Obama - Page 6

08-03-2009, 09:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kokonut

Transparency was one thing he promised. Where'd that go?
But we'll see.
PolitiFact | The Obameter: Tracking Barack Obama's Campaign Promises

Bottom line, we simply do not have the money for continuing expansion of govt and programs, and certainly not for Obamacare.

As long as there is a tax base the politicians will believe there is money. It's a matter of how much burden will the taxpayers allow to be put on them.

kokonut · 08-03-2009, 10:16 AM

Quote:

It is a fact. We do not have the money to pay for everything.

National Health Care Spending

In 2008, health care spending in the United States reached $2.4 trillion, and was projected to reach $3.1 trillion in 2012.1 Health care spending is projected to reach $4.3 trillion by 2016.

Health care spending is 4.3 times the amount spent on national defense.

In 2008, the United States will spend 17 percent of its gross domestic product (GDP) on health care. It is projected that the percentage will reach 20 percent by 2017.

Although nearly 46 million Americans are uninsured, the United States spends more on health care than other industrialized nations, and those countries provide health insurance to all their citizens.

Health care spending accounted for 10.9 percent of the GDP in Switzerland, 10.7 percent in Germany, 9.7 percent in Canada and 9.5 percent in France, according to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.

NCHC | Facts About Healthcare - Health Insurance Costs

And that's on health care spending alone. Doesn't take into consideration on other costs like Social Security, SSI, SSDI, Education and so on and so forth. There won't be enough money to be collected through taxation. We simply do not have it.

08-03-2009, 10:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kokonut

NCHC | Facts About Healthcare - Health Insurance Costs

And that's on health care spending alone. Doesn't take into consideration on other costs like Social Security, SSI, SSDI, Education and so on and so forth. There won't be enough money to be collected through taxation. We simply do not have it.

pay as you go and pass the remainder of the deficit on to future generations. I am no economic expert but if it were so blatently obvious that the money is not there, why would the politicians even consider it.

kokonut · 08-03-2009, 10:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rockdrummer

pay as you go and pass the remainder of the deficit on to future generations. I am no economic expert but if it were so blatently obvious that the money is not there, why would the politicians even consider it.

Because they know they can borrow money from other countries to fund their boondoggle pet projects. We owe China around $1 trillion dollars already.

Power Line - Barack and Beijing

08-03-2009, 10:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kokonut

Because they know they can borrow money from other countries to fund their boondoggle pet projects. We owe China around $1 trillion dollars already.

Power Line - Barack and Beijing

Unless I am wrong, this will increase the deficit that will be paid for by the taxpayers of this and future generations.

darkdog · 08-03-2009, 01:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rockdrummer

Unless I am wrong, this will increast the deficit that will be paid for by the taxpayers of this and future generations.

You are right. We'll also have to pay interest on all this borrowing and if we don't reverse course, the interest alone will be enough to drown us.

**Jiro** · 08-04-2009, 10:50 PM

Commentary: Why Obama's plans are stalled

Quote:

Editor's note: Julian E. Zelizer is a professor of history and public affairs at Princeton University's Woodrow Wilson School. His new book, "Arsenal of Democracy: The Politics of National Security -- From World War II to the War on Terrorism," will be published this fall by Basic Books. Zelizer writes widely about current events.

PRINCETON, New Jersey (CNN) -- The second hundred days of Barack Obama's presidency have in many ways been more revealing than the first hundred days.

We have learned a lot, not so much about Obama's governing style or his policy agenda, but about the political environment in which he will have to operate -- at least until the 2010 midterm elections.

Obama has experienced some difficult challenges since April. On paper, the administration has clearly not achieved the same kind of sweeping early legislative record as his Democratic predecessors such as Franklin Roosevelt or Lyndon Johnson. We have not witnessed the creation of another New Deal or Great Society.

The economic stimulus bill is the most ambitious legislation to move through Congress thus far. The financial and economic bailout program has proved extremely important as well, but that comes from the Troubled Asset Relief Program begun by President George W. Bush at the height of the financial crisis.

The two big-ticket items for the administration -- health care and the environment -- are stalled in Congress. There is a potential compromise looming on health care that would fall far short of Obama's campaign promises. At the same time, most of the national security policies that were put into place after September 11 by the Bush administration remain intact.

