Originally Posted by bkcunningham1

VK, don't shift the focus....your closed minded attitude of taking any discussion about Obama off the table is not fodder for open debate and discussion or learning how to prioritize...

I'm not trying to shoft the focus away from President Obama. I've already said that I believe he's done some good things and some bad, but not enough to earn my vote for his re-election for a second term.

More than anything, if I could convince folks to simply forget their hatred or disrespect for Barack Obama, or whatever you want to call it, in favor of a study of the issues, the possible solutions, and which elected legislators and/or candidates are for the ones that make the most sense to us, I'd feel I contributed something to the debate.

I only say forget about Obama because he's going to be the POTUS for the better part of another three years regardless of how we feel about him. He doesn't vote on anything, and in fact the power of his bully pulpit seems pretty feeble. Like many recent Presidents before him, he is not inclined to use his veto to influence anything. So basically what I'm saying is that other than being a news item every day, he doesn't influence much of anything--domestically at least. I'll admit that he does have some power in exercising foreign relations and as commander-in-chief of the military.

So why do people spend so much time researching news and statements to make him look bad, and seemingly spend most of their time demonstrating their dislike, disrespect or even hatred for the man? It's a waste of time in my opinion.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I may have just figured something out here VK. Not being insulting, jabbing, taunting or anything like that. Seriously, you think economically on most things political. Some others, like me, don't use that side of the brain as eloquently as you. You know the right brain, left brain theory. Like what you just said about Obama not making many decisions domestically at least. See, to me, instantly when I read that I thought of his recent court nominees, and other issues which, on the surface are more social than economic. Not a bad thing. Just an observation.

Originally Posted by waynet

...If you think Fox is fair and balanced good for you but I strongly disagree. If you think Obama is (totally) bad for the country I disagree. If you think the repubs are going to change anything if they are elected I disagree. If you think tea partiers are the answer I disagree. If you think that 41 repubs have already said they will vote in a block to stop any debate on Wall St.changes is a good thing I disagree....

Wayne, I agree with all your disagreements. All I can suggest is that we all do the best we can to understand the issues, the alternatives our elected representatives have to address those issues, and who the best people might be to represent us that we will vote for in 2010 and 2012. To argue with one another on this kind of stuff is a complete waste of time, regardless of which side of the argument one is on.

To VK and Wayne,...

Since you too have bonded on these two issues, I must assume that I am the dumb one.

VK says it is "simply wrong" to criticize THIS President but I can only assume your criticism of past is fine...ok....that is how you feel. You feel that the President cannot or will not influence domestic affairs and I say that you already know that is hogwash because he has/will and continues to be knee deep in domestic affairs. I can understand a discussion of the issues for sure, but to approach it with an attitude of ignoring the President of the United States because he has no influence on domestic affairs and it is "simply wrong" to ever criticize him, to ME...is just plain ludicrious !

VK says that we have a dysfunctional congress and I agree, but he implies it just happend and is always talking about the GOP for the last year but I dare to remind you that the dysfunction did not begin with the election of this President unless you ignore the two years prior.

WAYNE and I assume VK feel it just peachy keen to attack one news network when both are intelligent enough to understand that bias is apparent on ALL networks and this constant harrangue on Fox which even extends to the WH is simply a bunch of partisan whining and nothing more.

If you feel I attacked you personally Wayne, I apologize...nothing was meant to be personal...you keep mentioning issues you brought up that nobody responded to and my search shows none except those that you ignored when shown to be incorrect, but that is ok also.

I realize that both of you and others think my thoughts are totally partisan and can even understand why. I, unlike others, do not feel it necessary to give you my life story or voting history to somehow validate myself for you.
I can only tell you that since this board has been in my vision, the subject matter was pretty much about this current President or his opponents in either the primary or the general election. If you feel comfy putting me into some catagory that is fine....it sure wont be true, but you can do that.

I just cannot believe how you can tell folks they are WRONG to criticize our President and to attack one single network.

As I said, you two claim insight and intelligence and thus I must be the dumb guy and will just shut up. To me, you both think this President is something special and I do not and that is the thrust of our differences. I think he is a distinct and real danger to this country and to tell folks on here that he has or will not have any influence on domestic policy is simply skirting the issue in my opinion ~!

Originally Posted by Bucco

...VK says that we have a dysfunctional congress and I agree, but he implies it just happened and is always talking about the GOP for the last year but I dare to remind you that the dysfunction did not begin with the election of this President unless you ignore the two years prior.

I'm a little lost by this statement, Bucco. Let me be crystal clear. Governance from our Congress has been heavily influenced by partisan bickering and increasing influence of special interest money for a couple of decades. The partisanship was fueled to white hot levels by the unsuccessful GOP attempt to impeach Bill Clinton. From that point forward, about the last decade or so, the two parties couldn't agree on where the sun comes up, let alone any important legislation to address important national issues. During that time control of the Congress has flip-flopped between the GOP and the Democrats, as has the White House.

I assert that our government has been dysfunctional for at least a decade. That's a criticism of both parties and both Presidents who have been in office during that period.

