Anonymous wrote:OP, I don't know why you are asking but here goes...
I don't like either candidate. I think Obama is a joke, he has done nothing of any substance except sell books and give speeches. Even his speeches, as moving as they may be, lack substance. He just tells people what he thinks they want to hear and moves on.

Romney is no better. He has no concrete ideas, nothing about him excites the party. The only thing we can get behind is the fact that he's not Obama.

I really can't stand Congress either, they are a bunch of jackasses - no better than the Obama or Romney.

I think that no matter who wins the election, we the people are pretty much screwed. A VIABLE third candidate would be terrific, but we are, whether we like it or not, a 2 party system.

This. There are a lot of us out here that feel this way. Yep, Romney is our Kerry, we're just not on here plugging for Obama.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Also, your statement that Obama is a nice guy so he shouldn't be attacked...or we should feel bad about attacking him seems off base to me.

He may very well be an extremely nice guy, that doesn't mean he has been a good president or should be re-elected as president. The vast majority of the attacks on Obama are things like his weak response to foreign policy, his health care plan, his handling of the economy. These are attacking the job he is doing as president.

Romney by most accounts is a nice guy too.

They are campaigning for president...not for the role of guy invited to the neighborhood bbq. And should be both praised and criticized for how they will do as president, not how swell of a fellow they are.

OP here. Not sure if you are the PP I was responding to or not. Of course you should be able to attack him on policy if you don't agree with it. That's my point though! I am not really seeing any of that. I am seeing vague and hateful rhetoric saying that Obamacare sucks, he hasn't helped the economy, etc., but with no specifics that hold up. For example, the PP (you?) just made a bunch of false statements and then called him a bastard. This is what I see and hear all the time.

So, I'm wondering if you consider the possibility that it's not true, and feel bad about the disrespectful and childish name-calling.

I think saying obamacare sucks is a crude way of saying that you think that obamacare is bad for the country, while its not how I would word it, it's a statement in opposition to his policies, not a personal attack.

I believe that Obama has hurt, not helped the economy. That isn't a disrespectful thing to say about the president. It isn't childish name calling (unlike the accusations of racism above). It is a comment on a legitimate policy issue.

Not the OP, but I don't think that was OP's point. See the bolded text -- OP's point is that people say "Obamacare sucks" and then have nothing to back up WHY they think Obamacare sucks.

Well on the initial post she said "Do you feel kind of guilty that you have to resort to Obama bashing because you realize he is a nice guy (even if you don't agree with him)? " which is what I was referring to.

But I think that people often, especially on message boards use summary statements without all the backup discussion. Also, I'll reiterate that I wouldn't use the wording Obamacare sucks, but I defend that it is a policy critique, not a critique that he is not a nice guy.

So, why do I think that Obamacare is bad for the country? 1) I think it's unconstitutional, I know that 5 justices disagreed with me, so it is law of the land, but I agree with the disenting 4 justices. 2) It dramatically increases the costs to companies to hire employees. This results in hardship for both the companies and the people who are not hired as a result. The people who are most likely to not be hired because of additional costs are those who are unskilled or new to the work force....the people who need a job the most. 3) It introduced a lot of uncertainty into the market during a tough economic time. It has been shows that increased uncertainty causes businesses to wait to hire or make capital investments. 4) I think it is unfair to young people who will be required to pay for insurance at rates that reflect not their risks but the risks of the entire population including the elderly that are much more likely to have high health care costs. 5) I think that if you want to risk going without healthcare because you want to spend the money on rent/education/bus to work/clothing/food/books for your kids/small ceramic dolls of elvis you should have that right. I don't think that the government should force adults to make decisions, even if they make a poor decision. 6) Making government the single payer distorts the cost of health care and the free market for healthcare...although I ackowledge that this is already partially true in today's system.

There's more, but those are the first few.

OP here. PP, I'm going to have to jump straight to number 5.