Many of the challenges confronting Obama have resulted from the difficulties of the environment in which he governs.

One of the biggest challenges has been the division within the Democratic Party between a handful of centrists and the liberal base. The tensions immediately became apparent when moderates forced Congress to reduce the size of the economic stimulus bill back in February.

That was just a taste of things to come. The intra-party divisions have become more pronounced in the debate over health care. Sens. Max Baucus and Kent Conrad have held their ground by resisting the public insurance option endorsed by the White House as well as many of the finance proposals that have been made in Congress.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has been forced to contend with a vocal group of Blue Dog Democrats who want to impose more stringent cost-cutting measures and are also resisting paying for benefits with a surtax on high-income earners.

There is little evidence that these tensions will dissipate, and they exist with other issues as well, including environmental legislation. As a result, Democrats will lose some of the institutional benefits that they might have expected from having a 60-person majority in the Senate.

The second problem for Obama is that partisan polarization is alive and well. Despite all the talk about bipartisanship in the 2008 campaign, the sources of polarization are deeply rooted in our modern political system. Therefore, even with a new president in town, the same kinds of partisan wars have been playing out.

There is little love on either side of the aisle. Republicans have been relatively consistent in lining up against the administration's proposals. The Senate vote for Judge Sonia Sotomayor's confirmation to the Supreme Court is expected to draw fewer Republican votes than the number of Democrats who voted for George W. Bush's nominees, John Roberts and Samuel Alito.

With Obama's approval numbers dropping, Republicans will certainly come back from their summer break even more confident about saying no to him. While the improvement of the economy could give the president a boost, it will also diminish the sense of crisis that had put Republicans on the defensive.

A third challenge is that the the government reform efforts that Obama touted in his campaign haven't materialized, and thus Washington still works the way it did before he took office. As Americans have seen so many times, promises about government reform quickly fade once a campaign ends.

Although Obama did implement some new lobbying rules upon taking power, he has shown minimal interest in the procedural problems that he highlighted on the campaign trail: the power of interest groups, the role of private money in campaigns, the revolving door between K Street and Capitol Hill and more.

Back in January 2006, he told a lobbying summit at the National Press Club that, "The American people are tired of a Washington that's only open to those with the most cash and the right connections. They're tired of a political process where the vote you cast isn't as important as the favors you can do. And they're tired of trusting us with their tax dollars when they see them spent on frivolous pet projects and corporate giveaways."

His point, one that he made many times, was that without reforming the political process, it is virtually impossible to change policy and restore trust in government. But the process has not changed, and there is no evidence that it will. As a result, Obama will be attempting to obtain new policies in a town where interest groups and lobbyists remain organized, powerful and committed to the status quo.

Finally, Obama has learned how difficult it is to retrench public policies. Presidents often have to live with the world they inherit. Conservatives learned this lesson with domestic policy. In 1981 and 1982, Ronald Reagan was forced to back down from proposed cuts to Social Security after encountering a political backlash. George W. Bush discovered the same thing in 2005.

Although Obama's campaign started with a promise of fundamentally changing the direction of national security policy, in the second hundred days, there has not been much evidence that he will be able to accomplish those goals, outside of completing the scheduled withdrawal from Iraq (though leaving more troops there than many hoped for).

As Jack Goldsmith, a former Bush administration official and a leading public critic of Bush, documented in a recent article in The New Republic, Obama has kept most of President Bush's post-9/11 national security programs in place while resisting efforts to conduct an investigation into potential abuses during the Bush years.

Goldsmith wrote, "the new administration has copied most of the Bush program, has expanded some of it, and has narrowed only a bit." While troops are leaving Iraq, the United States is enlarging its troop presence in Afghanistan.

Obama's first challenge in the third hundred days must be to diminish problem number one. Until he can unite Democrats more effectively, it will be almost impossible to achieve major legislative victories.

Without major victories, his opponents won't be scared about taking him on. If this is the case, the third hundred days might look much less like the promise of the 2008 election and more like the political world that Obama wanted to transform.

poor Bam. This is why you should have some experience first before you come to office.

**Foxrac** · 08-05-2009, 02:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kokonut

Now, back on topic. The Obamessiah.

