i thought the democrat party was touting how unified they are, but it seems like
they sre split big time on this one!What is up with the huge divide between democrats regarding abortion in the obamacare legislation?
They're ideologically monolithic.
Several Democrats got elected by relatively American districts. Whenever their constituents learn what they're up to they have to spend several weeks pretending to be on the opposite side.
Abortion is not a medical procedure and if tax payer dollars start paying for the murder of innocent children somebody is gonna get beat the **** up.What is up with the huge divide between democrats regarding abortion in the obamacare legislation?
The fringe left has most of the leadership roles in Congress but are getting huge push back by the more sensible representatives..
Seems as if some Democrats have Morals!What is up with the huge divide between democrats regarding abortion in the obamacare legislation?
There are some Democrats - despite the rhetoric put forth by conservatives - that are against abortion and/or they are representing districts which are largely against abortion and are afraid of losing support for their next election. Dems are unified in wanting health care reform - but this is a sticking point within that reform.
It may kill this thing in the end (Pardon the pun). They took abortion out to get it past the blue dogs and to the Senate. The Senate may put it back in or not but I've heard it mentioned the far-left of Pelosi's fragile colition will break ranks and not support it if it isn't put back in. If she puts it in, the blue dogs will walk out. It will have to be included in the final bill because the Democratic party bows at the alter of abortion which I do not understand....haven't they figured out how many Democrat votes they are killing?
A few Democrats are trying to take their party back from the Socialists.
Thank GOD there are still a few Democrat leaders who still have faith, values and morals...but you can see that there are only a few in the DNC....
Democrats aren't like Republicans. Democrats try to appeal to lots of different people, so there are lots of different opinions. The belief that Democrats are unified is mostly an invention of conservative media, a way of motivating conservatives to political action by scaring them with the threat of a devious and unified enemy. However, because Democrats are in favor of a "big tent politics" approach, they have much more experience compromising than Republicans. I don't think this rift will be as divisive as Republicans hope.
Democrats have never touted themselves as being unified on any issue. It is Republicans who march in lock step. Democrats are more of free thinkers.
there is no such party as the democrat party.
could be the nature of your confusion.
hope this helps...
but dig on the threat of physical violence by 'freedom fighter.'
not afraid of you bro...
They actually think for themselves and vote for what is best for the folks who elected them.
I know it is hard for a Republican to understand this.
nothing
Monday, January 23, 2012
What effect will Obama's health legislation have on small businesses?
I've heard of businesses that won't be able to afford the costs of any options under the new plan. What's the deal?What effect will Obama's health legislation have on small businesses?
Small Businesses? What are those grandpa?? - { What our grand kids will say }
This might help;
http://www.associatedcontent.com/user/36鈥?/a>
You can ask questions about these and or make comments ect, without having to log in to anything. Very enlightening stuff.What effect will Obama's health legislation have on small businesses?
Just pray it doesn't passyamaha atv
Small Businesses? What are those grandpa?? - { What our grand kids will say }
This might help;
http://www.associatedcontent.com/user/36鈥?/a>
You can ask questions about these and or make comments ect, without having to log in to anything. Very enlightening stuff.What effect will Obama's health legislation have on small businesses?
Just pray it doesn't pass
What do yall think about breed specific legislation?
some people want to ban so called viscious breeds of dog mainly pitbutts. i thank this is the stupidest thing that i have ever heard of. what about yall.What do yall think about breed specific legislation?
We live in Colorado and we were faced with a dilemma - give up our sweet dog to be euthanized or leave Denver. We chose to move. Our dog has never hurt anyone, would never hurt anyone - she just has unfortunate cheekbones and a boxy head. What if we couldn't leave? How humane is it to ask families to kill their pets when they haven't done anything?
I believe strongly in owner responsibility. People who's dogs attack should not only lose the animal but also be charged with assault or murder - in essence using the dog as a weapon. But we need to differentiate between a dog problem and a thug problem.
Breed bans do nothing but penalize responsible dog owners. People who seek to do awful things with animals - illegal things- don't give a crap about a law. They're not going to stop breaking a law because what they were using to break the law is illegal.
Plus breed bans are a slippery slope - we'll ban pits and pit mixes, say. Who decides what a dog is a mix of if the lineage is unknown? Shall we sacrifice boxer mixes, too, because they can look like a pit mix? What about American Bulldogs and mixes thereof?