Originally Posted by Bucco

...to approach it with an attitude of ignoring the President of the United States because he has no influence on domestic affairs and it is "simply wrong" to ever criticize him, to ME...is just plain ludicrious !...

OK, we disagree.

Originally Posted by Bucco

....I just cannot believe how you can..attack one single network.

I can't recall "attacking" Fox News. I even watch some shows it broadcasts to get the more conservative point-of-view. But do I think it is "fair and balanced" reporting of news and opinion? Absolutely not.

Originally Posted by Villages Kahuna

I'm a little lost by this statement, Bucco. Let me be crystal clear. Governance from our Congress has been heavily influenced by partisan bickering and increasing influence of special interest money for a couple of decades. The partisanship was fueled to white hot levels by the unsuccessful GOP attempt to impeach Bill Clinton. From that point forward, about the last decade or so, the two parties couldn't agree on where the sun comes up, let alone any important legislation to address important national issues. During that time control of the Congress has flip-flopped between the GOP and the Democrats, as has the White House.

I assert that our government has been dysfunctional for at least a decade. That's a criticism of both parties and both Presidents who have been in office during that period.
OK, we disagree.
I can't recall "attacking" Fox News. I even watch some shows it broadcasts to get the more conservative point-of-view. But do I think it is "fair and balanced" reporting of news and opinion? Absolutely not.

1. Please explain to me, the dumb guy, how a President who is being lauded and lauds himsself for passing the single greatest piece of domestic legislation which is called the health care bill, and who as your post in another thread talks about to regulate the banking industry, and who signed into law a "stimulus" bill that was pretty much all social programs, who has on his plate a number of sweeping social programs and who talks consistently about social programs will have NO influence on domestic affairs ?

2. You say Fox is not fair and balanced...I will accept that as your opinion but that is the only network that you and others single out so please share with us what network is fair and balanced ? I must add that I also visit other networks to see different views but do not hear much carping about MSNBC for example and many of their shows have a bias !

OMG No influence on domestic affairs? LOL.

Bucco has a good point. Are the other cable channels fair and balanced?

MSNBC - Is not that the network who on April 15, 2009 coined the word "**********" and spent the whole day,among others, being vulgar to the tea partiers and cracking juvenile jokes all day whenever the screen showed the partiers?

This is the only president that acts like a gangster thug when he thinks someone isn't worshiping him. He has all the networks in his back pocket yet cries like a baby when Fox tells the news straight.
President Bush has more class then this gangster will ever have. He is a laughing stock around the world.

Originally Posted by Bucco

...please share with us what network is fair and balanced ?...

Maybe none of them. I think the PBS Newshour tries very hard to be balanced. I also think Meet The Press does a good job of aggressively interviewing guests from varying political stripes. But no other programs or channels leap to mind as ones that can be counted on to present totally balanced news reporting.

But we weren't talking about anything other than Fox News, were we? I simply said that I didn't think that media outlet was fair and balanced. I still don't.

But that doesn't mean I don't watch the news on broadcast or cable TV. It's just that one has to be careful to seek out news reports from a couple of sources to create your own "fair and balanced" opinion.

Originally Posted by Bucco

1. Please explain to me...how a President who is being lauded and lauds himself for passing the single greatest piece of domestic legislation which is called the health care bill, and who as your post in another thread talks about to regulate the banking industry, and who signed into law a "stimulus" bill that was pretty much all social programs, who has on his plate a number of sweeping social programs and who talks consistently about social programs will have NO influence on domestic affairs ?

On second thought, maybe you're right, Bucco. The POTUS does have some power to set the legislative agenda. Let's see what he's done...

• Implementing the initial financial stimulus bill passed at the end of the Bush administration. Personally, there area lot of the things done with the money that I'd have done differently, but the outcome has been pretty good. The U.S. economy is recovering at a faster rate than the rest of the world that was affected by the financial crisis. That's undeniable. I don't like the play selection, but we seem to be ahead in the score.

• The stimulus legislation passed early on Obama's watch. I'd have the same criticism times about two. Lots and lots of things I'd have done differently. But again, we seem to be winning the game. That was the objective, wasn't it?

• Auto bailout. The effect of this one still remains to be seen. The government gave egregiously too much to the UAW at the expense of legitimate secured lenders and that was offensive to me. GM may make it. I see no way that Chrysler exists in a few years. I'd have saved GM and let Chrysler disappear.

• Bank bailout. The country was teetering on a financial collapse that would have been deeper than the Great Depression. We'd have 25% unemployment now had nothing been done. There almost was no completely fair solution. He let some banks fail that I might have tried to save, and saved others that I might have permitted to die or at least breakup and downsize. But overall, the banks were saved and became fundamental to the economic recovery. Not bad.

• Healthcare reform. The POTUS got what he wanted--and what U.S. Presidents for the last 100 years have tried to get--universal healthcare for all Americans. Was the bill a Rube Goldberg concoction of terms to satisfy every politician, constituency and special interest group you can imagine? You betcha' Did it "bend the cost curve"? No way, not after all the stuff that Congress negotiated in and out, for themselves as well as their special interest buddies. But I blame the Congress a whole lot more than Obama. He got what he wanted and that was impressive--something we've been needing for a century.

