It's so refreshing...

Collapse
X
 
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • Tim
    Not Banned
    • Nov 2008
    • 4390

    #1

    It's so refreshing...

    to finally have leadership that's willing to put an idea out there and then re-evaluate the idea once the public's opinion is shared. I don't mean to sound dogmatic in saying this, either. This that we're seeing right now is my definition of "good government." The transparency is impressive.
    Visca Catalunya Lliure
  • byu71
    Senior Member
    • Nov 2008
    • 22070

    #2
    Originally posted by Tim View Post
    to finally have leadership that's willing to put an idea out there and then re-evaluate the idea once the public's opinion is shared. I don't mean to sound dogmatic in saying this, either. This that we're seeing right now is my definition of "good government." The transparency is impressive.
    Tim, before I respond and find out I have been pwned, are you saying this TIC.

    Comment

    • Tim
      Not Banned
      • Nov 2008
      • 4390

      #3
      Originally posted by byu71 View Post
      Tim, before I respond and find out I have been pwned, are you saying this TIC.
      No, not TIC at all. I'm happy that we have a government that's willing to put fresh policy ideas out there and then respond to the feedback. That's something a good government should do. Emergencies are one thing -- we've elected them to respond to emergencies using their best knowledge, people, and beliefs -- but policy changes *should* be subjected to the people.
      Visca Catalunya Lliure

      Comment

      • byu71
        Senior Member
        • Nov 2008
        • 22070

        #4
        Originally posted by Tim View Post
        No, not TIC at all. I'm happy that we have a government that's willing to put fresh policy ideas out there and then respond to the feedback. That's something a good government should do. Emergencies are one thing -- we've elected them to respond to emergencies using their best knowledge, people, and beliefs -- but policy changes *should* be subjected to the people.
        Are you talking about the same government that called these folks who expressed their opinions, nazi's, anti american, mobs, organized by the far right, rednecks, illiterates, etc. etc. Yea, it is refreshing that when the government with the help of the mainstream media can't crush the peoples feelings, they back off so they can get reelected.

        I am in hopes this President will end up as good as Bill Clinton. Of course for that to happen the republicans will need to take over the Senate and House during the next election.

        Comment

        • Tim
          Not Banned
          • Nov 2008
          • 4390

          #5
          Originally posted by byu71 View Post
          Are you talking about the same government that called these folks who expressed their opinions, nazi's, anti american, mobs, organized by the far right, rednecks, illiterates, etc. etc. Yea, it is refreshing that when the government with the help of the mainstream media can't crush the peoples feelings, they back off so they can get reelected.

          I am in hopes this President will end up as good as Bill Clinton. Of course for that to happen the republicans will need to take over the Senate and House during the next election.
          Now, now, don't fall for the Fox News hype. No one has referred to people who have expressed their opinions as anti-American or any of the things you mentioned. Those comments were directed at people who were TAKING OVER town halls, yelling, speaking out of turn, screaming, insulting congressmen, and being uncivil. You realize that happened, right? Do you endorse the sharing of opinions through all means possible? Through hijacking congressional town halls and screaming at the top of lungs? Is that something you endorse?

          It's high time you stopped going to Hallelujah for your political news, 71!
          Visca Catalunya Lliure

          Comment

          • Indy Coug
            Heartless Bastard
            • Dec 2008
            • 18747

            #6
            I think it's simply a desperate attempt to come up with something, ANYTHING, to pass as legislation at this point rather than suffer the huge ignominy of being the 21st century incarnation of HillaryCare.
            Everything in life is an approximation.

            http://twitter.com/CougarStats

            Comment

            • cowboy
              Homer Weems
              • Dec 2008
              • 5740

              #7
              Originally posted by Tim View Post
              Now, now, don't fall for the Fox News hype. No one has referred to people who have expressed their opinions as anti-American or any of the things you mentioned. Those comments were directed at people who were TAKING OVER town halls, yelling, speaking out of turn, screaming, insulting congressmen, and being uncivil. You realize that happened, right? Do you endorse the sharing of opinions through all means possible? Through hijacking congressional town halls and screaming at the top of lungs? Is that something you endorse?