5. Can we sit and think about this for a minute? First of all, if you are implying that the family can not afford healthcare (need money for rent, food, bus fare), then you need to understand that they would be exempt from the mandate. They are protected! So many people do not get this. If they do make enough to pay the mandate, the amount they pay is based on their income and ability to pay. It is not a set amount. But if you are implying that the family can afford it (need money for ceramic dolls), then they ABSOLUTELY SHOULD BE FORCED TO PAY! ABSOLUTELY! If someone in this family gets cancer, what are they going to do? Sit home and suffer because they can't get care? No, they WILL get the care, but you and I have to pay for it through our insurance premiums. If this family actually would refuse any medical care due to religious beliefs, they would also be exempt!

So basically, ACA is just this: IF YOU WILL EVER NEED MEDICAL ATTENTION OF ANY KIND, YOU SHOULD HELP PAY FOR THE SYSTEM!

I really don't understand how anyone can argue against this. republicans spend so much time complaining about the takers, and the freeloaders. But they refuse to acknowledge the fact that Obamacare eliminates the free-riders from the health care system! Moving on...

1. see number 5. In most states, we already have this type of system through car insurance. If your have a car, you are required to carry liability ins. to cover any damage you cause. If ACA is socialism, then why isn't this?

2. Ok, you are concerned that there is not enough to protect small businesses. The bill does a lot to help small businesses adjust, such as the the small business health care tax credit.
Is there enough? I don't know. I hope so. If not, we will do more. Nothing is set in stone. I hope the next congress will behave like grown ups so they can sit down to work out the kinks as needed.

3. Big and necessary change does not happen when times are easy. It just doesn't.

4. Our rates will go down. What we are currently paying is out of control. many people are already receiving refund checks from their ins. companies (courtesy of ACA) becasue they have been paying unreasonable premiums.

Anonymous wrote:There are Republicans out there with sound fiscal policies and libertarian social views. They are willing to compromise where necessary and put the future of the country before a personal vendetta to defeat the President. Their positions are based on scientific fact and they don't base their campaigns on blatant lies.

Not one of them was a contender for the Republican presidential nomination. Put one of them up and I think a lot of Dems would have considered switching over. But we'll never know, will we?

Huntsman was a contender. But so briefly that I suppose he proves your point rather than contradicting it. Too bad; I think he would have been a great candidate.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Also, your statement that Obama is a nice guy so he shouldn't be attacked...or we should feel bad about attacking him seems off base to me.

He may very well be an extremely nice guy, that doesn't mean he has been a good president or should be re-elected as president. The vast majority of the attacks on Obama are things like his weak response to foreign policy, his health care plan, his handling of the economy. These are attacking the job he is doing as president.

Romney by most accounts is a nice guy too.

They are campaigning for president...not for the role of guy invited to the neighborhood bbq. And should be both praised and criticized for how they will do as president, not how swell of a fellow they are.

OP here. Not sure if you are the PP I was responding to or not. Of course you should be able to attack him on policy if you don't agree with it. That's my point though! I am not really seeing any of that. I am seeing vague and hateful rhetoric saying that Obamacare sucks, he hasn't helped the economy, etc., but with no specifics that hold up. For example, the PP (you?) just made a bunch of false statements and then called him a bastard. This is what I see and hear all the time.

So, I'm wondering if you consider the possibility that it's not true, and feel bad about the disrespectful and childish name-calling.

I think saying obamacare sucks is a crude way of saying that you think that obamacare is bad for the country, while its not how I would word it, it's a statement in opposition to his policies, not a personal attack.

I believe that Obama has hurt, not helped the economy. That isn't a disrespectful thing to say about the president. It isn't childish name calling (unlike the accusations of racism above). It is a comment on a legitimate policy issue.

Not the OP, but I don't think that was OP's point. See the bolded text -- OP's point is that people say "Obamacare sucks" and then have nothing to back up WHY they think Obamacare sucks.

Well on the initial post she said "Do you feel kind of guilty that you have to resort to Obama bashing because you realize he is a nice guy (even if you don't agree with him)? " which is what I was referring to.

But I think that people often, especially on message boards use summary statements without all the backup discussion. Also, I'll reiterate that I wouldn't use the wording Obamacare sucks, but I defend that it is a policy critique, not a critique that he is not a nice guy.

