View Poll Results: Will Obama live up to his victory speech?

Voters
60. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes

    14 23.33%
  • No

    37 61.67%
  • Other

    9 15.00%
Page 3 of 15 FirstFirst 1234513 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 144

Thread: Will Obama live up to his victory speech?

  1. #21
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,998

    Re: Will Obama live up to his victory speech?

    Quote Originally Posted by Morality Games View Post
    What form would such compromise take?
    Let me try to take an example that I think SHOULD be reasonable if both sides are able to give a bit and compromse.

    Immigration. Specifically, looking at children brought here illegally.

    Republicans don't want to simply give them free citizenship, free government services, or "reward" them with citizenship for doing something that is viewed as a privilege (college) or simply common sense necessary for survival (having a job). They want to see people here illegally go to the back of the line in terms of getting legal citizenship rights.

    Democrats don't want children brought here by their parents to essentially suffer the sins of the parents and wish to give them a method in which they can, relatively speaking, easily gain citizenship in a manner that doesn't require them to self-deport. They would like to see people have some kind of pathway to citizenship.

    A compromise type law that would provide some "wins" for both sides could be something like this...

    A law that institutes the Military side of the Dream Act, allowing those over 18 and brought here illegally to enter into a standard military service contract and provisional citizenship that, upon completion of their initial service, becomes full citizenship. To be able to enter into such a program, their immediate relatives must come forward with them. Their records will be checked, and if they have no criminal record and are gainfully employed they will be allowed to stay in this country for the length of their childs military service in a way similar to our Work Visa (IE, not eligible for the various civil services, etc) during which they can apply to become a permanent citizen. During this time period, 2% of their salary and their child's military salary is garnished by the government as penalty for the illegal entry into the country. Additionally, the business in which they are gainfully employed will be tagged for an automatic check of their employee records for any other illegal workers they may have in their employee.

    This would do a few things...

    For Republicans:
    - It's not allowing citizenship "For free", or "for doing something that's a privledge", or for doing something that's a "basic need to survive" but rather by putting their life at risk serving this country. This provides military manpower AND will help facilitate further "assimilation" into the American Culture by instilling a military mentality into the individuals

    - The requirement of the immediate family coming forward allows us to identify and track more of the illegal population in this country. The designation as a Guest Worker allows a trackable method to check in terms of their attempted use of public services, and the garnished wages help provide a "punishment" for the illegal activity while also provide revenue. The fact they are "Guest Workers" doesn't give them a vote, and they don't get any enhanced movement up the line towards citizenship.

    - The requirement to automatically trigger a check on the place of business allows us to crack down on businesses propagating the support of illegal immigration by hiring them, and potentially discovering a large group of illegals to remove from the country.

    For Democrats:
    - Children of illegals gain a way in which they can become a citizen of this country without having to leave and come back. They also, through access to the military, become eligible for additional government programs to assist them with furthering their education after their military service if they so choose.

    - The Parents of said child get to stay in the country their child is putting their life on the line for, and attempt to gain citizenship without returning to their original country.

    - Business owners are who are paying their individuals under the table, potentially paying inhumane low wages and who are not paying the appropriate government taxes in order to line their own pockets, are able to be discovered and dealt with.


    To me, this is the type of compromise that SHOULD be able to work.

    Democrats have to give up some of the SPECIFICS of how they want to accomplish some of their goals (provide citizenship to the children of illegals, provide expedited path to citizenship to illegals) or accept that they can't go to the EXTENT they want right this moment (ALL illegals), but their general goals are met at least for some of the population and that's better than not being met at all.

    Republicans have to give up some of the SPECIFICS of how they want to accomplish some of their goals (no easy/free citizenship, get illegals out of the country) or accept that they can't go to the EXTENT they want right this moment (ALL illegals need to leave the country), but their general goals are met at least for some of the population and that's better than not being met at all.

    This is a different sort of compromise than saying "Look...YOU vote for the Dream Act as it stands, and we'll vote for a border fence". In that situation, one side is having to go along with something that when taken in total actually goes strongly against some of their goals and the other side is then having to do the same. In the situation I stated above, I think it's more of a case of looking at what both sides want to get out of a situation, and attempting to find a THIRD solution that satisfies goals from each without largely stepping on the goals of each as well. Would both sides like MORE? Sure. But compared to status quo, it would be a net gain for both where as the traditional style "compromise" that is talked about currently is more of trading in a net wash (status quo) for a net wash (one thing you love / one thing you hate) which is also a net wash.

  2. #22
    Guru
    Mustachio's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Minneapolis
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:04 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    2,584

    Re: Will Obama live up to his victory speech?

    Quote Originally Posted by ThePlayDrive View Post
    So, my question, mostly to those who voted for Obama:
    Do you think Obama will live up to nation he painted in his victory speech and throughout the campaign?
    I like what you said, but I don't think Obama was painting the nation, he was framing America's purpose as a reminder of the past and the hope of the future -- and the future challenges that face us. Here are some beautiful words spoken by the President:

    I have always believed that hope is that stubborn thing inside us that insists, despite all the evidence to the contrary, that something better awaits us so long as we have the courage to keep reaching, to keep working, to keep fighting.
    Colonists who came here could not have believed that they were living in what would become our democratic republic, free from the King. Those who fought in the American revolution knew the odds were against them. Lincoln signed the emancipation proclamation knowing it very well could have split our country down the middle. Women finally got the right to vote. Americans with disabilities stood up for their rights, we led the world in innovation, we watched the civil rights movement and listened to Martin Luther King showing us a better tomorrow.

