Here is the amazing reaction by the MSNBC punsters after the President's Oval office address yesterday :

Olbermann: “It was a great speech if you were on another planet for the last 57 days.”


Olbermann: “Nothing specific at all was said.”

Matthews: “No direction.”

Howard Fineman: “He wasn’t specific enough.”

Olbermann: “I don’t think he aimed low, I don’t think he aimed at all. It’s startling.”

Howard Fineman: Obama should be acting like a “commander-in-chief.”

Matthews: Ludicrous that he keeps saying Secretary of Energy Chu has a Nobel prize. “I’ll barf if he does it one more time.”

Matthews: “A lot of meritocracy, a lot of blue ribbon talk.”

Matthews: “I don’t sense executive command.”


RealClearPolitics - Video - MSNBC Trashes Obama's Address: Compared To Carter, "I Don't Sense Executive Command" (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2010/06/15/msnbc_trashes_obamas_address_compared_to_carter_i_ dont_sense_executive_command.html)

Hello:

Yup, when you lose Cronkite, I mean Mathews, it's over. (Not that Mathews is any Walter Cronkite.)

He lost me a long time ago when he became Bush on steroids. Consider the claims of Maher Arar (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/16/opinion/16wed2.html?th&emc=th), an innocent Canadian who was sent to Syria to be tortured in 2002.

excon

PS> (edited) To those who don't know, when Walter Cronkite announced on the evening news, that he had turned against the Vietnam war, President Johnson KNEW the war was lost. He said as much in his memoirs.

He's as innocent as Mumia Abu-Jamal ,and no doubt destined to become the next celebrity .

What this has to do with the lack of leadership in the Gulf oil crisis is beyond me .However ,the NY Slimes of course leaves out some important details in their attempt to create a celebrity victim to the rendition system that Bill Clintoon initiated.

Has anyone proven torture in the Arar case ;or is it assumed that because he said it happened it did ?

The Arar commission worked under that assumption ,but did nothing to confirm it. No medical evidence was presented .No doctor testified to the fact. Arar never testified ;nor cross examined during the hearing .

When asked about torture he complained about being held in a small cell to the Canadian consular officials who visited him. The Canadians who visited him saw no signs of physical abuse(a total of nine consular visits during his 10 month imprisonment ).

He now talks of physical beatings with 2 inch electric cable that left him bruised for weeks at a time. All the consular reports were made public at the Arar commission. No signs of physical abuse were ever observed. Even after Arar was released, he did not speak of beatings.

If he was wrongly imprisoned he deserves compensation from the people who fingered him... the Canadians . And that is what happened to the tune of $10.5 million .
His confession to the Syrians of travelling to Pakistan and Afghanistan in 1993 for training have to be disregarded even though it is probably true.

But when asked to provide any proof that he was anywhere else at that time ,he can't or won't produce it. It of course is the burden of the accuser to produce the evidence . But his not producing it leaves open the question .

Surely you and the Slimes aren't saying that there should be a "price to pay for torture " when no evidence of torture was ever produced?
...
Did you watch the President's address ? He actually seemed disinterested to me except when threatening BP and then moving on to his larger agenda. (no crisis wasted )

In typical Obama style he built a strawman and knocked it down.

But the one approach I will not accept is inaction. The one answer I will not settle for is the idea that this challenge is too big and too difficult to meet. You know, the same thing was said about our ability to produce enough planes and tanks in World War II. The same thing was said about our ability to harness the science and technology to land a man safely on the surface of the moon. And yet, time and again, we have refused to settle for the paltry limits of conventional wisdom. Instead, what has defined us as a nation since our founding is our capacity to shape our destiny — our determination to fight for the America we want for our children. Even if we're unsure exactly what that looks like. Even if we don't yet know precisely how we're going to get there. We know we'll get there.

Building planes and tanks ;and even knowing how to get to the moon was on the table before the decision was made. It's not like there is some flux capasitor design sitting at Los Alamos or a powerplant engine fueled by dilithium crystals. All the known so- called clean alternate energies fully employed would not put a dent into our immediate energy needs ;let alone the US and world future needs.

