ObamaCare - exchanges ,report your states options!

[MeDeFe]

The USA need to introduce the medieval Icelandic form of government, people get to choose who represents them and can switch between representatives, all decisions must be unanimous. After a year or two of not getting anything at all done I'm sure you'd get the hang of it.

[PLAYER57832]

OH please. Read the whole comment or thread. I never said I thought the Democratic party was some sort of ideal party. They are currently better than the Republicans, but that's about it. The Republican party, however, is so far to the right currently, it IS reaching totalitarianism. You are perfectly happy with that, as you have shown before, because you believe you have the right to dictate that everyone else lives by your religious beliefs. I actually agree with many (not all) of those beliefs, but I don't expect the rest of the world to comply.

Individuals within the Democratic party have also decided to go to the far right, but they operate outside the party when they do.

As for health care, the REAL truth is that a lot of people were opposed to it because it did TOO LITTLE, not too much. And, though you are quick to point to the parts of polls that showed people were "against the bill", you consistantly and conveniently ignored polls that talked of actual details. Strange thing is when you asked people about things that were actually in the bill, they were not, in fact, so opposed.

As for Obama, so far, he is better than Bush AND I find it a little too "convenient" that he gets criticized for both doing the things that we want AND for not doing enough when you don't want. The guy is not perfect, but the virulance of the right wing attacks far, far surpasses ANYTHING put forward by moderates and liberals against Bush. The FAR left certainly put forward that sort of rhetoric, but not the mainstream.

I have watched our country go from one where people were allowed to disagree, where people knew that they were unlikley to get ALL they want, but were willing to compromise to get what was really important, to a country full of people who think that if everything isn't exactly how they want, its perfectly reasonable to stomp off and sabotage any effort into failure. THAT is what this so-called "debate" over health care was about. and, sadly, we will ALL pay, but not because, as you claim the Democrats ram-roaded, rather because they buckled a bit too much in an attempt to appease the many bullies.

Come on now player, I know you are a liberal but you know you are stretching the truth here. You have shown in the past that you do think the Democrat party is here to save us.

Well, you will have to find where, because while I know I have been accused of that, it has never been my belief. "Better than" hardly translated to "her to save us.

By the way that reminds me that you were one of those rambling on about how Obama would not raise anyones taxes who made less than $250,000 and now your champion has signed us all onto another entitlement program known as the Health care TAX. Yes, it will TAX people who make less than $250,000 and we can add that to the tax increases we will see with the Bush tax cuts expiring and effecting middle class Americans along with the "wealthy" and nothing is done about it. It will be great to have another tax increase while still likely in a recession. Thanks for believing and spreading the lie.

It is insurance, not tax. Those with exhorbitant benefits will now have them included as income, but that is only right. It IS compensation. (frankly, I would be in favor of counting all health care benefits as taxable .. this would begin the move away from employer pay insurance).

He said he would not raise income taxes..and he hasn't. EVEN THOUGH what he was left, economically, was a lot worse than they were predicting back when he was running.

I actually think those making under $250,000 should pay a bit more in taxes. I did not earlier, but I do now.

Your actually going to say that Obama is attacked more than Bush was? Thats rich, the last 2 years he was president was constant Bush bashing by the media and all your lefty friends and now your crying because the new loser whome you like is failing the country beyond anyones wildest expectations and you can't take it that no one likes him anymore and you were fawning over him in 08 to everyone here. Newsflash: Most of America did not vote for this Obama. They voted for the Lie Obama told everyone and the truth about him most of the mainstream media covered.

Exactly the kind of rhetoric to which I referred.

Anyone who disagrees with you is "obviously" a "raving leftie". Know what? Per your voiced standards, even Ronald Reagan woudl be "liberal". He was most definitely conservative, but you folks keep shifting the middle so far to the left even complete conservatives like him are suddenly "liberal" in many of their views.

Sure, people on the left complained about Bush. Some did "bash" him. But, if you think the rhetoric then was the same as it is now, you were not paying much attention back then. The slide to nastiness began with the right and it has most definitely continued.