Obama's approval numbers have dropped 42 points since January. Hmmm, everytime he opens his mouth, the number goes down.

Rasmussen Reports: The Most Comprehensive Public Opinion Data Anywhere

It doesn't have valid proof and you are just on your own, koko.

Come on, you can whine whatever you want but I'm laughing at you.

**shel90** · 08-05-2009, 08:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rockdrummer

pay as you go and pass the remainder of the deficit on to future generations. I am no economic expert but if it were so blatently obvious that the money is not there, why would the politicians even consider it.

We probably will end up making illegal drugs legal to cover the costs.

I have mixed feelings about the whole thing. Like you, I am no economist so my knowledge is very limited.

**deafskeptic** · 08-05-2009, 09:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shel90

We probably will end up making illegal drugs legal to cover the costs.

I have mixed feelings about the whole thing. Like you, I am no economist so my knowledge is very limited.

Me either. I wonder what the economists say on this.

**deafskeptic** · 08-05-2009, 09:47 AM

mm Here's one such economist over at the economist says

Quote:

ON THURSDAY February 26th Barack Obama unveiled a draft budget that promises to cut the deficit from a vast $1.75 trillion in fiscal 2009 (which ends this September) to $533 billion in 2013, when his first term ends. As a share of GDP, the draft has the deficit falling from this year’s post-war high of 12% to just 3%.

Is that promise credible? At a minimum, Mr Obama seems more fiscally honest than George Bush, whose accounting gimmicks vied with Enron’s. Mr Bush’s budgets routinely excluded unavoidable outlays, such as those for wars and natural disasters, incorporated tax increases and spending trims that he knew would never occur, and masked his policies’ impact on the deficit by shortening the forecast horizon to five years from ten. Mr Obama puts most of the missing items back in the budget, and restores its horizon to ten years. However, he undoes some of this laudable clarity with a rosy economic forecast.

To boost revenue, Mr Obama will let Mr Bush’s 2001 tax cuts for the 2% of richest Americans (typically those earning more than $250,000) expire as scheduled at the end of 2010. Corporations will no longer be able to exclude foreign-source income from tax. Many popular tax deductions, such as those for local taxes, mortgage interest and charitable gifts, will be limited for the rich. A cap-and-trade programme for carbon emissions that is yet to be designed will raise additional revenue starting in 2012. To curb spending, Mr Obama promises to remove most American troops from Iraq before the end of 2010, reduce payments to privately managed Medicare plans and farmers, and find other savings.

Mr Obama told Congress in his address on the 24th that “everyone…will have to sacrifice some worthy priorities for which there are no dollars. And that includes me.” Yet the evidence of such sacrifice remains scarce. He appears to earmark his tax increases and spending cuts mostly to pay for his long-standing priorities: making permanent the worker tax credit in the fiscal-stimulus plan; expanding public subsidies to reduce the number of those without health insurance (though no details have been provided); more money for parents, students, the disabled and the unemployed; investment in alternative energy; and extra deployments to Afghanistan. And he suggested that he will need more money to bail out banks than the $700 billion already authorised. A $250 billion facility is being set aside for this, one reason why this year’s deficit is so huge.

Most of Mr Obama’s targeted deficit-reduction comes not from his own actions, but from the expiry of the stimulus, a halt to bail-outs, and the natural restoration of tax revenue as the economy pulls out of recession, growing by a robust 4% on average from 2010 through to 2013. And therein lies the biggest threat to the president’s plans. Mr Obama’s forecast is already more optimistic than the private sector consensus was in January, and that consensus has since become more pessimistic. Ben Bernanke, the Federal Reserve chairman, said this week that the recession would end this year only if the financial system stabilises, which so far it has not.

A longer recession or long-term stagnation pose two distinct fiscal risks. First, Mr Obama will be (rightly) reluctant to raise taxes and tempted to extend parts of the stimulus package if unemployment is not dropping by 2010. Premature fiscal tightening, after all, could lengthen the recession, as Japan learned in the 1990s.