So, why do I think that Obamacare is bad for the country? 1) I think it's unconstitutional, I know that 5 justices disagreed with me, so it is law of the land, but I agree with the disenting 4 justices. 2) It dramatically increases the costs to companies to hire employees. This results in hardship for both the companies and the people who are not hired as a result. The people who are most likely to not be hired because of additional costs are those who are unskilled or new to the work force....the people who need a job the most. 3) It introduced a lot of uncertainty into the market during a tough economic time. It has been shows that increased uncertainty causes businesses to wait to hire or make capital investments. 4) I think it is unfair to young people who will be required to pay for insurance at rates that reflect not their risks but the risks of the entire population including the elderly that are much more likely to have high health care costs. 5) I think that if you want to risk going without healthcare because you want to spend the money on rent/education/bus to work/clothing/food/books for your kids/small ceramic dolls of elvis you should have that right. I don't think that the government should force adults to make decisions, even if they make a poor decision. 6) Making government the single payer distorts the cost of health care and the free market for healthcare...although I ackowledge that this is already partially true in today's system.

There's more, but those are the first few.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would like to add that I feel the Republican party is today where the Democrats were pre-Obama. We, unfortunately, are in a position where we do not have a strong candidate to put on the ticket. Romney is our John Kerry, not the best guy... but you have to put someone on the ticket. Had the Dems fielded a halfway decent candidate, there's not way Bush would have won either term. Gore suffered from the same foot in mouth syndrome as Romney and Kerry was just meh...

I think it is cyclical, which (IMO) is where it works best. No one party should have absolute power. I think our government works best when we switch it up every now and again.

As a Republican woman, should Obama win another term I can certainly get behind him. I'm a Republican but I'm not an idiot. He is our President and therefore deserves, at a minimum, the respect of the office. I want our President to be successful regardless of his party affiliation. I think it's pathetic for people to wish ill or hope our President trips up. That's not what is best for the greater good. Bill Clinton was a terrific president, Ronald Reagan was great. Neither of the Bushes appealed to me one bit.

Blind allegiance to any party is not, IMO, a good thing. Always examine the issues, weigh the options and try to make an informed decision. I'm registered Republican, but that does not mean I vote a straight ticket. I would like to think I at least make the effort to vote for the person I feel would do the best job.

You are an idiot

A few pages ago someone posted that they don't engage in these kinds of discussions on DCUM because it isn't a safe environment, or words to that effect. I think this is an example. DCUM is overwhelmingly left leaning, which is fine. As a result, anyone who expresses some form of conservative view whether it's generally being a Republican, whether it's healthcare or abortion or gay marriage or a host of other economic or social issues is typically not politely disagreed with but is deemed racist, classist, homophobic, and anti-woman. There are lots of things I like about DCUM, but the first PP's response was thoughtful, IMO and yet was met with disdain.

I deleted the "you are an idiot" post as soon as I saw it. It was totally inappropriate. I deleted it after you quoted it, but before you posted your reply.

I don't know if the author of the post was a liberal or a conservative. I don't really care. That kind of response is not acceptable and will not be tolerated.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would like to add that I feel the Republican party is today where the Democrats were pre-Obama. We, unfortunately, are in a position where we do not have a strong candidate to put on the ticket. Romney is our John Kerry, not the best guy... but you have to put someone on the ticket. Had the Dems fielded a halfway decent candidate, there's not way Bush would have won either term. Gore suffered from the same foot in mouth syndrome as Romney and Kerry was just meh...

I think it is cyclical, which (IMO) is where it works best. No one party should have absolute power. I think our government works best when we switch it up every now and again.

As a Republican woman, should Obama win another term I can certainly get behind him. I'm a Republican but I'm not an idiot. He is our President and therefore deserves, at a minimum, the respect of the office. I want our President to be successful regardless of his party affiliation. I think it's pathetic for people to wish ill or hope our President trips up. That's not what is best for the greater good. Bill Clinton was a terrific president, Ronald Reagan was great. Neither of the Bushes appealed to me one bit.

Blind allegiance to any party is not, IMO, a good thing. Always examine the issues, weigh the options and try to make an informed decision. I'm registered Republican, but that does not mean I vote a straight ticket. I would like to think I at least make the effort to vote for the person I feel would do the best job.