I suppose you still think he is against lobbyists and wants to change Washington like he told you in the campaign too huh? Judge the man by the company he keeps.

No, I judge people by their actions. If you judged me by the company I keep, well... I would be more far right wing than even you one day, Amish the next and a raving leftie on another day.

[Woodruff]

What if everyone voted third party?

If you are not a third party believer, then the only thing we can do is pick better candidates in primaries. People usually never turn out to those...

I agree PH, big turnouts in the primaries for TRUE fiscally conservative candidates is more key than ever. Obviously even people like John9 show where this country is leaning with this President. He said he was for gay marriage but a Tea Partier. I would argue most people in favor of that defiantly would not align themselves with the Tea Party movement but it just goes to show many of them realize their are bigger fish to fry here or our country is gone.

What would being in favor of homosexual marriage have to do with whether or not someone was in favor of The Tea Party? I don't see how it's even relevant, unless The Tea Party is very different from what I understand it to be.

[Night Strike]

He said he would not raise income taxes..and he hasn't. EVEN THOUGH what he was left, economically, was a lot worse than they were predicting back when he was running.

Complete and utter BS. The ONLY time he even hinted that he only meant he wouldn't raise income taxes was AFTER he was elected president. He was elected president precisely because he would not raise ANY taxes. You have completely fallen for the lies and manipulation of this administration when you believe something this completely untrue (and is proven untrue by video).

[Woodruff]

He said he would not raise income taxes..and he hasn't. EVEN THOUGH what he was left, economically, was a lot worse than they were predicting back when he was running.

Complete and utter BS. The ONLY time he even hinted that he only meant he wouldn't raise income taxes was AFTER he was elected president. He was elected president precisely because he would not raise ANY taxes.

You believe that, do you? I certainly don't believe that was "precisely" or otherwise why he was elected President.

[Snorri1234]

He said he would not raise income taxes..and he hasn't. EVEN THOUGH what he was left, economically, was a lot worse than they were predicting back when he was running.

Complete and utter BS. The ONLY time he even hinted that he only meant he wouldn't raise income taxes was AFTER he was elected president. He was elected president precisely because he would not raise ANY taxes. You have completely fallen for the lies and manipulation of this administration when you believe something this completely untrue (and is proven untrue by video).

Uh....it was pretty clear that he was going to raise taxes. Anyone and everyone knew he was.


It's just that, and this might come as a suprise to you, that some people are actually okay with paying more taxes if it means the country gets better.

[PopeBenXVI]

What if everyone voted third party?

If you are not a third party believer, then the only thing we can do is pick better candidates in primaries. People usually never turn out to those...

I agree PH, big turnouts in the primaries for TRUE fiscally conservative candidates is more key than ever. Obviously even people like John9 show where this country is leaning with this President. He said he was for gay marriage but a Tea Partier. I would argue most people in favor of that defiantly would not align themselves with the Tea Party movement but it just goes to show many of them realize their are bigger fish to fry here or our country is gone.

What would being in favor of homosexual marriage have to do with whether or not someone was in favor of The Tea Party? I don't see how it's even relevant, unless The Tea Party is very different from what I understand it to be.

I was only pointing out that people who promote gay marriage tend to have that as the main thing they are into and tend to put other issues last. Tea party members tend to be more conservative all around which includes no gay marriage. A brief observation since i know many tea partiers and none of them I have talked to are in favor of it. Does not mean their are not some there I just think it is more rare

[PopeBenXVI]

OH please. Read the whole comment or thread. I never said I thought the Democratic party was some sort of ideal party. They are currently better than the Republicans, but that's about it. The Republican party, however, is so far to the right currently, it IS reaching totalitarianism. You are perfectly happy with that, as you have shown before, because you believe you have the right to dictate that everyone else lives by your religious beliefs. I actually agree with many (not all) of those beliefs, but I don't expect the rest of the world to comply.

Individuals within the Democratic party have also decided to go to the far right, but they operate outside the party when they do.

As for health care, the REAL truth is that a lot of people were opposed to it because it did TOO LITTLE, not too much. And, though you are quick to point to the parts of polls that showed people were "against the bill", you consistantly and conveniently ignored polls that talked of actual details. Strange thing is when you asked people about things that were actually in the bill, they were not, in fact, so opposed.