• Fiscal management of the country. He's been a dismal failure. Not much more to be said. In that I think that this is the most important issue facing the country, his performance fiscally has been enough for me to vote for someone else in 2012.

• Financial regulatory reform. I hope he sticks to his guns and forces this bill thru quickly, before all the special interest groups get a chance to get changes made that would gut the new regulations. As a retired banker, I know what's required. I hope he streamrolls it thru.

• Foreign relations. Worlds better than his predecessor. Everyone doesn't have to agree with everything that's been accomplished or every decision made. But the U.S. is in a heckuva lot better position to achieve our strategic objectives now than we were a couple years ago. The improved relations with Russia will benefit us greatly with some of our other objectives (read that Iran). I think the effort to prevent Iran from having nuclear weapons is lost and those in authority know that. The best we can expect now is to contain them and try to keep them, as the tenth nuclear state, under control. And work to prevent a long list of other countries from trying to get nukes as well.

• Military affairs. He's turned out to be a lot better commander-in-chief than I expected. Personally, I think continuing our efforts in Afghanistan is like peeing down a rathole. It won't surprise me if our role there is substantially changed by the time the 2012 election is rolls around.

So, Bucco, maybe I spoke too fast. Maybe President Obama does have a greater influence on domestic affairs than I said. But maybe that's OK. On a lot of stuff, he's done a pretty good job. So if you and others want to keep whacking away at all the stuff that causes you to disrespect Barack Obama--or even hate him--have at it. You won't find me getting involved in his defense. There are other things I'll be thinking about.

VK--- Actually, Bill Clinton was impeached. He was not removed from office, but he was impeached.

Foreign relations. Worlds better than his predecessor. Everyone doesn't have to agree with everything that's been accomplished or every decision made. But the U.S. is in a heckuva lot better position to achieve our strategic objectives now than we were a couple years ago. The improved relations with Russia will benefit us greatly with some of our other objectives (read that Iran). I think the effort to prevent Iran from having nuclear weapons is lost and those in authority know that. The best we can expect now is to contain them and try to keep them, as the tenth nuclear state, under control. And work to prevent a long list of other countries from trying to get nukes as well.

It is too early for foreign relation grades but recent ratings of this regime are not very good. Seems Obama likes to bow to our enemies and snub our friends. This could be a time bomb.
Personally I think he is groaping around aimlessly and has no idea what he is doing.

VK says...

"Healthcare reform. The POTUS got what he wanted--and what U.S. Presidents for the last 100 years have tried to get--universal healthcare for all Americans. Was the bill a Rube Goldberg concoction of terms to satisfy every politician, constituency and special interest group you can imagine? You betcha' Did it "bend the cost curve"? No way, not after all the stuff that Congress negotiated in and out, for themselves as well as their special interest buddies. But I blame the Congress a whole lot more than Obama. He got what he wanted and that was impressive--something we've been needing for a century.

It is incredible to me that you would compliment a man who ran for President based on no more politics in bills..no more pork in bills....bi partisan all the way....open and candid and in the SAME sentence say "Was the bill a Rube Goldberg concoction of terms to satisfy every politician, constituency and special interest group you can imagine? You betcha' Did it "bend the cost curve"? No way, not after all the stuff that Congress negotiated in and out, for themselves as well as their special interest buddies.

HOWEVER you are impressed ! And then you say that this "Rube Goldberg concoction" is "something we've been needing for a century".

I am suspecting VK that you are as left leaning in every way possible but very glib about it !!

I just want to add that you also use the word HATE.....I have never used that term EVER. I dont recall anyone who opposed this President every using that word, but it seems that you and others find anyones opposition to this President as hate...not opposed to his idealogy but hate....not against his policies but hate.

I dont recall myself or anyone else on here ever even talking about this President in a personal manner.....yet you and others find these oppositions as HATE.

I dont understand that !

Does anyone else, or is it just me, see the irony in applauding the use of the "Rube Goldberg conconction" as a means to pass healthcare reform? The mouse trap comparison of using an elaborate set of gears, cranks, schemes and devices to lead the unknowing "mouse" into a trap set with cheese.
At first everyone cooperates to build the Rube Goldberg-like mouse trap. After the contrapsion is built, the object is then used to manuever others and trap all of your opponents with the bait.
That's right, we are all caught in "the cheese wheel" with the President's Rube Goldberg conconction of Healthcare Reform.

BK. Here is a link to PajamasMedia. Do not know if you have to sign up for viewing but it would be worth your time to do.

There are 7 reasons (two pages)

http://pajamasmedia.com/victordavish...ount-the-ways/

Most Democrats are sincere and for many years their party was reasonable.

The Democrat party has now been taken over by the "Progressive Movement" which has been successful in convincing Democrats that anything Republican is wrong.
This movement also initiated ,many years ago, the approach of buying votes by using welfare programs that squelch personal initiatives needed for self reliance.

Democrats who are interestd in finding out what is happening to their party should research the Progressive Movement. You will not find out about it by reading The New York Times or watching network news.