Interestingly enough, most serious maulings and fatal attacks have one thing in common: the dog was unfixed male (of varying breeds - not just of pits). If we want to protect people, instead of banning or requiring seperate licensing of certain breeds, perhaps we should instead look at mandating spay/neuter.
as a child i was literally attacted by a cocker spaniel.who would have thought. now i own a pit bull and i couldnt ask for a sweeter, more gentle dog. all i can say is it's all in how you raise em'! if i was told to put her down or move, i'd move too!
There is no vicious breed of dog. And there is no dog breed called a pitbull (it's the American Staffordshire Terrier, or AmStaf).
I do too. I think that instead of prohibiting dogs that can be dangerous in the wrong hands (some breeds are a little more prone to being aggressive, tho I know that any dog can be), that owners should be moderated and possibly even need a liscense to own one of these breeds. It's nothing against the breed, but this would ensure that proper owners are caring for these rather than some idiot who wants their dog to be mean and aggressive. Don't ban the dog, ban the bad owners!What do yall think about breed specific legislation?
in my opinion:
BSL is wrong. They shouldn't be banning specific breeds, they should be banning specific people from having dogs period.
Perhaps people should have to have a license to own breeds that have more of a tendency towards violence. This would ensure only responsible owners would be able to have pitbulls, not idiots that plan on fighting them.
I think that all owners should be heavily penalized for any unwarranted dog bite..I don't believe it should be breed specific, but apply to all..
I mean BIG penalties, such as imposing a $5000 fine, and withholding driver's license until it is paid..that kind of penalty..
I also think there should be large penalties for aggressive dogs attacking other dogs...any breed, any time..
Right now, there are no such penalties, and such cases can only be heard in small claims court.
I believe hitting the wallet is the only way to get owners to be more responsible..
Its ridiculous. Lawmakers are the most misinformed people out there.
m'all thinks that it's people who breed dogs to be vicious. with rare exceptions an animal is not vindictive so figure it out. having a ban on certain types of owners is a better idea.
I like the idea of licenses for certain breeds. I also think that dog owners should be held liable for damages from their pets. If a parent can be held responsible for minors, then they same should occur with pets. And, I think that if you fail to keep your dog properly locked away (like that sad story in the news recently where the family dogs killed their 2-year old), I think that the dog owners should face criminal charges, manslaughter, neglect, something!
I agree with Dolly, good point.
I think we should have legislation about over breeding. I work in an Animal Hospital and we still hear about how someone wants their kids to experience the birth of puppies or kittens.
Then we look at the number of animals in shelters, being euthanized to make room for more strays, animals that are abused, abandoned etc.
I think we should make legislation that insists that pets be spayed or neutered. If we decrease population, we also decrease the agreesive characteristics which have been overbred.
I dont think that they should ban pit bulls. Its the people that make them mean. If they go and kill all the pit bulls those same people will fight other breeds. Its not the breed its how they are raised. We cant go killing all the breeds they decide to fight. If we do that then preaty soon they will be fighting labs, or goldens, or poms. We need to enforce the law about not fighting dogs.
a good video about the topic... http://www.pitbullproblem.tk/ it is graphic so yah..
BLS (breed specific legislation) is BS! Ban the foolish owners, the bad breeders, and have the media show the positive as well as the negative. (the media is so one sided, and some people believe everything they hear!)
I wish there was a way to ban certain people from owning them. That will not happen, so the breeds will get banned. There are too many idiots that own these type dogs and they will ruin it for everyone else.
In my opinion, I think the BSL's are a good idea. I mean, with Pits, Presa Canarios, and such, they don't have the tolerance that most breeds to. It has been proven that these dog's tempers will flare without warning. I am for the BSLs.
We live in Colorado and we were faced with a dilemma - give up our sweet dog to be euthanized or leave Denver. We chose to move. Our dog has never hurt anyone, would never hurt anyone - she just has unfortunate cheekbones and a boxy head. What if we couldn't leave? How humane is it to ask families to kill their pets when they haven't done anything?
I believe strongly in owner responsibility. People who's dogs attack should not only lose the animal but also be charged with assault or murder - in essence using the dog as a weapon. But we need to differentiate between a dog problem and a thug problem.
Breed bans do nothing but penalize responsible dog owners. People who seek to do awful things with animals - illegal things- don't give a crap about a law. They're not going to stop breaking a law because what they were using to break the law is illegal.