You are an idiot

A few pages ago someone posted that they don't engage in these kinds of discussions on DCUM because it isn't a safe environment, or words to that effect. I think this is an example. DCUM is overwhelmingly left leaning, which is fine. As a result, anyone who expresses some form of conservative view whether it's generally being a Republican, whether it's healthcare or abortion or gay marriage or a host of other economic or social issues is typically not politely disagreed with but is deemed racist, classist, homophobic, and anti-woman. There are lots of things I like about DCUM, but the first PP's response was thoughtful, IMO and yet was met with disdain.

I would like to add that I feel the Republican party is today where the Democrats were pre-Obama. We, unfortunately, are in a position where we do not have a strong candidate to put on the ticket. Romney is our John Kerry, not the best guy... but you have to put someone on the ticket. Had the Dems fielded a halfway decent candidate, there's not way Bush would have won either term. Gore suffered from the same foot in mouth syndrome as Romney and Kerry was just meh...

I think it is cyclical, which (IMO) is where it works best. No one party should have absolute power. I think our government works best when we switch it up every now and again.

As a Republican woman, should Obama win another term I can certainly get behind him. I'm a Republican but I'm not an idiot. He is our President and therefore deserves, at a minimum, the respect of the office. I want our President to be successful regardless of his party affiliation. I think it's pathetic for people to wish ill or hope our President trips up. That's not what is best for the greater good. Bill Clinton was a terrific president, Ronald Reagan was great. Neither of the Bushes appealed to me one bit.

Blind allegiance to any party is not, IMO, a good thing. Always examine the issues, weigh the options and try to make an informed decision. I'm registered Republican, but that does not mean I vote a straight ticket. I would like to think I at least make the effort to vote for the person I feel would do the best job.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Also, your statement that Obama is a nice guy so he shouldn't be attacked...or we should feel bad about attacking him seems off base to me.

He may very well be an extremely nice guy, that doesn't mean he has been a good president or should be re-elected as president. The vast majority of the attacks on Obama are things like his weak response to foreign policy, his health care plan, his handling of the economy. These are attacking the job he is doing as president.

Romney by most accounts is a nice guy too.

They are campaigning for president...not for the role of guy invited to the neighborhood bbq. And should be both praised and criticized for how they will do as president, not how swell of a fellow they are.

OP here. Not sure if you are the PP I was responding to or not. Of course you should be able to attack him on policy if you don't agree with it. That's my point though! I am not really seeing any of that. I am seeing vague and hateful rhetoric saying that Obamacare sucks, he hasn't helped the economy, etc., but with no specifics that hold up. For example, the PP (you?) just made a bunch of false statements and then called him a bastard. This is what I see and hear all the time.

So, I'm wondering if you consider the possibility that it's not true, and feel bad about the disrespectful and childish name-calling.

I think saying obamacare sucks is a crude way of saying that you think that obamacare is bad for the country, while its not how I would word it, it's a statement in opposition to his policies, not a personal attack.

I believe that Obama has hurt, not helped the economy. That isn't a disrespectful thing to say about the president. It isn't childish name calling (unlike the accusations of racism above). It is a comment on a legitimate policy issue.

Not the OP, but I don't think that was OP's point. See the bolded text -- OP's point is that people say "Obamacare sucks" and then have nothing to back up WHY they think Obamacare sucks.

20:32, I will take the bait. I think there are some essential services a country should provide: public education, public safety, and health care. When I visit most European nations, I see all three. I visit some countries in other parts of the world which struggle to provide similar services. Now, if you don't think all U.S. citizens should have access to health care (preventative not just ER), then we dont' agree and probably can't discuss it. But if you do think that the forty million U.S. citizens without insurance should still have access to health care, then what do you propose should have been done? The Republicans, from 1992-2006, accomplished few things in the health care arena: killed Clinton's plan, endorsed Romneycare and proposed it as a federal alternative, and created a "donut hole" prescription plan for seniors. From 2008-10, the Democrats adopted Romneycare and, in so doing, closed the donut hole.

