far, has only criticized and offered no real new ideas or details on what he would do differently. We only get vague things like repealing Obamacare or letting the wealthy keep more money. No explanation of how he would handle the obvious consequences of these things. It's one thing to have an applause line or two, but that seems to be all he has.

This comment was edited on Jul 25, 2012, 11:40.
 
Avatar 9540
 
"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts." -- Bertrand Russell (I think...)
 
Subject
  
Optional
Message
 
Login Email   Password Remember Me
If you don't already have a Blue's News user account, you can sign up here.
Forgotten your password? Click here.
 




footer

.. .. ..

Blue's News logo