Plus breed bans are a slippery slope - we'll ban pits and pit mixes, say. Who decides what a dog is a mix of if the lineage is unknown? Shall we sacrifice boxer mixes, too, because they can look like a pit mix? What about American Bulldogs and mixes thereof?
Interestingly enough, most serious maulings and fatal attacks have one thing in common: the dog was unfixed male (of varying breeds - not just of pits). If we want to protect people, instead of banning or requiring seperate licensing of certain breeds, perhaps we should instead look at mandating spay/neuter.
as a child i was literally attacted by a cocker spaniel.who would have thought. now i own a pit bull and i couldnt ask for a sweeter, more gentle dog. all i can say is it's all in how you raise em'! if i was told to put her down or move, i'd move too!
Report Abuse
What do yall think about breed specific legislation?There is no vicious breed of dog. And there is no dog breed called a pitbull (it's the American Staffordshire Terrier, or AmStaf).
I do too. I think that instead of prohibiting dogs that can be dangerous in the wrong hands (some breeds are a little more prone to being aggressive, tho I know that any dog can be), that owners should be moderated and possibly even need a liscense to own one of these breeds. It's nothing against the breed, but this would ensure that proper owners are caring for these rather than some idiot who wants their dog to be mean and aggressive. Don't ban the dog, ban the bad owners!What do yall think about breed specific legislation?
in my opinion:
BSL is wrong. They shouldn't be banning specific breeds, they should be banning specific people from having dogs period.
Perhaps people should have to have a license to own breeds that have more of a tendency towards violence. This would ensure only responsible owners would be able to have pitbulls, not idiots that plan on fighting them.
I think that all owners should be heavily penalized for any unwarranted dog bite..I don't believe it should be breed specific, but apply to all..
I mean BIG penalties, such as imposing a $5000 fine, and withholding driver's license until it is paid..that kind of penalty..
I also think there should be large penalties for aggressive dogs attacking other dogs...any breed, any time..
Right now, there are no such penalties, and such cases can only be heard in small claims court.
I believe hitting the wallet is the only way to get owners to be more responsible..
Its ridiculous. Lawmakers are the most misinformed people out there.
m'all thinks that it's people who breed dogs to be vicious. with rare exceptions an animal is not vindictive so figure it out. having a ban on certain types of owners is a better idea.
I like the idea of licenses for certain breeds. I also think that dog owners should be held liable for damages from their pets. If a parent can be held responsible for minors, then they same should occur with pets. And, I think that if you fail to keep your dog properly locked away (like that sad story in the news recently where the family dogs killed their 2-year old), I think that the dog owners should face criminal charges, manslaughter, neglect, something!
I agree with Dolly, good point.
I think we should have legislation about over breeding. I work in an Animal Hospital and we still hear about how someone wants their kids to experience the birth of puppies or kittens.
Then we look at the number of animals in shelters, being euthanized to make room for more strays, animals that are abused, abandoned etc.
I think we should make legislation that insists that pets be spayed or neutered. If we decrease population, we also decrease the agreesive characteristics which have been overbred.
I dont think that they should ban pit bulls. Its the people that make them mean. If they go and kill all the pit bulls those same people will fight other breeds. Its not the breed its how they are raised. We cant go killing all the breeds they decide to fight. If we do that then preaty soon they will be fighting labs, or goldens, or poms. We need to enforce the law about not fighting dogs.
a good video about the topic... http://www.pitbullproblem.tk/ it is graphic so yah..
BLS (breed specific legislation) is BS! Ban the foolish owners, the bad breeders, and have the media show the positive as well as the negative. (the media is so one sided, and some people believe everything they hear!)
I wish there was a way to ban certain people from owning them. That will not happen, so the breeds will get banned. There are too many idiots that own these type dogs and they will ruin it for everyone else.
In my opinion, I think the BSL's are a good idea. I mean, with Pits, Presa Canarios, and such, they don't have the tolerance that most breeds to. It has been proven that these dog's tempers will flare without warning. I am for the BSLs.
What happened to our country? Health care legislation mandates forced homosexual quotes?
States will be mandated to provide health care services to a certain percentage of the population as gay. In other words if Wyoming is short on gays then some people in the state will have to sign in as gay.What happened to our country? Health care legislation mandates forced homosexual quotes?
That is not true.
I do not understand why so many Americans have fallen for lies about healthcare in the USA, abroad and also the planned reforms [1]. I mean, if the healthcare system in the USA is so good, why have no other nations taken it up? Could it be due to the following facts?