              It's high time you stopped going to Hallelujah for your political news, 71!
              So are paid organizers good or bad? I mean, is it a good thing or a bad thing to bus paid demonstrators to a town hall meeting to protest/support a cause?
              sigpic
              "Outlined against a blue, gray
              October sky the Four Horsemen rode again"
              Grantland Rice, 1924

              Comment

              • Tim
                Not Banned
                • Nov 2008
                • 4390

                #8
                Originally posted by cowboy View Post
                So are paid organizers good or bad? I mean, is it a good thing or a bad thing to bus paid demonstrators to a town hall meeting to protest/support a cause?
                I think that's cut from the same tree as lobbying and lobbyists. Money does indeed talk.
                Visca Catalunya Lliure

                Comment

                • JohnnyLingo
                  La Naranja
                  • Nov 2008
                  • 3976

                  #9
                  Here's what I don't understand: Obama won the election quite handily. That seems to indicate that a rather large majority of the American people were on board with the guy.

                  Now, President Obama withdraws the public option from the current draft of the bill because those same American people are against it?

                  It seems to me that there were a lot of voters who weren't paying attention very closely last fall.

                  Comment

                  • Tim
                    Not Banned
                    • Nov 2008
                    • 4390

                    #10
                    Originally posted by JohnnyLingo View Post
                    Here's what I don't understand: Obama won the election quite handily. That seems to indicate that a rather large majority of the American people were on board with the guy.

                    Now, President Obama withdraws the public option from the current draft of the bill because those same American people are against it?

                    It seems to me that there were a lot of voters who weren't paying attention very closely last fall.
                    Incorrect. You'll find as you look into it that most moderates and liberals wanted some type of non-public reform more than a specific public healthcare system. Even at election time less than half of Democrats polled (I remember this -- I don't have a link now, sorry) supported public healthcare. Most Democrats favored controls on the insurance industry as their preferred way of reforming the system.
                    Visca Catalunya Lliure

                    Comment

                    • YOhio
                      Hipster Mode
                      • Nov 2008
                      • 26165

                      #11
                      I agree with you Tim. After the cram-through of the stimulus plan and cap and trade in the House, I'm glad to see the Administration act a little less forceful and more transparent.

                      Comment

                      • cowboy
                        Homer Weems
                        • Dec 2008
                        • 5740

                        #12
                        Originally posted by Tim View Post
                        I think that's cut from the same tree as lobbying and lobbyists. Money does indeed talk.
                        So do agree or disagree with Pelosi labeling the protesters as AstroTurf?

                        Also, what is your opinion of Barbara Boxer's comment that she didn't believe that protesters were anything other than paid shills because they were too nicely dressed?
                        sigpic
                        "Outlined against a blue, gray
                        October sky the Four Horsemen rode again"
                        Grantland Rice, 1924

                        Comment

                        • JohnnyLingo
                          La Naranja
                          • Nov 2008
                          • 3976

                          #13
                          Originally posted by Tim View Post
                          Incorrect. You'll find as you look into it that most moderates and liberals wanted some type of non-public reform more than a specific public healthcare system. Even at election time less than half of Democrats polled (I remember this -- I don't have a link now, sorry) supported public healthcare. Most Democrats favored controls on the insurance industry as their preferred way of reforming the system.
                          Exactly what I'm saying. Most moderates and liberals wants some type of non-public reform instead of a universal healthcare option.... yet Senator Obama is on the record as wanting the latter, and has been for a long time.

                          So moderates and liberals elect President Obama, chant his name, love him, adore him, and then he turns around and pushes for universal healthcare and gets some pushback from the very people who elected him.

                          Just seems odd that either the electorate weren't paying attention last fall or Obama badly misread these people.

                          Comment

                          • Tim
                            Not Banned
                            • Nov 2008
                            • 4390

                            #14
                            Originally posted by JohnnyLingo View Post
                            Exactly what I'm saying. Most moderates and liberals wants some type of non-public reform instead of a universal healthcare option.... yet Senator Obama is on the record as wanting the latter, and has been for a long time.

                            So moderates and liberals elect President Obama, chant his name, love him, adore him, and then he turns around and pushes for universal healthcare and gets some pushback from the very people who elected him.

                            Just seems odd that either the electorate weren't paying attention last fall or Obama badly misread these people.
                            Or the reality, which is that no one supports 100% of any candidate's platform.
                            Visca Catalunya Lliure

                            Comment

                            • JohnnyLingo
                              La Naranja
                              • Nov 2008
                              • 3976

                              #15
                              Originally posted by Tim View Post
                              Or the reality, which is that no one supports 100% of any candidate's platform.
                              So it's the latter... President Obama badly misread what the people who elected him wanted.

                              Comment

                              Working...