But that won't stop him from forging ahead . He won't accept the “paltry limits of conventional wisdom.” ....“Seize control of our own destiny" ...“Accelerate the transition.” ....Then he got to the point .

“The days of cheap oil are numbered.”..."There are costs associated with this transition.”
(another strawman moment )
there are some who believe that we can't afford those costs right now. I say we can't afford not to change how we produce and use energy, because the long-term costs to our economy, our national security and our environment are far greater.

There in a nutshell was the point of the address. It had nothing to do with the steps he would take to plug the leak ,contain the spill or clean it up .It had everything to do with his agenda. If I was a tin-foil hat type of person I would swear it's just too convenient for this to have happened almost immediately after he had approved drilling (A few months ago, I approved a proposal to consider new, limited offshore drilling under the assurance that it would be absolutely safe, that the proper technology would be in place and the necessary precautions would be taken.)

The obvious conclusion then is that no amt of drilling is safe so it will be taken off the table.

But the future he promises is a big unknown mostly found in the pages of science fiction novels .If he knows how to get there from here he is mum about the details .

Meanwhile the leak continues and grows while he threatens BP with the death sentence.

So you guys got another yes we can speech and you want the details and of course an immediate result. You haven't actually emerged from the details of the last yes we can speech, and you expect details?

If Obama has pulled the plug on deep water oil drilling, good. Now you will get on with developing fuel efficient vehicles

so you guys got another yes we can speech and you want the details and of course an immediate result. You haven't actually emerged from the details of the last yes we can speech, and you expect details?

If Obama has pulled the plug on deep water oil drilling, good. Now you will get on with developing fuel efficient vehicles

If that were the only thing. We have fuel efficient cars and trucks. The biggest problem is the goobermint and the EPA keep telling car makers how to make cars and not let them loose to give people what they want. There is so much out there that is being kept hidden its just a pure shame.

If that were the only thing. We have fuel efficient cars and trucks. The biggest problem is the goobermint and the EPA keep telling car makers how to make cars and not let them loose to give people what they want. There is so much out there that is being kept hidden its just a pure shame.

You don't really have fuel efficient cars and trucks there is much more that can be done but car makers will only make the costly changes when they are forced to do it. The days of the car industry being consumer driven are gone and consumers will want cars that are cheaper to run so the car makers should be leading

You don't really have fuel efficient cars and trucks there is much more that can be done but car makers will only make the costly changes when they are forced to do it. The days of the car industry being consumer driven are gone and consumers will want cars that are cheaper to run so the car makers should be leading

The problem is with the EPA telling the car companies to meet certain very old and outdated standards. Its included in every car sold. That would be the smog controls. Also they have set standards for electric cars. That's why you don't see them going over 100 miles without a charge. Its all just a big scam. They could do so much more but are being prevented from doing so.

The big lie was that deep water drilling was happening because there were no more reserves to tap in shallow waters or land.


"We consume more than 20% of the world's oil, but have less than 2% of the world's oil reserve. And that's part of the reason oil companies are drilling a mile beneath the surface of the ocean -- because we're running out of places to drill on land and in shallow water."

The truth is that deep water drilling is happening because the government refuses to allow the tapping of the easier reserves .
The U.S.' Untapped Oil Bounty - Kiplinger (http://www.kiplinger.com/businessresource/forecast/archive/The_U.S._s_Untapped_Bounty_080630.html)

By all means move towards that bright future of the day when abundant carbon free energy can be produced . Until then drill baby drill.

The big lie was that deep water drilling was happening because there were no more reserves to tap in shallow waters or land.


.

There are lots of big lies around. Peak oil is a big lie, climate change is a big lie, oil flow in the Gulf of Mexico has been a big lie, the reasons for being in Afghanistan might prove to be a big lie, the June offensive appears to have been a big lie but the biggest lie of all is regulation is bad.

I keep on hearing this claim here as if regulations in themselves are some kind of panacea . First ;again ,we do not speak in absolutes about regulation and you have not heard from me make a blanket statement suggesting that government safety regulations are a bad thing.