FACT - the USA spends more on healthcare PER PERSON than any other nation on the planet [2].
FACT - the US has higher death rates for kids under five than western European countries with universal health coverage [3].
Or if the US healthcare system is run so well, why not run the fire service like the healthcare system? [4]
Maybe that is because in the USA, insurance companies push up costs, buy politicians and refuse to pay claims that people pay for [5]. (Look up Wendell Potter on YouTube to hear more if the link below is too long.)
Obama wants to make insurance cheaper, stop insurance companies from refusing health coverage to those with pre-existing conditions, and make sure they pay out when they are meant to [6], a system similar to that which works in Taiwan [7]. He debated this before he was elected [8].
Is it right that a dead American four year old would have had a better chance of life if they were born in Canada, Cuba, Germany and so many other industrialised nations with universal healthcare?
If you think my arguments are wrong, e-mail me with proof. But if you can not, let Obama try to help America. If he fails, vote him out in 2012.
This is what you get when you vote Democrat.What happened to our country? Health care legislation mandates forced homosexual quotes?
Change! That's what they asked for that's what their gona get!
Yeaaaa, this isn't true, turn off fox.What happened to our country? Health care legislation mandates forced homosexual quotes?
Are you serious?
I am starting to think the world will really come to an end in 2012!
What are you raving about now you freaks?
Well Sara you need to support your blatant hate claims.
If this is true it is progress and a sign the country are growing up which you seem to need to do too..
Hate is not a christian value!
S
I fail to see why it is the government's business who is gay and who is not. Sounds like another Democrat mandate designed to take away our freedoms.
I am from Wyoming, and we do not hate gays. After Matthew Shepard, everyone thinks we're a gay-bashing state. We're not. We're just very conservative, and for good reasons. Democratic views destroy many of our state's values. We're the WORLD'S 3rd largest producer of coal, and when Obama says that he's looking for alternate resources than coal, there goes 75% of our state's income. We are republican and proud. Out of our 26-some counties, only 2 had a Obama majority. That was Teton county (Jackson Hole) and Albany County (where our University is). Those are the only two liberal parts of the state, and only because of non-local liberal students. The healthcare bill destroys incentives for hard work and independence. Just another Socialist agenda. It's nonsense.
Jackazz troll
You know anybody who can't afford health insurance?? bet you do.
The GOP is biting it big on this one, all they got to do is run Sarah and Huckabee to relegate themselves to the trash bag of history.
Which I think is an awful thing, we need a strong 2 party system, but this gang of old-white-guys have their heads so far up their collective **** they can't see daylight.
I try to be polite most times But there are other times I just shake my head and wonder W T F. This is just such a time. You Tea Baggers or what ever right wing group you identify with need to get a grasp of reality and stop getting your information from people like Beck, Limbaugh, Hannity and Fox news in general. There is nothing in this Watered down bill that is even close to what you claim. Before you type something and make a complete fool of your self in the future you should try doing some actual research.
That is not true.
I do not understand why so many Americans have fallen for lies about healthcare in the USA, abroad and also the planned reforms [1]. I mean, if the healthcare system in the USA is so good, why have no other nations taken it up? Could it be due to the following facts?
FACT - the USA spends more on healthcare PER PERSON than any other nation on the planet [2].
FACT - the US has higher death rates for kids under five than western European countries with universal health coverage [3].
Or if the US healthcare system is run so well, why not run the fire service like the healthcare system? [4]
Maybe that is because in the USA, insurance companies push up costs, buy politicians and refuse to pay claims that people pay for [5]. (Look up Wendell Potter on YouTube to hear more if the link below is too long.)
Obama wants to make insurance cheaper, stop insurance companies from refusing health coverage to those with pre-existing conditions, and make sure they pay out when they are meant to [6], a system similar to that which works in Taiwan [7]. He debated this before he was elected [8].
Is it right that a dead American four year old would have had a better chance of life if they were born in Canada, Cuba, Germany and so many other industrialised nations with universal healthcare?
If you think my arguments are wrong, e-mail me with proof. But if you can not, let Obama try to help America. If he fails, vote him out in 2012.
This is what you get when you vote Democrat.What happened to our country? Health care legislation mandates forced homosexual quotes?
Change! That's what they asked for that's what their gona get!
Yeaaaa, this isn't true, turn off fox.What happened to our country? Health care legislation mandates forced homosexual quotes?