Second, a longer recession makes it harder for America to grow out of its debt burden as it, and other countries, have done at previous debt peaks. Because of stagnating output and declining prices, Japan’s nominal GDP in 2005 was smaller than in 1996, contributing mightily to a climb in that country’s net debt from 29% of GDP to 85% (it will reach 98% this year). One worrying parallel for America is that its nominal GDP will probably decline this year for the first time since 1949 (the administration optimistically sees it creeping up by 0.1%)

So Mr Obama’s 3% deficit target may be much harder to reach than he thinks; and it may not be tough enough anyway. Using reasonable policy assumptions, Alan Auerbach of the University of California at Berkeley, and William Gale of the Brookings Institution, think the deficit will bottom out near 5% of GDP in 2013 then climb to almost 6% by 2019, while debt continues to rise as a share of GDP. That is before the government has to deal with the full impact of the surge in health and pension entitlement costs. The academics reckon higher taxes or lower spending equal to a staggering 8% of GDP a year are necessary to contain those costs and stabilise the long-run debt.

Despite his inspiring rhetoric, Mr Obama’s plans for dealing with those long-term obligations have been frustratingly vague. He called on Americans to “address the crushing cost of health care” but proposes to spend many billions more, not less. He reportedly abandoned support for a commission to restore solvency to Social Security, the public-pension system, because congressional Democrats objected to this loss of their authority. He had a golden opportunity to introduce the idea of the rich, multinational corporations and carbon-emitters paying higher taxes as part of a broad reform of a monstrously inefficient tax system, and so make the economy more productive. He passed it up.

In fairness, these are early days in his presidency, and stabilising the economy needs to be his priority. The summit and the speech to Congress were just part of the essential process of softening up the public for the long and contentious chore of fixing entitlements and the tax system.

It was also an opportunity for Mr Obama to counter the pervasive economic gloom that he himself engendered with his warnings of “catastrophe” if his stimulus plan was not passed. With the rhetorical flair for which he is famous, he asserted that Americans would triumph because “amid the most difficult circumstances”—his voice briefly descending to a warm and coaxing growl—“there is a generosity, a resilience, a decency”. As if to prove his point, legislators gave one of their longest ovations to Leonard Abess, a Miami banker in attendance who sold most of his bank for $927m and gave $60m of the proceeds to 471 current and past employees. Even amid the gloom, there are occasional flashes of light.

kokonut · 08-06-2009, 11:56 PM

BURMAN: Catastrophic budget failure - Washington Times

kokonut · 08-13-2009, 08:57 PM

New low for Obama's presidential approval at 47%

Daily Presidential Tracking Poll - Rasmussen Reports

**Liebling:-)))** · 08-14-2009, 12:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kokonut

New low for Obama's presidential approval at 47%

Daily Presidential Tracking Poll - Rasmussen Reports

President Obama Job Approval at 53.1% dated 13th August 2009, opposite your link.

RealClearPolitics - Election Other - President Obama Job Approval

Which is accurate link, you and I post?

kokonut · 08-14-2009, 12:46 AM

]

All of the polls that were done as shown in RCP's links showed a continuing downward trend of Obama's job approval and an upward trend of disapproval of Obama. All of them trending exactly like RCP, Gallup, Foxnews, McClatchy, Rasumussen, etc. They all tell a big picture, Obama is tanking.

**Foxrac** · 08-14-2009, 02:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Liebling:-)))

President Obama Job Approval at 53.1% dated 13th August 2009, opposite your link.

RealClearPolitics - Election Other - President Obama Job Approval

Which is accurate link, you and I post?

I will never pay attention to poll because it don't count all American adults since poll is only question to around 1,000 people or 2,000.

Bill Clinton and Ronald Reagen has low approval rating when they were during presidency, around 40% to 50%.

Kokonut, I know you are anti-Obama and that why, I never listen to your post with bunches of right wing BS, Obama has elected by American people and you have get accept with democracy.

I'm not hardcore liberal either but more libertarian and not going to share with your BS.

kokonut · 08-14-2009, 03:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Foxrac

I will never pay attention to poll because it don't count all American adults since poll is only question to around 1,000 people or 2,000.

Bill Clinton and Ronald Reagen has low approval rating when they were during presidency, around 40% to 50%.

Kokonut, I know you are anti-Obama and that why, I never listen to your post with bunches of right wing BS, Obama has elected by American people and you have get accept with democracy.

I'm not hardcore liberal either but more libertarian and not going to share with your BS.