President Obama attended the Republican retreat in Baltimore and invited them to a WH roundtable with Democratic congressional leaders and asked them for alternatives. Alas, they did not have any alternatives because to legislate - to do their jobs - would have gone against the McConnell decree that the GOP position was to make President Obama a one-term president. (FWIW, I think NCLB - No Child Left Behind - sucks, but Rep. George Miller did his job as ranking member and worked with then committee chair John Boehner to craft a bill, pass it out of committee, and work to get it passed into law. The late Sen. Ted Kennedy did the same as ranking member on the Senate side.)

You may find Obamacare ill or misconceived, but you can't say the president has not accomplished anything. Even Governor Romney tried to split the difference on the Sunday talk shows this weekend. Republicans have yet to offer a competing vision for health care because the President passed the only one they basically had.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Also, your statement that Obama is a nice guy so he shouldn't be attacked...or we should feel bad about attacking him seems off base to me.

He may very well be an extremely nice guy, that doesn't mean he has been a good president or should be re-elected as president. The vast majority of the attacks on Obama are things like his weak response to foreign policy, his health care plan, his handling of the economy. These are attacking the job he is doing as president.

Romney by most accounts is a nice guy too.

They are campaigning for president...not for the role of guy invited to the neighborhood bbq. And should be both praised and criticized for how they will do as president, not how swell of a fellow they are.

OP here. Not sure if you are the PP I was responding to or not. Of course you should be able to attack him on policy if you don't agree with it. That's my point though! I am not really seeing any of that. I am seeing vague and hateful rhetoric saying that Obamacare sucks, he hasn't helped the economy, etc., but with no specifics that hold up. For example, the PP (you?) just made a bunch of false statements and then called him a bastard. This is what I see and hear all the time.

So, I'm wondering if you consider the possibility that it's not true, and feel bad about the disrespectful and childish name-calling.

I think saying obamacare sucks is a crude way of saying that you think that obamacare is bad for the country, while its not how I would word it, it's a statement in opposition to his policies, not a personal attack.

I believe that Obama has hurt, not helped the economy. That isn't a disrespectful thing to say about the president. It isn't childish name calling (unlike the accusations of racism above). It is a comment on a legitimate policy issue.

Anonymous wrote:I am conservative and will post occasioanlly but the way I look at it, there is absoutely nothing you can say that could make me vote for Obama. im not super excited over Romney but really I would vote for any Republican over Obama. Im sure you Libs feel the same way about your guy so this back and forth is more entertainment than "enlightening"

There are Republicans out there with sound fiscal policies and libertarian social views. They are willing to compromise where necessary and put the future of the country before a personal vendetta to defeat the President. Their positions are based on scientific fact and they don't base their campaigns on blatant lies.

Not one of them was a contender for the Republican presidential nomination. Put one of them up and I think a lot of Dems would have considered switching over. But we'll never know, will we?

I am conservative and will post occasioanlly but the way I look at it, there is absoutely nothing you can say that could make me vote for Obama. im not super excited over Romney but really I would vote for any Republican over Obama. Im sure you Libs feel the same way about your guy so this back and forth is more entertainment than "enlightening"

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:
Anonymous wrote:

No, this isn't a safe place to have a frank discussion about politics.


You keep saying this and I really have a hard time understanding your point. Are you afraid that that if you are pro-Romney someone is going to hunt you down and beat you? Are you afraid of being stoned or deported to a Siberian work camp? Come on, the worse that is going to happen is that someone is going to counter your post with an opposing viewpoint.


Obviously I don't mean physically unsafe. And I don't think that when the op referred to a safe place they meant safe as compared to being put in a work camp. What I meant was that it's not a place where you can have a reasonable political conversation without being called hateful names. it doesn't have to be physical to still be hostile

Also this is in theory anonymous board, but when you call out republican posts you often seem to imply something about their previous posts. I can't remember saying it wasn't a safe place for discussion before, although I don't deny that I might have. But you never seem to indicate that you have gone through the posts of people who agree with you.

+1. As a conservative I think long and hard about what I post on this board.

If you fear the consequence - namely that someone else will disagree with you - then you should think long and hard. If other points of view are that painful, I would understand. your aversion.

Anonymous wrote:I'm voting for Romney because I'm racist, and I hate poor people and women.

Refreshing to see an honest, clear, concise Republican voice here.