Are you serious?
I am starting to think the world will really come to an end in 2012!
What are you raving about now you freaks?
Well Sara you need to support your blatant hate claims.
If this is true it is progress and a sign the country are growing up which you seem to need to do too..
Hate is not a christian value!
S
I fail to see why it is the government's business who is gay and who is not. Sounds like another Democrat mandate designed to take away our freedoms.
I am from Wyoming, and we do not hate gays. After Matthew Shepard, everyone thinks we're a gay-bashing state. We're not. We're just very conservative, and for good reasons. Democratic views destroy many of our state's values. We're the WORLD'S 3rd largest producer of coal, and when Obama says that he's looking for alternate resources than coal, there goes 75% of our state's income. We are republican and proud. Out of our 26-some counties, only 2 had a Obama majority. That was Teton county (Jackson Hole) and Albany County (where our University is). Those are the only two liberal parts of the state, and only because of non-local liberal students. The healthcare bill destroys incentives for hard work and independence. Just another Socialist agenda. It's nonsense.
Jackazz troll
You know anybody who can't afford health insurance?? bet you do.
The GOP is biting it big on this one, all they got to do is run Sarah and Huckabee to relegate themselves to the trash bag of history.
Which I think is an awful thing, we need a strong 2 party system, but this gang of old-white-guys have their heads so far up their collective **** they can't see daylight.
I try to be polite most times But there are other times I just shake my head and wonder W T F. This is just such a time. You Tea Baggers or what ever right wing group you identify with need to get a grasp of reality and stop getting your information from people like Beck, Limbaugh, Hannity and Fox news in general. There is nothing in this Watered down bill that is even close to what you claim. Before you type something and make a complete fool of your self in the future you should try doing some actual research.
Anti-smoking legislation is legal paternalism and does not conform to the principles of positive law?
This is a statement and it then says to write a few paragraphs explaining it and whether or not I agree with it. However, I have no clue what it means and I have tried looking up what it means but I have had no luck what so ever! I am against smoking and any help to this statement would be helpful! Just more of an explanation would be awesome.
Thanks in advance! :)Anti-smoking legislation is legal paternalism and does not conform to the principles of positive law?
Paternalism refers to an attitude or a policy reminiscent of the hierarchic pattern. Positive law is a legal term that is sometimes understood to have more than one meaning. In the strictest sense, it is law made by human beings, that is, "Law actually and specifically enacted or adopted by proper authority for the government of an organized jural society.
The people who are the upper society or Govt are making the laws/anti-smoking legislation with out being of the proper branch of Govt. I think it means that lawyers and not medical professionals are creating the anti-smoking legislation based on them simply being of a law status to decide the issues. It's like sentencing a drug addict to prison instead of drug treatmentAnti-smoking legislation is legal paternalism and does not conform to the principles of positive law?
A whole class of legislation is paternalistic in this sense -- seat belt laws, motorcycle helmets, etc. But, it turns out there are societal consequences beyond the harm to the individual.Anti-smoking legislation is legal paternalism and does not conform to the principles of positive law?
The USA used to be a free country.
Thanks in advance! :)Anti-smoking legislation is legal paternalism and does not conform to the principles of positive law?
Paternalism refers to an attitude or a policy reminiscent of the hierarchic pattern. Positive law is a legal term that is sometimes understood to have more than one meaning. In the strictest sense, it is law made by human beings, that is, "Law actually and specifically enacted or adopted by proper authority for the government of an organized jural society.
The people who are the upper society or Govt are making the laws/anti-smoking legislation with out being of the proper branch of Govt. I think it means that lawyers and not medical professionals are creating the anti-smoking legislation based on them simply being of a law status to decide the issues. It's like sentencing a drug addict to prison instead of drug treatmentAnti-smoking legislation is legal paternalism and does not conform to the principles of positive law?
A whole class of legislation is paternalistic in this sense -- seat belt laws, motorcycle helmets, etc. But, it turns out there are societal consequences beyond the harm to the individual.Anti-smoking legislation is legal paternalism and does not conform to the principles of positive law?
The USA used to be a free country.
Why don't Republicans understand that President Obama needed to get his big legislation through fast?
Bush did it as fast as he could with Iraq. All Presidents do it. It is how you get things done.Why don't Republicans understand that President Obama needed to get his big legislation through fast?