As for Obama, so far, he is better than Bush AND I find it a little too "convenient" that he gets criticized for both doing the things that we want AND for not doing enough when you don't want. The guy is not perfect, but the virulance of the right wing attacks far, far surpasses ANYTHING put forward by moderates and liberals against Bush. The FAR left certainly put forward that sort of rhetoric, but not the mainstream.

I have watched our country go from one where people were allowed to disagree, where people knew that they were unlikley to get ALL they want, but were willing to compromise to get what was really important, to a country full of people who think that if everything isn't exactly how they want, its perfectly reasonable to stomp off and sabotage any effort into failure. THAT is what this so-called "debate" over health care was about. and, sadly, we will ALL pay, but not because, as you claim the Democrats ram-roaded, rather because they buckled a bit too much in an attempt to appease the many bullies.

Come on now player, I know you are a liberal but you know you are stretching the truth here. You have shown in the past that you do think the Democrat party is here to save us.

Well, you will have to find where, because while I know I have been accused of that, it has never been my belief. "Better than" hardly translated to "her to save us.

By the way that reminds me that you were one of those rambling on about how Obama would not raise anyones taxes who made less than $250,000 and now your champion has signed us all onto another entitlement program known as the Health care TAX. Yes, it will TAX people who make less than $250,000 and we can add that to the tax increases we will see with the Bush tax cuts expiring and effecting middle class Americans along with the "wealthy" and nothing is done about it. It will be great to have another tax increase while still likely in a recession. Thanks for believing and spreading the lie.

It is insurance, not tax. Those with exhorbitant benefits will now have them included as income, but that is only right. It IS compensation. (frankly, I would be in favor of counting all health care benefits as taxable .. this would begin the move away from employer pay insurance).

He said he would not raise income taxes..and he hasn't. EVEN THOUGH what he was left, economically, was a lot worse than they were predicting back when he was running.

I actually think those making under $250,000 should pay a bit more in taxes. I did not earlier, but I do now.

Your actually going to say that Obama is attacked more than Bush was? Thats rich, the last 2 years he was president was constant Bush bashing by the media and all your lefty friends and now your crying because the new loser whome you like is failing the country beyond anyones wildest expectations and you can't take it that no one likes him anymore and you were fawning over him in 08 to everyone here. Newsflash: Most of America did not vote for this Obama. They voted for the Lie Obama told everyone and the truth about him most of the mainstream media covered.

Exactly the kind of rhetoric to which I referred.

Anyone who disagrees with you is "obviously" a "raving leftie". Know what? Per your voiced standards, even Ronald Reagan woudl be "liberal". He was most definitely conservative, but you folks keep shifting the middle so far to the left even complete conservatives like him are suddenly "liberal" in many of their views.

Sure, people on the left complained about Bush. Some did "bash" him. But, if you think the rhetoric then was the same as it is now, you were not paying much attention back then. The slide to nastiness began with the right and it has most definitely continued.

I suppose you still think he is against lobbyists and wants to change Washington like he told you in the campaign too huh? Judge the man by the company he keeps.

No, I judge people by their actions. If you judged me by the company I keep, well... I would be more far right wing than even you one day, Amish the next and a raving leftie on another day.

The Government mandates that you pay it and the money goes to the Government to dole out.......That is called Tax. I think it's hilarious how now you are trying to cover your tracks when you were saying the B.O. rhetoric if you make less than $250,000 you will not see your taxes go up..... and now we will. He often said "taxes" not "income taxes". Taxes are taxes whether a license renewal fee being raised or the health care tax. Stop trying to change history and own up.

You can admit your wrong and he lied after you watch this 30 sec bit - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6HE-rGGKksQ

I actually think those making under $250,000 should pay a bit more in taxes. I did not earlier, but I do now

I think just you should be taxed more. I didn't used to but now I do. It just makes sense.

[PLAYER57832]

The Government mandates that you pay it and the money goes to the Government to dole out.......That is called Tax. I think it's hilarious how now you are trying to cover your tracks when you were saying the B.O. rhetoric if you make less than $250,000 you will not see your taxes go up..... and now we will. He often said "taxes" not "income taxes". Taxes are taxes whether a license renewal fee being raised or the health care tax. Stop trying to change history and own up.

Your beef is just that Obama was elected. You were further infuriated that any healthcare reform was actually passed. End of story.

For my part, I don't know if McCain could have done a better job than, as good a job as or worse than Obama. I do know that no one could be as bad for this country as Palin.

I also know Obama/Biden were elected and I have seen little real and honest discussion of ideas from most conservative pundits and many of the far right posters here since.

[Snorri1234]

i love the internets. people who make over 250k a year seriously don't bother to post here. they are making bank and earn more than most doctors.


seriously, the us has by far the lowest tax-rate on such an income. crying OMG SOCIALISM when someone says they should perhaps maybe be taxed more is absurd to anyone living in the real world.

[PopeBenXVI]

The Government mandates that you pay it and the money goes to the Government to dole out.......That is called Tax. I think it's hilarious how now you are trying to cover your tracks when you were saying the B.O. rhetoric if you make less than $250,000 you will not see your taxes go up..... and now we will. He often said "taxes" not "income taxes". Taxes are taxes whether a license renewal fee being raised or the health care tax. Stop trying to change history and own up.

Your beef is just that Obama was elected. You were further infuriated that any healthcare reform was actually passed. End of story.

For my part, I don't know if McCain could have done a better job than, as good a job as or worse than Obama. I do know that no one could be as bad for this country as Palin.

I also know Obama/Biden were elected and I have seen little real and honest discussion of ideas from most conservative pundits and many of the far right posters here since.

You are more like B.O. than I thought. You completely ignored that I proved your statement wrong just like he ignores direct questions he does not want to answer. He said "any tax increase" not income taxes. He lied. Palin has nothing to do with Obama the liar unless she somehow helped him create this new entitlement tax we are talking about?

[PLAYER57832]

The Government mandates that you pay it and the money goes to the Government to dole out.......That is called Tax. I think it's hilarious how now you are trying to cover your tracks when you were saying the B.O. rhetoric if you make less than $250,000 you will not see your taxes go up..... and now we will. He often said "taxes" not "income taxes". Taxes are taxes whether a license renewal fee being raised or the health care tax. Stop trying to change history and own up.

Your beef is just that Obama was elected. You were further infuriated that any healthcare reform was actually passed. End of story.

For my part, I don't know if McCain could have done a better job than, as good a job as or worse than Obama. I do know that no one could be as bad for this country as Palin.

I also know Obama/Biden were elected and I have seen little real and honest discussion of ideas from most conservative pundits and many of the far right posters here since.

You are more like B.O. than I thought. You completely ignored that I proved your statement wrong just like he ignores direct questions he does not want to answer. He said "any tax increase" not income taxes. He lied. Palin has nothing to do with Obama the liar unless she somehow helped him create this new entitlement tax we are talking about?

Since you insist on getting all your "facts" from right wing sources and consider anything that disagrees to be "false".. there is no point.

A payment that only applies to people who fail to buy private insurance is not a tax.
Also, as I DID say, the ecomic situation, etc changed phenomenally. To claim that someone is "lying" because they responded to changing situations is just idiotic. Even so, he did not change the base tax. He probably will, I think he should, but as of yet, he has not.

[Night Strike]

Since you insist on getting all your "facts" from right wing sources and consider anything that disagrees to be "false".. there is no point.

A payment that only applies to people who fail to buy private insurance is not a tax.
Also, as I DID say, the ecomic situation, etc changed phenomenally. To claim that someone is "lying" because they responded to changing situations is just idiotic. Even so, he did not change the base tax. He probably will, I think he should, but as of yet, he has not.

More BS. The "facts" could not be from right wing sources when they came straight out of the mouth of Obama!!

The economic situation changed phenomenally??? When?? Oh yeah, after making their promises, the Democrats came into office and spent an exorbitant amount of money to not "waste a good crisis". And now you're trying to blame the increases of taxes on "an economic change" as a justification to deceive the public. The hubris of your statements are amazing.

[PLAYER57832]

The economic situation changed phenomenally??? When?? Oh yeah, after making their promises, the Democrats came into office and spent an exorbitant amount of money to not "waste a good crisis". And now you're trying to blame the increases of taxes on "an economic change" as a justification to deceive the public. The hubris of your statements are amazing.

I see, so according to you the whole mortgage crisis, bank problems, etc, which ALL started and were acknowledged well before Obama took office... that they are all just the invention of Democrats?

Funny, then I guess Bush played right into the Democratic hands when he set forth his stimulus plan, a plan so needed (he/congress felt) that they had to push it through in a rush before the Democrats could take over and so it would go forward in January without much scrutiny?

[Night Strike]

The economic situation changed phenomenally??? When?? Oh yeah, after making their promises, the Democrats came into office and spent an exorbitant amount of money to not "waste a good crisis". And now you're trying to blame the increases of taxes on "an economic change" as a justification to deceive the public. The hubris of your statements are amazing.

I see, so according to you the whole mortgage crisis, bank problems, etc, which ALL started and were acknowledged well before Obama took office... that they are all just the invention of Democrats?

Funny, then I guess Bush played right into the Democratic hands when he set forth his stimulus plan, a plan so needed (he/congress felt) that they had to push it through in a rush before the Democrats could take over and so it would go forward in January without much scrutiny?

You claimed that the economic situation greatly changed AFTER Obama became president. That clearly did not happen: it was already dumping in September 2008, well before the election. So, no, the economic situation was not phenomenally different and it cannot be used as an excuse for raising taxes.

[PopeBenXVI]

Ok player we understand.......Bush Bush Bush Bush Bush Bush. You know Obama has been president about 16 months now right? It's time to face the music. He is a liar and is not your savior. So because it's not an existing tax that he raised but is a new tax he created he somehow did not raise taxes? For those who did not want to buy coverage it is most certainly a Tax raise. It is a mandatory payment imposed by the Government which is punishable by fine if not adhered too! Your the one who just said you did not want the authoritarians telling you how to live ....unless it serves your interests so it seems you look to be quit two-faced now. Oh and Obama also talked about considering raising the capital gains tax during debates but then in the below clip he promised he would not raise them? Which is it Player?

Sorry if I quoted my "right wing sources" AKA a youtube clip of Obama stating no one would see any tax increase. Did you watch it and compare it to your statement or just think it was edited by Beck & company?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6HE-rGGKksQ

When the liberals can't win the argument they try to re-define what something is so it's not a lie. You can put lipstick on a pig but it's still Obama

[Phatscotty]

The IRS hires 15,000 new agents. Yup, everyone got a tax cut. IRS increased their workforce by 18%, just to deal with less taxes than the year before. Riiiigggghhhhtttt

A new tax agency has been created to take over health care. Yup, taxes are only going down.

Is this lie Obama keep referring to the $3.50 I supposedly get every week that we borrowed from china and I have to pay interest on and also repay when it came time to file?

Interesting how insane the lie of "95% of Americans got a tax cut" is when you look at what actually happened.

[PLAYER57832]

You claimed that the economic situation greatly changed AFTER Obama became president. That clearly did not happen: it was already dumping in September 2008, well before the election. So, no, the economic situation was not phenomenally different and it cannot be used as an excuse for raising taxes.

No, I said it changed after he made that campaign promise to not raise income taxes on people making less than $250,000.

[PLAYER57832]

Dislike of Bush does not equal love for Obama. A willingness to wait to vilify our president does not mean thinking Obama is our saviour. Hope for our future does not mean ignoring bad things that happen.

Give it a rest already. I have no idea who you three think you are debating, but it sure is not me!

[thegreekdog]

It's hard to understand how the government can increase spending and not raise taxes. Because eventually taxes will have to be raised to pay for the loans, bonds, etc. that the government used to increase spending. So, in sum, someone is going to raise taxes, it just won't be this president.

FURTHERMORE, when the government raises taxes on the rich or on big business, the government effectively raises your taxes too... because McDonald's is going to raise their prices and Bill Gates is going to fire 10 people so he can afford to buy that new yacht.

And Player, I mean no offense by this, but you are one of the most vocal supporters of President Obama on this particular website; so I understand how the Big Three here can take their frustrations out on you.

[PLAYER57832]

It's hard to understand how the government can increase spending and not raise taxes. Because eventually taxes will have to be raised to pay for the loans, bonds, etc. that the government used to increase spending. So, in sum, someone is going to raise taxes, it just won't be this president.

FURTHERMORE, when the government raises taxes on the rich or on big business, the government effectively raises your taxes too... because McDonald's is going to raise their prices and Bill Gates is going to fire 10 people so he can afford to buy that new yacht.

And Player, I mean no offense by this, but you are one of the most vocal supporters of President Obama on this particular website; so I understand how the Big Three here can take their frustrations out on you.

Yes, I have been supportive of giving the guy a chance.

The three had him pegged as Satan incarnate, leading to our destruction from the day he was elected.

[thegreekdog]

It's hard to understand how the government can increase spending and not raise taxes. Because eventually taxes will have to be raised to pay for the loans, bonds, etc. that the government used to increase spending. So, in sum, someone is going to raise taxes, it just won't be this president.

FURTHERMORE, when the government raises taxes on the rich or on big business, the government effectively raises your taxes too... because McDonald's is going to raise their prices and Bill Gates is going to fire 10 people so he can afford to buy that new yacht.

And Player, I mean no offense by this, but you are one of the most vocal supporters of President Obama on this particular website; so I understand how the Big Three here can take their frustrations out on you.

Yes, I have been supportive of giving the guy a chance.

The three had him pegged as Satan incarnate, leading to our destruction from the day he was elected.

It is my humble opinion that you've done a little more than give the guy a chance. And that's okay, I don't mind people supporting what they believe in.

And yeah, these guys drink the Konservative Kool Aid. But I think you might be wrong on this particular issue.

As long as the president does what he said he would do for the economy (in his state of the union) (which I'm waiting for him to do), I would probably support him too. But his other stuff is either stupid ($250K per job created), ineffective no matter what side you're on (the healthcare bill), or downright despicable (continued use of the Patriot Act). But that's my opinion.

[PopeBenXVI]

I agree Greek - the Patriot acts has something to be desired

Player...Bush sucking does not equate Obama doing a good job because he is not Bush. Obama has been making his own decisions and I am criticizing what he is doing and not doing now. You can have an objective rating on his performance no matter what he was handed. Good or bad situations still gives him opportunity to make good or bad decisions.

I criticized him before being elected because he had zero experience, lots of radical friends, controversial racist remarks, questionable history, very liberal in a center right country. Oh ya and obviously because he is black and I am a racist like msnbc says. After elected I prayed he would be the best president we have ever had because our country needs it. You on the other hand supported him despite his inexperience and related reasons and still seem to support him despite all the failures. You gave him a chance and now give him a pass. I opposed him and then gave him a chance when he won until he started with the bailout crap that Bush started.

Unfortunately our prediction of him being satan incarnate was correct. I honestly hoped I was wrong about his policies after he was elected as I want what is best for our country but sadly it is not so. We have no hope if an administration can raise our tax burden and no one understands it just went up.

AND IF YOU HAVE A SPECIFIC NUMBER OF JOBS YOUR GOING TO TALK ABOUT HOW THE HELL CAN YOU NOT SPECIFY WHETHER OR NOT YOU SAVED OR CREATED THEM?? Please tell me you don't buy that rhetoric.....

If you saved 200,000 jobs or if you created 200,000 jobs but are not sure which it is, then how can you know the stupid number?

The truth is not in him

[PLAYER57832]

It's hard to understand how the government can increase spending and not raise taxes. Because eventually taxes will have to be raised to pay for the loans, bonds, etc. that the government used to increase spending. So, in sum, someone is going to raise taxes, it just won't be this president.

FURTHERMORE, when the government raises taxes on the rich or on big business, the government effectively raises your taxes too... because McDonald's is going to raise their prices and Bill Gates is going to fire 10 people so he can afford to buy that new yacht.

And Player, I mean no offense by this, but you are one of the most vocal supporters of President Obama on this particular website; so I understand how the Big Three here can take their frustrations out on you.

Yes, I have been supportive of giving the guy a chance.

The three had him pegged as Satan incarnate, leading to our destruction from the day he was elected.

It is my humble opinion that you've done a little more than give the guy a chance. And that's okay, I don't mind people supporting what they believe in.

Funny part is, I gave Bush the same chance.. its just that by the time I joined CC, he had already screwed up so royally he had long since exceeded my patience.

My basic credo, whether it is the president or anyone else, I would rather say a good thing about a bad person than something bad about a good person. So, yes, I do tend to moderate my tone toward favoratism. This in no way means I completely accept what they do or say. It means I am cautious about publically vilifying someone. And, I stick to the issues/actions, not the person.

And yeah, these guys drink the Konservative Kool Aid. But I think you might be wrong on this particular issue.

On Obama? I am not all that happy with everything I have seen. However, the things I like are the very things that most conservatives, even you, don't like, such as health care (though I don't think it went far enough).

The difference between them and you is not so much the conservative part, it is that they refuse to distinguish between criticizing the policies and criticizing the person. Also, they see anything not completely they way they wish to be an "attack on our entire way of life".

They represent a growing and very dangerous movement today, this group that sees compromise as failure instead of success. You will draw a line, have positions, but you are also willing to accept the compromises are necessary, etc.

As long as the president does what he said he would do for the economy (in his state of the union) (which I'm waiting for him to do), I would probably support him too. But his other stuff is either stupid ($250K per job created), ineffective no matter what side you're on (the healthcare bill), or downright despicable (continued use of the Patriot Act). But that's my opinion.

On the patriot act, I agree. However, history shows once leadership gets power, they are very reluctant to give it up. That's why so many protections have been in place. Bush did more to subvert them than any president in history. Obama has, at least, created more openness about things. Not everything, not as much as many would like, but it is an improvement.

On healthcare, I disagree, except that I wish we had the original bill and not this bastardized version.

As for other things .. Afghanistan, etc., I can offer opinions, but in the end am just "monday morning quarterbacking". Time will tell. It is the truth of presidencies that we only really see their true effect after the person has left office.

[thegreekdog]

A couple of things:

(1) You seem to think there is a growing problem with hating the person rather than the policies. I have seen this problem myself from Bill Clinton to GW Bush (especially him) to Barack Obama. I don't think this is a growing problem. I think it has been a continuous problem throughout history. A lot of people hated Abraham Lincoln, the man. So, it makes me wonder why you think this is a growing problem right now. And I think the answer is that you have been led to believe it is a growing problem right now because the current president and his administration have made it clear that to criticize the president's policies is to be either a radical conservative or a racist. So, when someone criticizes the president himself, rather than saying, "Yeah, they're right," like you did with President Bush, you say, "You're being unreasonable/radical/racist."

(2) What exactly has President Obama done to create openness about his use of the Patriot Act? The answer is nothing. And this is why I think you drink the Obama Kool Aid. Because you type things out here that aren't true. I can respect your opinion on healthcare, and that's fine. I cannot accept that there has been any positive difference between Bush's Patriot Act and Obama's Patriot Act. In fact, some of my more libertarian friends have indicated that the Obama administration is actually worse than the Bush adminsitration when it comes to domestic intelligence gathering. While I take what those two dudes say with a grain of salt, there is no more openness now than there was 4 years ago.

(3) Time will tell. I agree with you on this. I still think time will tell with President Bush. Bush the man was certainly prone to saying stupid things and should not have gotten us involved in a war with Iraq. However, I will still remain confident that he was unfairly criticized for a lot of things. On the other hand, I think President Obama is unfairly criticized on some things, while not being criticized enough on other things. And this is because the things that President Bush was most criticized for (the wars, the Patriot Act) are things that President Obama has not changed and has no plans to change. That's why I do not understand your (and others') loyalty to this president. The only thing I can think of is political party affiliation, which is completely unacceptable in my mind.