Jump to content

Obama: Uniter or Divider?


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 86
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

How can you have it both ways? In another thread, you said there was no reason that UE should be extended because there are jobs out there, that people are just too lazy to take them.

 

That's not true at all. In my post above, I was making reference to finding a job in their field. Anyone and everyone could be working if they were truly motivated to find employment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's not true at all. In my post above, I was making reference to finding a job in their field. Anyone and everyone could be working if they were truly motivated to find employment.

 

Really? I have been laid off work since August 2009 plus I know several other people that have been laid off from the same company I have applied for over a 1000 jobs. I am far from lazy I have been raising my 4 year old son on my own since he was 5 months old not many men know how to take care of a child. I don't think u should be calling people lazy just cause there laid off I was making over 40,000 dollars a year and now if I do get a job it will be for 20,000 dollars a year if I am lucky. I am very lucky that my mom let me and my son move in back home or I would be homeless with my son living on the streets being on unemployment is no joke it sucks. Yea a extenison was passed for unemployment but the KY unemployment offices say it will be atleast a week before anybody gets a check.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't agree across the board but I think this is a great post.

 

What is the definition of a uniter? I'm not certain that is achievable in politics sans a common enemy. The moment of unity that springs to mind for me is Bush's performance immediately following 9/11, but that eroded into nasty division fairly quickly and that unity didn't come in the form of legislative or policy compromise but in the form of a cohesive national mood and rallying cry.

 

What makes unity even more difficult are the 24-hour news stations that pass themselves off as unbiased, when we all know they have a major slant toward either the liberal or conservative side. So long as there's a Democrat in office, Fox News will be there to cut him/her down. So long as there's a Republican in office, MSNBC--and to a lesser extent, CNN--will be there to cut him/her down. That's not to mention all the bloggers and journalists. Unfortunately, the rise of the 24/7 news media has helped to escalate the tension in our country.

 

You make excellent points about a common enemy being the primary reason for past unification. And as I said in my previous post, it's sad that it takes bloodshed to bring us together.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Which means, that if they had any party discipline or loyalty they could have filibustered everything, but it was not in their mind to make Bush a failure. They were more worried about the country.

 

As to the other post about Health Care - I can possibly, maybe, doubtfully understand that vote, but all 41 are against financial regulation, and all 41 are against UE insurance and all 41 are against, and so on, and so on, and so on.

 

Their goal is for President Obama to fail, regardless of whether or not they agree with the vote/policy. No way there are 41 homogenous people in the Senate elected from all over the country that vote exactly the same on every major piece of legislation.

 

This would be funny if I didn't think you were serious.

 

Of course Obama's s divider. I can't remember the last politician who wasn't. Where his problem lies is that he campaigned that he would be different. And people actually believed him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Again, Bush didn't have the numbers in the Senate to do what ever he felt like. He had to work with the Dem's in order to get anything passed. They didn't filibuster anything because they got what they wanted.

 

Did you stop to think that maybe they are against welfare...I mean UE insurance being extended because we're broke with no way to pay for it? As far as the banking regulations I would have to read more about it.

 

If they are worried about us being broke, why do they want to lower the revenue? They are not asking for the extension of the tax cuts to be paid for.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If they are worried about us being broke, why do they want to lower the revenue? They are not asking for the extension of the tax cuts to be paid for.

They aren't wanting to lower it, they just don't want to raise it. If Obama wasn't spending money like a drunken sailor on shore leave the current revenue would be more then enough.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Really? You got a single fact to back that up?

 

War -

Stimulus - one time deal

Health Care - spending not happening here yet

 

Where are his big spending programs.

 

I think you answered your own question. Aren't those enough????

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1. You want him to quit spending on Bush's War?

2. Stimulus is certainly debatable

3. There is no spending on the health care progras right now.

 

So, the only thing is the stimulus. That is it, nothing else.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1. You want him to quit spending on Bush's War?

2. Stimulus is certainly debatable

3. There is no spending on the health care progras right now.

 

So, the only thing is the stimulus. That is it, nothing else.

Let's see, the deficit will reach 1.4 trillion this. That isn't all because of the war.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using the site you agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use Policies.