Well, the UNEMPLOYED ones do.... but the rest of them.,...especially the ones who contribute here don't understand that the legislation had to go through fast.....because we were on the brink of tent cities in every area of the country....filled with hungry, unemployed.....just like after the last Depression.
The ONLY reason we don't look more like 1930 USA is that Obama DID pass big legislation fast, and started getting money out there in a hurry to stop the free fall.
Heck, he was probably the first President ever to go to the White House after his election and start working on this stuff BEFORE he was ever inaugurated....AND the Bush administration was GLAD for him to do it......
It SAVED them from looking even worse than they already looked....and from total economic freefall in the last months of the Bush administration.
That is simply not true. Bush did not rush through any legislation regarding Iraq or anything else. Let me walk you through the reality of what happened back after the 9/11 attack.
We were already in a state of war against Iraq. Dessert Storm was only in a state of cease fire (that was constantly violated by Iraq). The Commander-in-Chief could have restarted it at any time without any further Congressional approval. But Bush chose to first notify the UN and then the Democrats in Congress begged him to present them with a resolution simply so Congress could go on record as approving of the war. You see, at the time a lot of people were assuming it would be as quick and decisive as Dessert Storm had been. The Democrats wanted in on the glory.
It was only after things began to bog down that the revisionists began the false story that Bush somehow lied to get them to support the war. He clearly did not need their support and that is why your premise is flawed. Bush did not push thorough any legislation without due deliberation, debate and compromise.
What has been going on in Washington since this regime has taken control is unprecedented. Don't let anybody fool you about that. Never before has Congress voted for legislation without first reading it, arguing it point by point and compromising on it to achieve bipartisan support. NEVER!
Never has the will of the people been so dismissed and ignored before. NEVER! It is not supposed to happen this way.
*Why don't Republicans understand that President Obama needed to get his big legislation through fast?
first off it was almost a year after 9-11 before Bush was able to go to war in Iraq. Second, it took a vote from congress to declare war against Iraq. Third even the democrats voted to declare war on Iraq. This was is by no means getting things done fast. The last point I would like to make is that over 60% of the people were against the spending bills that Obama has passed so far. The president of the United States is supposed to represent the people, not tell the people to shut up and get out of the way. You are comparing apples to oranges here.
At least Bush wound up backing the legislation with fast action. A year after Obama needed that huge amount "fast", he still had not spent half of it. Keynesian economics theory requires a "sudden" jolt to the economy-much like a doctor jolts the heart with electricity to get it beating again. Obama just stuck a few nine volters on the patient's tongue and let them slowly trickle away.Why don't Republicans understand that President Obama needed to get his big legislation through fast?
There's a difference between what Bush did and what Obama did. Bush thought there was a serious national security concern that needed to be dealt with as soon as possible. There wasn't, but he thought there was. Obama realized that support for his policies was waning and passed legislation meant to deceive the American people.
You are right.
Obama admires Reagan (for some reason) and is using the same strategy... Aggression first, stability as follow-up.
His approval rating are almost a mirror copy of Reagan's...
http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/d鈥?/a>
... with Obama only slightly higher.
And as we all know... Reagan had a very successful two terms.
of course dofus needed to ram his failed legislation through fast. he knows after novemeber he'll get nothing from congress.
Not to mention that he had to get it done before the voters had a chance to put a stop to his destruction of America...
I understand that. Who said republicans don't understand that?
Thanks for pointing out another reason why there is no difference in the two parties. Congrats! You are doing your country a great service.
There is a sense of urgency with war. Big government is only urgent for liberals.
Calling out the idiocy of our system.
Thank you.
can someone get me Steele's cell number? I want to go out and spend 7 millions on strippers with him.
Bush didnt rush into Iraq. it took years.
Yes.
0baama's Marxist agenda is DESTROYING this country... simple, huh?
Well, the UNEMPLOYED ones do.... but the rest of them.,...especially the ones who contribute here don't understand that the legislation had to go through fast.....because we were on the brink of tent cities in every area of the country....filled with hungry, unemployed.....just like after the last Depression.
The ONLY reason we don't look more like 1930 USA is that Obama DID pass big legislation fast, and started getting money out there in a hurry to stop the free fall.
Heck, he was probably the first President ever to go to the White House after his election and start working on this stuff BEFORE he was ever inaugurated....AND the Bush administration was GLAD for him to do it......
It SAVED them from looking even worse than they already looked....and from total economic freefall in the last months of the Bush administration.