I see statistics was never your forte, nor do you really understand how polling works and how statistics provide insight to what people are thinking. It's a snapshot in time. Each day is a different response. But what's telling is that all of the polls showed downward trend on Obama's job approval. They do not poll the same people over and over. Polls are good indicators on the sentiments of what American people are thinking/feeling on certain issues.

You say you're a "libertarian" yet you have Obama in your eyes? Okayyy. Name 5 things that you are critical about of Obama's policy and the things he's done. Name 5 critical things about Obama.

**Foxrac** · 08-14-2009, 03:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kokonut

I see statistics was never your forte, nor do you really understand how polling works and how statistics provide insight to what people are thinking. It's a snapshot in time. Each day is a different response. But what's telling is that all of the polls showed downward trend on Obama's job approval. They do not poll the same people over and over. Polls are good indicators on the sentiments of what American people are thinking/feeling on certain issues.

You say you're a "libertarian" yet you have Obama in your eyes? Okayyy. Name 5 things that you are critical about of Obama's policy and the things he's done. Name 5 critical things about Obama.

Sorry, I never, never, never believe in polls because they don't count on many people and it does change in anytime, Obama has almost 7 month in office and it take alot of time to see his job as prove, I'm not into your way.

I do have criticize against on Obama.

1) Obama's gun views since I'm favor into full gun rights.
2) Longer school year that what Obama want so I'm against it.
3) High tax on people whoever own small/medium businesses so what Obama want.
4) Withdrawal of US troopers from Iraq because I'm concern about what happen to Iraq after all US troopers withdraw.
5) His action/view on Israel and I do suppirt Israel to stand up against any unstable muslim countries or territories like in Palestine that where Hamas is in power.

**Reba** · 08-14-2009, 07:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Liebling:-)))

President Obama Job Approval at 53.1% dated 13th August 2009, opposite your link.

RealClearPolitics - Election Other - President Obama Job Approval

Which is accurate link, you and I post?

The poll at your link doesn't show "opposite". The RCP average shows the same trend--Obama's approval is going downward.

netrox · 08-14-2009, 04:58 PM

What's so fascinating is how Obama is SO involved with the people while Bush was so detached from the public and wouldn't do town halls (to my recall).

kokonut · 08-14-2009, 06:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by netrox

What's so fascinating is how Obama is SO involved with the people while Bush was so detached from the public and wouldn't do town halls (to my recall).

Bush also didn't attack/insult American citizens, insults the police for acting "stupidly," go after a private citizen well known in the radio industry, malign the medical profession on how doctors hack of feet of diabetes for $30,000 a hack and are bad at diagnosing tonsilitits for tonsilectomies and so on. Btw, back in 2005 President Bush held town hall forums to push his idea to privatize Social Security. You easily forget.

Detached? Boy, you ARE out of touch aren't you?

Light Seeking Light: Bush in Africa Redux

And this picture shows just how "detached" he was.

You're slipping.

Try again.

**Foxrac** · 08-14-2009, 06:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Foxrac

Sorry, I never, never, never believe in polls because they don't count on many people and it does change in anytime, Obama has almost 7 month in office and it take alot of time to see his job as prove, I'm not into your way.

I do have criticize against on Obama.

1) Obama's gun views since I'm favor into full gun rights.
2) Longer school year that what Obama want so I'm against it.
3) High tax on people whoever own small/medium businesses so what Obama want.
4) Withdrawal of US troopers from Iraq because I'm concern about what happen to Iraq after all US troopers withdraw.
5) His action/view on Israel and I do suppirt Israel to stand up against any unstable muslim countries or territories like in Palestine that where Hamas is in power.

I forgot to add other about closing the Gitmo prison and I don't want Gitmo prison to close without right plan to put detainee in.

kokonut · 08-18-2009, 07:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Foxrac

I forgot to add other about closing the Gitmo prison and I don't want Gitmo prison to close without right plan to put detainee in.

They'll be in prisons near your home.

kokonut · 08-18-2009, 08:13 PM

Going down...
RealClearPolitics - Election Other - President Obama Job Approval

Quote:

Originally Posted by kokonut

]

All of the polls that were done as shown in RCP's links showed a continuing downward trend of Obama's job approval and an upward trend of disapproval of Obama. All of them trending exactly like RCP, Gallup, Foxnews, McClatchy, Rasumussen, etc. They all tell a big picture, Obama is tanking.

