Originally Posted by ijusluvit

Glad you enjoy opponents. Can I apply for Chief?

You say you didn't pay attention to Hope and Change, that you had already chose to dislike Obama for whatever reasons. I'm baffled then how you know what "promises" Obama made, what he "lied" about and what he "didn't even try" to accomplish.

Please step back from this "promises & lies" nonsense for a minute. You seem to see political campaigning so differently than I. You seem so passionate about every literal and miniscule interpretation of candidates comments. If two comments don't sound exactly the same six months apart, at least one of them is a "lie". You will not acknowledge that "promises" cannot even Constitutionally be made by Presidential candidates, that at most, a given topic is either a priority or not. Again you are seeing 'trees'; sound bites, partial contexts.

In Obama's case, your dislike and distrust for how you literally interpret his every word, obscures the 'forest'. Your immigration comments are a good example. You say Obama lied, apparently because he promised a new comprehensive immigration policy to resolve all related issues. You say he's done NOTHING. You completely dismiss that as chief executive he has pressed for the deportation of more illegal aliens than did any previous administration. His order to refrain from deporting the children brought here by parents, under tight conditions, is now THE operational practice of the INS. It solves a bunch of problems for the INS and how they focus their efforts. It takes the intense pressure off a million people caught in the middle. Have you not read the countless reports of how this was the sensible, right thing to do, something Congress could not accomplish? All of that is hardly NOTHING. It is a good foundation point for a new comprehensive policy. You can be as mean spirited as you want and say it was done for pure political advantage. Again, that is simple bias. What matters is that something useful HAS been done.

Try to understand how differently I view things. I care most about the big picture. I don't invest critical attention to what words the candidates use, and especially how the media and superpacs present them. I just want to hear what candidates care about and a sense of which things are more important than others. Example: I'm not bothered that Romney says he's going to try to repeal Obamacare. He is simply trying to draw from the excitement of this week's Court decision and pander to conservatives. He knows, you know and I know, if elected he won't be able to do it, and because of his moderate views, won't give it more than a passing glance. I'm not going to call him a "liar" or reject him for that stance. To me, when he talks about taxes, the economy and Iran, I want to see how he is going to generally approach each dilemma and how important each area is. Very simply, I'm still thinking about voting for Romney, but would have rejected him long ago if I counted the number of times his statements and sound bites have been contradictory.

Now, back to health care. It is silly to think that a President should be condemned for making changes in his position. This 'horror' you're dealing with about Obama's health care stance being different from Hillary's and including tort reform is completely trivial. In fighting for a health care plan as good or better than Hillary's, Obama was smart enough to realize the mandate was essential in the best model for paying for the plan, and smart enough to drop the tort reform before the whole effort failed again. OK. the ACA was not perfectly complete or exactly as he talked about it a year or two previously. SO WHAT! He got it DONE.

I'm glad you agree with me that there is some meaning to other accomplishments of the Obama administration. You didn't mention some I listed, and I hope you have a bit different outlook on what has been and is still being done, as formally as possible, with immigration.

And, or course, I am looking for any specific negative you can show evidence for in the ACA.