That is simply not true. Bush did not rush through any legislation regarding Iraq or anything else. Let me walk you through the reality of what happened back after the 9/11 attack.
We were already in a state of war against Iraq. Dessert Storm was only in a state of cease fire (that was constantly violated by Iraq). The Commander-in-Chief could have restarted it at any time without any further Congressional approval. But Bush chose to first notify the UN and then the Democrats in Congress begged him to present them with a resolution simply so Congress could go on record as approving of the war. You see, at the time a lot of people were assuming it would be as quick and decisive as Dessert Storm had been. The Democrats wanted in on the glory.
It was only after things began to bog down that the revisionists began the false story that Bush somehow lied to get them to support the war. He clearly did not need their support and that is why your premise is flawed. Bush did not push thorough any legislation without due deliberation, debate and compromise.
What has been going on in Washington since this regime has taken control is unprecedented. Don't let anybody fool you about that. Never before has Congress voted for legislation without first reading it, arguing it point by point and compromising on it to achieve bipartisan support. NEVER!
Never has the will of the people been so dismissed and ignored before. NEVER! It is not supposed to happen this way.
*Why don't Republicans understand that President Obama needed to get his big legislation through fast?
first off it was almost a year after 9-11 before Bush was able to go to war in Iraq. Second, it took a vote from congress to declare war against Iraq. Third even the democrats voted to declare war on Iraq. This was is by no means getting things done fast. The last point I would like to make is that over 60% of the people were against the spending bills that Obama has passed so far. The president of the United States is supposed to represent the people, not tell the people to shut up and get out of the way. You are comparing apples to oranges here.
At least Bush wound up backing the legislation with fast action. A year after Obama needed that huge amount "fast", he still had not spent half of it. Keynesian economics theory requires a "sudden" jolt to the economy-much like a doctor jolts the heart with electricity to get it beating again. Obama just stuck a few nine volters on the patient's tongue and let them slowly trickle away.Why don't Republicans understand that President Obama needed to get his big legislation through fast?
There's a difference between what Bush did and what Obama did. Bush thought there was a serious national security concern that needed to be dealt with as soon as possible. There wasn't, but he thought there was. Obama realized that support for his policies was waning and passed legislation meant to deceive the American people.
You are right.
Obama admires Reagan (for some reason) and is using the same strategy... Aggression first, stability as follow-up.
His approval rating are almost a mirror copy of Reagan's...
http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/d鈥?/a>
... with Obama only slightly higher.
And as we all know... Reagan had a very successful two terms.
of course dofus needed to ram his failed legislation through fast. he knows after novemeber he'll get nothing from congress.
Not to mention that he had to get it done before the voters had a chance to put a stop to his destruction of America...
I understand that. Who said republicans don't understand that?
Thanks for pointing out another reason why there is no difference in the two parties. Congrats! You are doing your country a great service.
There is a sense of urgency with war. Big government is only urgent for liberals.
Calling out the idiocy of our system.
Thank you.
can someone get me Steele's cell number? I want to go out and spend 7 millions on strippers with him.
Bush didnt rush into Iraq. it took years.
Yes.
0baama's Marxist agenda is DESTROYING this country... simple, huh?
What are the breaking news on the Legislation of the National Sunday Law?
I am a new student on Prophecy. I grew up as an Adventist but feel I need to study and learn more on this issue on my own. So if anyone can help me with this question I would be really glad. I have been through prophecy serminars and have heard the theory of it all so you can go as deep as you need to.
I am mostly intrested in events which are currently taking place though and not so much on the theory of it all.
Help!!What are the breaking news on the Legislation of the National Sunday Law?
Try asking on the religion forum. You might get more answers there. And most certainly better ones.What are the breaking news on the Legislation of the National Sunday Law?
You will find this very interestesting -
http://dedication.www3.50megs.com/sunday鈥?/a>What are the breaking news on the Legislation of the National Sunday Law?
try to go at this site http://en.wikipedia.org/ maybe it's therexenon
I am mostly intrested in events which are currently taking place though and not so much on the theory of it all.
Help!!What are the breaking news on the Legislation of the National Sunday Law?
Try asking on the religion forum. You might get more answers there. And most certainly better ones.What are the breaking news on the Legislation of the National Sunday Law?
You will find this very interestesting -
http://dedication.www3.50megs.com/sunday鈥?/a>What are the breaking news on the Legislation of the National Sunday Law?
try to go at this site http://en.wikipedia.org/ maybe it's there
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)