But ;would you agree that there is no more regulated place in the world right now than China ? Has that prevented industrial accidents ?
China nuclear power plant leak exposed - UPI.com (http://www.upi.com/Science_News/Resource-Wars/2010/06/16/China-nuclear-power-plant-leak-exposed/UPI-10521276716060/)

For every case you can make for lack of regulation I can make a case that regulators asleep at the wheel ,bureaucratic inertia ,outright corruption,or poor public policy was equally a contributing factor in any of the related issues be it this spill ;or the financial collapse .

But ;would you agree that there is no more regulated place in the world right now than China ? Has that prevented industrial accidents ? Hello tom:

Spoken like a true believer in the adage, "Government IS the problem". Contrary to your misguided statement, there are regulators out there who do DO their jobs, and THAT regulation DOES prevent industrial accidents...

excon

But ;would you agree that there is no more regulated place in the world right now than China ? Has that prevented industrial accidents ?

For every case you can make for lack of regulation I can make a case that regulators asleep at the wheel ,bureaucratic inertia ,outright corruption,or poor public policy was equally a contributing factor in any of the related issues be it this spill ;or the financial collapse .

There is nothing like duck shoving the issue and forget China, if you don't do your job there you disappear, which would be a good remedy to implement in the US. You don't enforce the regulations because it is not politically convenient to do so. This is why you have forty million illegals in the US, this is why you have millions of gallons of oil gushing into the Gulf of Mexico, this is why you caused the GFC. Don't blame the bureaucrats put the blame where it lies, the man at the top took responsibility, so you will have an opportunity soon to tell him what you think

Hello tom:

Spoken like a true believer in the adage, "Government IS the problem". Contrary to your misguided statement, there are regulators out there who do DO their jobs, and THAT regulation DOES prevent industrial accidents....

excon

The Europeans swim in financial regulations . How's that working for them ?

The truth is that there are mountains of regulations regarding off shore drilling .

Here is the truth . The week before the blowout BP knew it was going to cut corners because they were 40 days late and were paying a half million dollars a day to use the rig .

So they went to regulators at the Obama Minerals Management Service with 3 changes to their permit. The regulators approved the changes within minutes of the submissions without doing any real review of the changes.

BP took the short cuts and the regulators approved them . Are you saying government wasn't part of the problem ? Again ,I never said regulations aren't necessary. But they aren't the panacea people think they are.

BP took the short cuts and the regulators approved them . Are you saying government wasn't part of the problem ? Hello again, tom:

Tom, you've been drinking right wing koolaid again. You might have seen on your local news, a Seattle cop slugging a 17 year old girl. Using your logic, I COULD say that the police are the problem, instead of saying this ONE cop is the problem...

THESE BUSH and OBAMA regulators DIDN'T do their jobs. That doesn't mean government IS part of the problem. I understand, though. For a guy who believes government IS the problem, it ain't much of a leap.

excon

Don't blame the bureaucrats put the blame where it lies, the man at the top took responsibility,

Did that in the OP

Here's another big lie, Lurch claims that subsidizing alternative energy is some sort of job creating miracle (http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/watercooler/2010/jun/15/senator-kerry-spains-failed-green-job-program-was-/):


“We just told you that every study that has been made says that this creates hundreds of thousands of jobs a year.”

Kerry can tell you about the studies, but just like the legislation Democrats pass, apparently doesn't actually read them.

Except for when it doesn't...

Job Losses From Obama Green Stimulus Foreseen in Spanish Study (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=a2PHwqAs7BS0)


The premiums paid for solar, biomass, wave and wind power - - which are charged to consumers in their bills -- translated into a $774,000 cost for each Spanish “green job” created since 2000, said Gabriel Calzada, an economics professor at the university and author of the report.

“The loss of jobs could be greater if you account for the amount of lost industry that moves out of the country due to higher energy prices,” he said in an interview.

"Green Jobs" In Germany
(http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2009/10/024746.php)

While employment projections in the renewable sector convey seemingly impressive prospects for gross job growth, they typically obscure the broader implications for economic welfare by omitting any accounting of off-setting impacts. These impacts include, but are not limited to, job losses from crowding out of cheaper forms of conventional energy generation, indirect impacts on upstream industries, additional job losses from the drain on economic activity precipitated by higher electricity prices, private consumers' overall loss of purchasing power due to higher electricity prices, and diverting funds from other, possibly more beneficial investment.

WIND ENERGY, THE CASE OF DENMARK (http://www.cepos.dk/fileadmin/user_upload/Arkiv/PDF/Wind_energy_-_the_case_of_Denmark.pdf)


The Danish Wind industry counts 28,400 employees. This does not, however, constitute the net employment effect of the wind mill subsidy. In the long run, creating additional employment in one sector through subsidies will detract labor from other sectors, resulting in no increase in net employment but only in a shift from the non-subsidized sectors to the subsidized sector.

Allowing for the theoretical possibility of wind employment alleviating possible regional pockets of high unemployment, a very optimistic ballpark estimate of net real job creation is 10% of total employment in the sector. In this case the subsidy per job created is 600,000-
900,000 DKK per year ($90,000-140,000). This subsidy constitutes around 175-250% of the average pay per worker in the Danish manufacturing industry.

In terms of value added per employee, the energy technology sector over the period 1999-2006 underperformed by as much as 13% compared with the industrial average.

This implies that the effect of the government subsidy has been to shift employment from more productive employment in other sectors to less productive employment in the wind industry.

As a consequence, Danish GDP is approximately 1.8 billion DKK ($270 million) lower than it would have been if the wind sector work force was employed elsewhere.

So, every study doesn't say subsidizing alternative energy creates jobs. That would be "green jobs," whatever that is.

Billions for 'green jobs,' whatever they are (http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/politics/Billions-for-_green-jobs__-whatever-they-area-96098934.html)

Hello again, wrongwingers:

Here's the deal. Oil is finite. We ARE going to run out. Consequently, the oil companies WILL be out of business at SOME time in the future, and we WILL develop alternative energy sources, or our way of life is over.

Those are the undeniable and irrefutable facts.

So, we can start down that road NOW, or we can pretend that the future isn't really going to happen, which is what you wingers are doing. Guess what??

Now, I agree that we don't have the technology NOW, but it seems to me, that the government COULD stimulate development IF it offered subsidies, tax credits, deductions and any other incentive's to start moving in that direction.

You? Not so much.

excon

Now, I agree that we don't have the technology NOW, but it seems to me, that the government COULD stimulate development IF it offered subsidies, tax credits, deductions and any other incentive's to start moving in that direction.

You? Not so much.

And again you misrepresent us wingers. I'm not against alternative energy, I'm tired of the lies.

I'm tired of the lies.Imagine how WE feel! :)

Imagine how WE feel! :)

No thanks.

You don't really have fuel efficient cars and trucks there is much more that can be done but car makers will only make the costly changes when they are forced to do it. The days of the car industry being consumer driven are gone and consumers will want cars that are cheaper to run so the car makers should be leading

I agree. Except, consumers do continue to buy vehicles with poor efficiency--for all kinds of reasons. I was on the freeway yesterday, and every single vehicle for a half mile in one lane ahead of me was an SUV or pickup, each one, as far as I could tell, with one person and usually no load.

Sometimes companies want to be told what to do. If everybody has to do it, then they don't have to worry about being non competitive.

I heard a suggestion yesterday that vehicles in a certain size class whose efficiency is below a certain level would include a fee, which would be used to subsidize the purchase of vehicles with better efficiency. It would move buyers toward the more efficient vehicles.

And again you misrepresent us wingers. I'm not against alternative energy, I'm tired of the lies.Hello again, Steve:

No, you're just against how to PAY for it. Why should I pay for it? Let the people who PROFIT from energy pay for it. That means they should be TAXED, no? Otherwise, assuming you agree with my post about the government STIMULATING development, if the energy producers don't pay for it, WE, the TAXPAYERS will.

I know they can afford it. Exxon made about $40 BILLION last year. Tom and I argued back and forth about whether they made $10 Billion a QUARTER or for the whole year. It WAS, of course, just a quarter. But, I understand why tom would argue as he did. Even HE'S embarrassed by it...

Speaking of oil running out. We're NOT going to let the oil companies suck every last drop out of the earth. At some point in the future, we're going to nationalize that industry, aren't we? No?? Yes, we are.

excon

Hello again, tom:

Tom, you've been drinking right wing koolaid again. You might have seen on your local news, a Seattle cop slugging a 17 year old girl. Using your logic, I COULD say that the police are the problem, instead of saying this ONE cop is the problem...

THESE BUSH and OBAMA regulators DIDN'T do their jobs. That doesn't mean government IS part of the problem. I understand, though. For a guy who believes government IS the problem, it ain't much of a leap.

excon

Yup not that hard a leap at all. It is a consistent problem as regulations pile one upon another that safeguard nothing ;but increases costs.

Why don't you address the point I made where I really thought government was the problem... in that regulations and policy forced the oil companies to move to deeper water where the drilling is riskier and more expensive ? The big lie was that we have run out of places on land and in shallow waters to drill .There are 503 billion barrels of oil estimated at the Bakken field in North Dakota;South Dakota; and Montana .

No, you're just against how to PAY for it.

At the moment I'm just tired of the lies... and the bullying. Obama plans on ramming cap and tax down our throats (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/horseraceblog/2010/06/the_pulpit_of_a_bully_1.html) just like he did with health care.

At the moment I'm just tired of the lies. Obama plans on ramming cap and tax down our throats just like he did with health care.Hello again, Steve:

Me too. It's a LIE that passing legislation is ramming ANYTHING down ANYONE'S throats. From a winger, who purportedly is a patriot, and loves his country, to diss the law making process like you're doing, is UN-AMERICAN, UNPATRIOTIC, and is supportive of some OTHER document besides the CONSTITUTION of these United States of America. I haven't a clue which document that might be. Want to tell us?

Is this a great country, or what?

excon

It's not that the tingle is gone, CNN confirms we're just not smart enough to appreciate Obama's genius (http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/06/16/obama.speech.analysis/index.html?hpt=C1).

Now, I agree that we don't have the technology NOW, but it seems to me, that the government COULD stimulate development IF it offered subsidies, tax credits, deductions and any other incentive's to start moving in that direction.

You? Not so much.


Yeah that's right . I'm not so much against development of alternate energies. Even BP (beyond pretroleum ) is part of this alt energy thingy . Big oil is first and foremost an energy industry and they are already investing in that future . And that is how it should be .

Ask yourself what the sainted libertarian Ron Paul would think of the government investing money in "future technology" or steering the direction of the market through subsidies and the tax code .

What do you get when you do that?. Boondoggles like the ethanol industry .

Me too. It's a LIE that passing legislation is ramming ANYTHING down ANYONE'S throats.

I thought the idea of a representative was to represent, not run roughshod over. Just the fact that they CAN pass legislation doesn't make it right.

I thought the idea of a representative was to represent, not run roughshod over. Just the fact that they CAN pass legislation doesn't make it right.Hello again, Steve:

Civics lesson number #2: When the representatives ran for their seat, they TOLD the voters what they were going to do, and the voters voted them IN. Then they proceeded to DO what they SAID they would do. That's the way it works around here in this great country of ours. Ain't nobody running roughshod over anybody.

The only thing that changed since they were elected, when they actually grew a set and started DOING the public's business, was the noise machine from the right. They started scaring the hell out of everybody with LIES (which I thought you were opposed to) such as "death panels".

THOSE kinds of lies would scare ANYBODY - and they did. But, the health care law doesn't have death panels. Imagine that.

So, I suppose you better start preparing your lies for cap and trade - cause that's what the elected representatives said they were going to do. Hopefully, they WILL. That ISN'T ramming ANYTHING down ANYONE'S throats. It's the Constitution at work.

Ain't this a great country?

excon

You mean like Obama is KEEPING his promises (http://www.aurorasentinel.com/articles/2010/02/07/opinion/columnists/doc4b6af63781c92027520167.prt)? Bwaa ha ha ha!


Green: Obama is a victim of Bush's failed promises
By CHUCK GREEN
Columnist
Published: Sunday, February 7, 2010 11:14 AM MST

Barack Obama is setting a record-setting number of records during his first year in office.

Largest budget ever. Largest deficit ever. Largest number of broken promises ever. Most self-serving speeches ever. Largest number of agenda-setting failures ever. Fastest dive in popularity ever.

Wow. Talk about change.

Just one year ago, fresh from his inauguration celebrations, President Obama was flying high. After one of the nation’s most inspiring political campaigns, the election of America’s first black president had captured the hopes and dreams of millions. To his devout followers, it was inconceivable that a year later his administration would be gripped in self-imposed crisis.

Of course, they don’t see it as self imposed. It’s all George Bush’s fault.

George Bush, who doesn’t have a vote in Congress and who no longer occupies the White House, is to blame for it all.

He broke Obama’s promise to put all bills on the White House web site for five days before signing them.

He broke Obama’s promise to have the congressional health care negotiations broadcast live on C-SPAN.

He broke Obama’s promise to end earmarks.

He broke Obama’s promise to keep unemployment from rising above 8 percent.

He broke Obama’s promise to close the detention center at Guantanamo in the first year.

He broke Obama’s promise to make peace with direct, no pre-condition talks with America’s most hate-filled enemies during his first year in office, ushering in a new era of global cooperation.

He broke Obama’s promise to end the hiring of former lobbyists into high White House jobs.

He broke Obama’s promise to end no-compete contracts with the government.

He broke Obama’s promise to disclose the names of all attendees at closed White House meetings.

He broke Obama’s promise for a new era of bipartisan cooperation in all matters.

He broke Obama’s promise to have chosen a home church to attend Sunday services with his family by Easter of last year.

Yes, it’s all George Bush’s fault. President Obama is nothing more than a puppet in the never-ending, failed Bush administration.

If only George Bush wasn’t still in charge, all of President Obama’s problems would be solved. His promises would have been kept, the economy would be back on track, Iran would have stopped its work on developing a nuclear bomb and would be negotiating a peace treaty with Israel, North Korea would have ended its tyrannical regime, and integrity would have been restored to the federal government.

Oh, and did I mention what it would be like if the Democrats, under the leadership of Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, didn’t have the heavy yoke of George Bush around their necks. There would be no earmarks, no closed-door drafting of bills, no increase in deficit spending, no special-interest influence (unions), no vote buying (Nebraska, Louisiana).

If only George Bush wasn’t still in charge, we’d have real change by now.

All the broken promises, all the failed legislation and delay (health care reform, immigration reform) is not President Obama’s fault or the fault of the Democrat-controlled Congress. It’s all George Bush’s fault.

Take for example the decision of Eric Holder, the president’s attorney general, to hold terrorists’ trials in New York City. Or his decision to try the Christmas Day underpants bomber as a civilian.

Two disastrous decisions.

Certainly those were bad judgments based on poor advice from George Bush.

Need more proof?

You might recall that when Scott Brown won last month’s election to the U.S. Senate from Massachusetts, capturing “the Ted Kennedy seat,” President Obama said that Brown’s victory was the result of the same voter anger that propelled Obama into office in 2008. People were still angry about George Bush and the policies of the past 10 years, and they wanted change.

Yes, according to the president, the voter rebellion in Massachusetts last month was George Bush’s fault.

Therefore, in retaliation, they elected a Republican to the Ted Kennedy seat, ending a half-century of domination by Democrats.

It is all George Bush’s fault.

Will the failed administration of George Bush ever end, and the time for hope and change ever arrive?

Will President Obama ever accept responsibility for something — anything?