**Foxrac** · 08-18-2009, 08:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kokonut

They'll be in prisons near your home.

It means you support closing Gitmo prison, wow....

**Jiro** · 08-18-2009, 08:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Foxrac

It means you support closing Gitmo prison, wow....

oh no no. He's just giving you a warning of what will happen if Obama shuts down Gitmo Camp.

KEEP GITMO CAMP OPEN!

kokonut · 08-18-2009, 08:45 PM

Sigh....

Yes, Jiro. That's exactly what I meant. I was pretty apparent and clear on what I was talking about.

Foxrac, pay attention to Jiro's response.

**Jiro** · 08-18-2009, 08:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Foxrac

I forgot to add other about closing the Gitmo prison and I don't want Gitmo prison to close without right plan to put detainee in.

the only right plan is to keep them in Gitmo Camp

**Foxrac** · 08-19-2009, 02:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kokonut

Sigh....

Yes, Jiro. That's exactly what I meant. I was pretty apparent and clear on what I was talking about.

Foxrac, pay attention to Jiro's response.

Calm down, I was just messing, man.

**Foxrac** · 08-19-2009, 10:51 AM

Obama care is going be fail, it already over unless democrats has find alternative way that republican and conservative democrats can agree.

Kokonut, there's only reason that I support democrat because of GLBT rights, that all I care at most time, there's very several republicans support GLBT rights so what's your solution?

08-06-2009, 11:56 PM	#162 (permalink)
kokonut Registered User Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 15,348	BURMAN: Catastrophic budget failure - Washington Times __________________ Before AD. After AD. "Restriction on free thought and free speech is the most dangerous of all subversions. It is the one un-American act that could most easily defeat us." -Thurgood Marshall, former Supreme Court Justice "... turns out they are telling the truth."

08-13-2009, 08:57 PM	#163 (permalink)
kokonut Registered User Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 15,348	New low for Obama's presidential approval at 47% Daily Presidential Tracking Poll - Rasmussen Reports __________________ Before AD. After AD. "Restriction on free thought and free speech is the most dangerous of all subversions. It is the one un-American act that could most easily defeat us." -Thurgood Marshall, former Supreme Court Justice "... turns out they are telling the truth."

08-14-2009, 12:46 AM	#165 (permalink)
kokonut Registered User Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 15,348	] All of the polls that were done as shown in RCP's links showed a continuing downward trend of Obama's job approval and an upward trend of disapproval of Obama. All of them trending exactly like RCP, Gallup, Foxnews, McClatchy, Rasumussen, etc. They all tell a big picture, Obama is tanking. __________________ Before AD. After AD. "Restriction on free thought and free speech is the most dangerous of all subversions. It is the one un-American act that could most easily defeat us." -Thurgood Marshall, former Supreme Court Justice "... turns out they are telling the truth."

08-18-2009, 08:45 PM	#177 (permalink)
kokonut Registered User Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 15,348	Sigh.... Yes, Jiro. That's exactly what I meant. I was pretty apparent and clear on what I was talking about. Foxrac, pay attention to Jiro's response. __________________ Before AD. After AD. "Restriction on free thought and free speech is the most dangerous of all subversions. It is the one un-American act that could most easily defeat us." -Thurgood Marshall, former Supreme Court Justice "... turns out they are telling the truth."

08-19-2009, 10:51 AM	#180 (permalink)
Foxrac Need Stormtroopers? Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Zaphias Posts: 32,637	Obama care is going be fail, it already over unless democrats has find alternative way that republican and conservative democrats can agree. Kokonut, there's only reason that I support democrat because of GLBT rights, that all I care at most time, there's very several republicans support GLBT rights so what's your solution? __________________ In Moto We Trust

Today
Deafness	Sponsored Links __________________ This advertising will not be shown in this way to registered members. Register your free account today and become a member on AllDeaf.com

08-14-2009, 04:58 PM	#170 (permalink)
netrox Registered User Join Date: Mar 2003 Posts: 4,780	What's so fascinating is how Obama is SO involved with the people while Bush was so detached from the public and wouldn't do town halls (to my recall).

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode