If Obama's critics would offer something coherent, I would listen to them.

[Kathryn]

At least my source is not an agenda filled group of people who are still upset that McCain lost....


Yes, you need to actually read the bill for yourself and stop relying on the nonsense you want to hear.

Or perhaps we are back to your not being able to understand what is written in the bill and are reliant upon the "interpretations" of others?

I've read the bill in it's entirity. It's easy to understand for the most part, though it IS ambiguous about it's reach into parental rights, and the question of whether or not private hospitals will be allowed to refuse to perform abortions under this bill.

 

[shortfade2]

Where can you read these bills online? The whitehouse.com maybe?

 

[Alceste]

Actually, I have some work to do, so I'll save the whole issue of Obama's corrupt cabinet and appointees for another time (though I WILL get to it).

Also forthcoming - my issues with his history of association with radical racists.

Please refer to Rule 1. This is a policy and legislation criticism thread. I'll save you the trouble of detailing your "guilt by association" arguments. They are guaranteed not to impress me, and will do more harm to your case against the Democrats than good.

You're doing OK with Cash for Clunkers and Cap and Trade, BUT, you're dangerously close to violating Rule 2 (must be your own opinion) by linking to "Opinion" columns in the Wall Street Journal to back up your argument. Opinions are not facts. Needless to say, I didn't read either article. If you're going to link to something, I'd prefer that you link to the actual legislation you are commenting on.

 

[McBell]

Where can you read these bills online?

Yes:

American Clean Energy and Security Act <--- actually links to a page that lists, and links to, the FOUR different versions of said act.

Cash For Clunkers

Freedom of Choice Act
​

 

[Kathryn]

Nyah - the links to the actual bills are easy to find - just type in the title of the bill and google it.

As for the "guilt by association" posts (forthcoming) I intend to list the appointees, czars, and nominations that Obama has made - along with their criminal records and and corruption scandals. Will that be specific enough for you?

It's an amazing list. I started compiling it several weeks ago (these criminal charges and records are very easy to verify objectively) and the criminal acts and scandals were so NUMEROUS that I actually got bored with it. I mean, it was so redundant - tax evasion, tax evasion, tax evasion, tax evasion, racist rants, racist rants, tax evasion, tax evasion, racist rants, racist rants...

A definite pattern.

You can know a man by the company he keeps.

 

[McBell]

I've read the bill in it's entirity. It's easy to understand for the most part, though it IS ambiguous about it's reach into parental rights, and the question of whether or not private hospitals will be allowed to refuse to perform abortions under this bill.

Funny how your arguments all assume that this bill will somehow magically over write and make void all laws that have to do specifically with the areas you are using for your fear mongering.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Where can you read these bills online? The whitehouse.com maybe?

You will either be disappointed and shocked or maybe you'd be pleased if you "accidentally" went to whitehouse.com. I was told it was a porn site.:flirt:......so be careful.

I think you meant... Welcome to the White House...

I hope....

 

[Kathryn]

You're doing OK with Cash for Clunkers and Cap and Trade, BUT, you're dangerously close to violating Rule 2 (must be your own opinion) by linking to "Opinion" columns in the Wall Street Journal to back up your argument. Opinions are not facts. Needless to say, I didn't read either article. If you're going to link to something, I'd prefer that you link to the actual legislation you are commenting on.

You know what - some people (hey, like myself!) base their opinions on facts. If you take the time to read the WSJ articles, you will see facts presented in them. However, they weren't the sole basis for my concerns - my concerns are based more on economic principles and party platforms, which are pretty easy to define.

Of course, you don't have to read the links. You don't have to try to actually understand another person's point of view. That may be asking too much.

 

[McBell]

As for the "guilt by association" posts (forthcoming) I intend to list the appointees, czars, and nominations that Obama has made - along with their criminal records and and corruption scandals. Will that be specific enough for you?

Why bother?
You have already been flat out told that they will be ignored.
Do you not have anything more substantial to support your position?

Personally, I would flat out ask the Mods to delete any all "guilt by association" posts.
If that is all you have, then you have nothing.

You can know a man by the company he keeps.

Really?
So you are a firm believer in the guilt by association?

So, how about Jesus Christ?
You do know that he went to great lengths to be amongst the sinners, right?
I cannot wait to hear your guilt by association in concerns with Him....

 

[McBell]

you know what - some people (hey, like myself!) base their opinions on facts.

foul!

 

[mobious]

even if they use facts they use their facts on bolth sides.

 

[Alceste]

Nyah - the links to the actual bills are easy to find - just type in the title of the bill and google it.

As for the "guilt by association" posts (forthcoming) I intend to list the appointees, czars, and nominations that Obama has made - along with their criminal records and and corruption scandals. Will that be specific enough for you?

It will be meaningless. It's not an intelligent criticism. Every government appoints people somebody doesn't like for some reason. Your criticism will hinge on your assumptions about the personal character of various political appointees. The foundation of your assumptions will be your own values of what makes for "good" and "bad" people, which are subjective.

In other words, it's a totally pointless direction, and would take you well into the forbidden (for this thread) territory of simply regurgitating incoherent Republican yapping points and violating every one of the rules in the OP.

I'm not saying you can't still do it, since you seem desperately to want to, I'm just saying I won't bother reading or responding to any posts on the subject of the company he keeps.

It's an amazing list. I started compiling it several weeks ago (these criminal charges and records are very easy to verify objectively) and the criminal acts and scandals were so NUMEROUS that I actually got bored with it. I mean, it was so redundant - tax evasion, tax evasion, tax evasion, tax evasion, racist rants, racist rants, tax evasion, tax evasion, racist rants, racist rants...

A definite pattern.

You can know a man by the company he keeps.

And I bet you undertook the same exercise for the Bush administration, right? Of course you did, because you're an "independent".

 

[Kathryn]

Why bother?
You have already been flat out told that they will be ignored.
Do you not have anything more substantial to support your position?

Personally, I would flat out ask the Mods to delete any all "guilt by association" posts.
If that is all you have, then you have nothing.

Well, you can't say that I have nothing, when so far I've presented specific bills and my own specific disagreements with them - disagreements by the way which have not been refuted successfully. In fact, the only half way refute so far has been your link to Snopes about FOCA (which, ironically, supported some of my concerns about this bill).

I've given facts, and my OWN opinions (nothing, NOTHING, cut and pasted from ANY conservative website - or gleaned from any). So far, I think I have given what the OP asked for - clear, concise answers and my own independent thoughts on the issues.

I've seen precious few facts from anyone else - but plenty of opinions and advice to me on how to present my own answers in this thread.

Hmmm, who's fluffy now? You need to put a little meat on your bones.

 

[mobious]

It will be meaningless. It's not an intelligent criticism. Every government appoints people somebody doesn't like for some reason. Your criticism will hinge on your assumptions about the personal character of various political appointees. The foundation of your assumptions will be your own values of what makes for "good" and "bad" people, which are subjective.

In other words, it's a totally pointless direction, and would take you well into the forbidden (for this thread) territory of simply regurgitating incoherent Republican yapping points and violating every one of the rules in the OP.

I'm not saying you can't still do it, since you seem desperately to want to, I'm just saying I won't bother reading or responding to any posts on the subject of the company he keeps.

And I bet you undertook the same exercise for the Bush administration, right? Of course you did, because you're an "independent".

I concur

 

[Alceste]

You know what - some people (hey, like myself!) base their opinions on facts. If you take the time to read the WSJ articles, you will see facts presented in them. However, they weren't the sole basis for my concerns - my concerns are based more on economic principles and party platforms, which are pretty easy to define.

Of course, you don't have to read the links. You don't have to try to actually understand another person's point of view. That may be asking too much.

Take me straight to the facts, please. I can make my own opinions. Life is too short to wade through Wall Street Journal editorials looking for factual claims to verify.

I'm not saying that whatever policy you choose to criticize has to be the ONLY issue you care about. I'm only asking people to demonstrate that it is possible to construct a well-reasoned, fact-based, policy-based criticism of the Obama administration, and to defend it. So, which do you prefer - Cash for Clunkers or Cap and Trade? I'd advise you to pick the one you are most familiar with.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Question....Please excuse me if I'm side stepping for a moment.

The people that the president appoints...Don't they have to be vetted?

 

[mobious]

Hmmm, who's fluffy now? You need to put a little meat on your bones.[/quote]

vary mature to finish an arguement with an insult.

 

[Alceste]

Well, you can't say that I have nothing, when so far I've presented specific bills and my own specific disagreements with them - disagreements by the way which have not been refuted successfully. In fact, the only half way refute so far has been your link to Snopes about FOCA (which, ironically, supported some of my concerns about this bill).

I've given facts, and my OWN opinions (nothing, NOTHING, cut and pasted from ANY conservative website - or gleaned from any). So far, I think I have given what the OP asked for - clear, concise answers and my own independent thoughts on the issues.

I've seen precious few facts from anyone else - but plenty of opinions and advice to me on how to present my own answers in this thread.

Simmer down, there, tiger. I'm not saying you haven't met the conditions of the OP with Cap and Trade and Cash for Clunkers. You have, but it takes time to fact-check and research the foundations of an opinion, and consider the logic of the conclusions presented. That's what listening is (in any meaningful sense), and that's the whole point of this thread.

 

[mobious]

Simmer down, there, tiger. I'm not saying you haven't met the conditions of the OP with Cap and Trade and Cash for Clunkers. You have, but it takes time to fact-check and research the foundations of an opinion, and consider the logic of the conclusions presented. That's what listening is (in any meaningful sense), and that's the whole point of this thread.

once agian i concur.

 

[Kathryn]

It will be meaningless. It's not an intelligent criticism. Every government appoints people somebody doesn't like for some reason. Your criticism will hinge on your assumptions about the personal character of various political appointees. The foundation of your assumptions will be your own values of what makes for "good" and "bad" people, which are subjective.

And I bet you undertook the same exercise for the Bush administration, right? Of course you did, because you're an "independent".

So actual criminal records and documented IRS investigations aren't objective enough for you? Well, I think that's a bit odd, but ok - you're the only one who can unlock your own mind, I guess.

As for Bush, as a matter of fact, I DID do the same investigation into his appointees and Cabinet members and czars. For many years, I have thought that Bush is an ineffective, rather dull puppet - but I better not say that, because I don't have my research notes in front of me and I'd hate to be accused of having unsubstantiated opinions.

The Obama administration's documented corruption levels (limited to criminal records and IRS investigations and findings) already exceed Bush's, by a LONG shot - and this is after just 8 months, not 8 years.

All of this information is public record. But I won't bore you with the details -anyone who is TRULY interested can research it on their own, just like I did.

And besides that, you've made it clear you'll ignore the information. Why should I waste my time?

In fact, why am I wasting my time right now???? I could be reading something actually edifying. I just bought five books yesterday - what am I THINKING of????