Chuck Green, veteran Colorado journalist and former editor-in-chief of The Denver Post, syndicates a statewide column and is at [email protected]


Copyright © 2010 - Aurora Sentinel

Hello again, Steve:

I'm not talking about Obama. I'm talking about congress. All Obama has to do is sign the danged thing.

But, you don't have to convince me about his lies. He said he would END the Bush insanity, and he embraced it instead.

excon

PolitiFact | The Obameter: Tracking Barack Obama's Campaign Promises (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/)

31558

Seems he is doing OK. Plus that website has a lot more detail that the previous opinion talking-points website.

I'm not talking about Obama. I'm talking about congress. All Obama has to do is sign the danged thing.

But, you don't have to convince me about his lies. He said he would END the Bush insanity, and he embraced it instead.

You forget but I don't, that the Democrats gained control of Congress in 2006 by running a Trojan Horse campaign. It was all a big lie.

But since this is a thread on the Obama tingle factor and we're discussing lies, remember how many times he said if I liked my current plan I could keep it? Not happening...

The Unmet Promise Of Obamacare (http://www.forbes.com/2010/06/15/obamacare-medical-health-care-opinions-contributors-marc-siegel.html?boxes=opinionschannellatest)

But since this is a thread on the Obama tingle factor and we;re discussing lies, remember how many times he said if I liked my current plan I could keep it? Not happening......

The Unmet Promise Of Obamacare (http://www.forbes.com/2010/06/15/obamacare-medical-health-care-opinions-contributors-marc-siegel.html?boxes=opinionschannellatest)There is something wrong with that article. It talks about a draft written up that details the grandfathering clause but links to Forbes search results. A link to the actual source information would be helpful, no? Also it's just a draft, not law. Also he talks about what "may" happen if employers decided not to follow. That article is full of holes.

If it's all a lie it should be easy for you to point to law where the lie resides. But it's always just these opinion pieces.

If it's all a lie it should be easy for you to point to law where the lie resides. But it's always just these opinion pieces.

There you go again trying to tell us which sources are approved. If you had paid attention, I argued way back that once the bill is passed that's only the beginning. From there it goes to the relevant government agencies to write the regulations, something Dr. Siegel also pointed out. Yes, the possibility exists the final draft will change but for now (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/06/11/AR2010061106066.html?wpisrc=nl_headline)...


President Obama said repeatedly during the health-care debate that people who like their current coverage would be able to keep it. But an early draft of an administration regulation estimates that many employers will be forced to change their health plans under the new law.

In just three years, a majority of workers -- 51 percent -- will be in plans subject to new federal requirements, according to midrange projections in the draft.

An anonymous administration official said "the final version will uphold Obama's promise."

He did promise after all. :rolleyes:

There you go again trying to tell us which sources are approved.
You really have to stop the whining. I commented on the content and still you whine. Dear god.

You really have to stop the whining. I commented on the content and still you whine. Dear god.

"If it's all a lie it should be easy for you to point to law where the lie resides. But it's always just these opinion pieces."

That's a criticism of the source.

Civics lesson number #2: When the representatives ran for their seat, they TOLD the voters what they were going to do, and the voters voted them IN. Then they proceeded to DO what they SAID they would do.

There's the problem. They haven't. For a long time (like, a century or so)

Tom, you've been drinking right wing koolaid again. You might have seen on your local news, a Seattle cop slugging a 17 year old girl. Using your logic, I COULD say that the police are the problem, instead of saying this ONE cop is the problem...


This probably deserves it's own OP . But I'll address it here.

Or you could say the women resisting arrest was the real problem.
Preface... this incident happened after Officer Ian Walsh ,patrolling alone had stopped a group of girls after they had crossed a major intersection illegally instead of using a pedestrian overpass. The Officer intended to just warn them and instruct them about the danger of crossing where they did.
One of the "girls " ;Marilyn Levias, age 19, started walking away.He warned her that if she walked away he would have to arrest her. She continued to walk away. He grabbed her arm in an attempt to detain her ,and she began to resist arrest .The video begins at that point .
http://www.kirotv.com/video/23904902/index.html

A second girl Angel Rosenthal, age 17, can be seen being restrained by a man. But she breaks free and uses her hands to push Officer Walsh from Levias . She is the girl who the officer punches .Now officer Walsh was struggling with both girls . The man again restrains Rosenthal while Office Walsh final gets Levias in a position to cuff her.
Then he turned his attention back to Rosenthal . He restrained her against the hood of the car until backup arrived with another pair of cuffs.

1.It is a no win situation for a male cop . How much use of force is justified in arresting a female who resists and in fact assaults the cop ? You will see in the video that pound for pound Walsh and Rosenthal are about equal. Maybe if he was armed with a taser he wouldn't have needed to punch her .
2. To add gas to the fire ;he is white and they are black.
3. The idiots with the cellphones recording it should've put their phones down long enough to assist the cop. Only the male restraining Rosenthal was any help.In fact ;if it were me ,I would've been suspicious of the growing crowd.

Officer Walsh was in a classic no win situation. Use too much force you're a bully compared to a male domestic abuser (at the Urban League press conference after the incident ). Use too little to make the arrest and you look like a wimp and a fool.What is missed is that by shoving Walsh and resisting arrest Rosenthal committed a felony.

An anonymous administration official said "the final version will uphold Obama's promise." Hello again, Steve:

AP Poll: Public now favors (http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2012145075_healthpoll18.html)Obama health-care law.

Imagine that. So, when the public found out there weren't any death panels, they like it...

The most recent Associated Press-GfK poll on Obama's top domestic achievement finds support for the new overhaul has risen to its highest point since the survey started asking people about it in September, six months before it became law.

The results now: 45 percent in favor, 42 percent opposed. That's a significant shift in public sentiment, considering that opposition hit 50 percent after Obama signed the health plan into law in late March and that in May, supporters were outnumbered 39 percent to 46 percent.

Tell me again, about cramming stuff down our throats.

Bwa, ha ha ha ha.

excon

AP Poll: Public now favors (http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2012145075_healthpoll18.html)Obama health-care law.

Imagine that. So, when the public found out there weren't any death panels, they like it...

Hmmm... (http://new.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/healthcare/health_care_law)


For the second week in a row, 58% of Likely U.S. Voters favor repeal of the national health care plan adopted into law by Congress in late March. The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds 36% oppose repeal.

I'd say the opinion is still mixed.

Hehe.. Rasmussen polls, the fallback of the neocon.

OK arbiter of acceptable sources... will a CNN poll satisfy ?


The poll suggests that most Americans continue to oppose the passage of the health care bill which Obama signed into law in April, although the public may be slightly more optimistic about the bill's ultimate effect on the country.

According to the survey, 56 percent of the public disapprove of the passage of the bill, with 43 percent approving of the new law.

"Opposition is highest among men, older Americans, and people who make more than $50,000 a year," says Holland.

But Americans are more evenly divided over whether the health care bill will be good or bad for the country. Fifty-one percent of people questioned in the survey say the bill will hurt the U.S. with 46 percent saying it will help.
CNN Political Ticker: All politics, all the time Blog Archive - CNN Poll: Americans split on top two Obama initiatives - Blogs from CNN.com (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/06/02/cnn-poll-americans-split-on-top-two-obama-initiatives/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:+rss/cnn_politicalticker+(Blog:+Political+Ticker)&fbid=q7ucyMOvT_C)

ok arbiter of acceptable sources ...will a CNN poll satisfy ? Hello again, tom.

Not for me. I'm not a poll type of guy. I know that they can be manipulated by the questions... I'll even apologize for posting my AP poll.

Nope, like the president, I KNOW the people will like the law once the lies you guys told become glaringly clear. So, I don't need no stinkin poll. The law is a GOOD law. I know it. I can read.

Plus, I don't need to know that other people agree with me or not. My opinions are MINE - not the majority. As a matter of fact, if my opinions WERE the same as the majority, I'd change 'em.

excon

Hello again, tom.

As a matter of fact, if my opinions WERE the same as the majority, I'd change 'em.

excon

Why am I not surprised?:D