    We dug our way out of the Great Depression with progressive policies that evolved and changed shape to meet the problems we faced. Now we're going to do it again, and 10 years from now, we will see a more efficient government and a more just nation. Those who want our laws to be based on their religion, who want fewer people to vote and fewer voices to be heard and fewer people to have affordable health care - those people will soon go and their primitive ideology will go with them. The biggest reason that America has flourished is the evolving nature of our constitution.

    Quote Originally Posted by Peter Grimm View Post
    Barack Obama is the most divisive figure in America. At the end of the day, we're in exactly the same place we were two weeks ago. Republican/Tea Party controlled House, Democratic Senate, and Obama.

    Same input, same output. More gridlock in Washington. More bickering, and nothing getting done for 2 years until the next senatorial races.
    Liberals believe in using the government to help people. Conservatives believe in using the government as little as possible - to merely oversee our laws and land. Together, we can create a government that helps people with much greater efficiency, and we can cut back or cut out any expenditures which are not helping people. If you wish to see bickering and no action, that's fine, but to me it looks like you're endorsing a strategy that would harm our nation in the name of revenge. That's not something to be proud of, it's something to be ashamed of.
    A working class hero is something to be

  3. #23
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    The anals of history
    Last Seen
    07-25-15 @ 02:05 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    10,348

    Re: Will Obama live up to his victory speech?

    I'm not looking to do anything, since all i can do is vote, and that ended up being futile anyway.

    I would hope that the House will do everything in its power to slow the decay of the American economy and of American values. As I see it, that means gridlocking the president for a few years.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mustachio View Post
    Liberals believe in using the government to help people. Conservatives believe in using the government as little as possible - to merely oversee our laws and land. Together, we can create a government that helps people with much greater efficiency, and we can cut back or cut out any expenditures which are not helping people. If you wish to see bickering and no action, that's fine, but to me it looks like you're endorsing a strategy that would harm our nation in the name of revenge. That's not something to be proud of, it's something to be ashamed of.

  4. #24
    Guru
    Morality Games's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Iowa
    Last Seen
    05-24-16 @ 10:00 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    3,733

    Re: Will Obama live up to his victory speech?

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    Let me try to take an example that I think SHOULD be reasonable if both sides are able to give a bit and compromse.

    Immigration. Specifically, looking at children brought here illegally.

    Republicans don't want to simply give them free citizenship, free government services, or "reward" them with citizenship for doing something that is viewed as a privilege (college) or simply common sense necessary for survival (having a job). They want to see people here illegally go to the back of the line in terms of getting legal citizenship rights.

    Democrats don't want children brought here by their parents to essentially suffer the sins of the parents and wish to give them a method in which they can, relatively speaking, easily gain citizenship in a manner that doesn't require them to self-deport. They would like to see people have some kind of pathway to citizenship.

    A compromise type law that would provide some "wins" for both sides could be something like this...

    A law that institutes the Military side of the Dream Act, allowing those over 18 and brought here illegally to enter into a standard military service contract and provisional citizenship that, upon completion of their initial service, becomes full citizenship. To be able to enter into such a program, their immediate relatives must come forward with them. Their records will be checked, and if they have no criminal record and are gainfully employed they will be allowed to stay in this country for the length of their childs military service in a way similar to our Work Visa (IE, not eligible for the various civil services, etc) during which they can apply to become a permanent citizen. During this time period, 2% of their salary and their child's military salary is garnished by the government as penalty for the illegal entry into the country. Additionally, the business in which they are gainfully employed will be tagged for an automatic check of their employee records for any other illegal workers they may have in their employee.

    This would do a few things...

    For Republicans:
    - It's not allowing citizenship "For free", or "for doing something that's a privledge", or for doing something that's a "basic need to survive" but rather by putting their life at risk serving this country. This provides military manpower AND will help facilitate further "assimilation" into the American Culture by instilling a military mentality into the individuals

    - The requirement of the immediate family coming forward allows us to identify and track more of the illegal population in this country. The designation as a Guest Worker allows a trackable method to check in terms of their attempted use of public services, and the garnished wages help provide a "punishment" for the illegal activity while also provide revenue. The fact they are "Guest Workers" doesn't give them a vote, and they don't get any enhanced movement up the line towards citizenship.

    - The requirement to automatically trigger a check on the place of business allows us to crack down on businesses propagating the support of illegal immigration by hiring them, and potentially discovering a large group of illegals to remove from the country.

    For Democrats:
    - Children of illegals gain a way in which they can become a citizen of this country without having to leave and come back. They also, through access to the military, become eligible for additional government programs to assist them with furthering their education after their military service if they so choose.

    - The Parents of said child get to stay in the country their child is putting their life on the line for, and attempt to gain citizenship without returning to their original country.

    - Business owners are who are paying their individuals under the table, potentially paying inhumane low wages and who are not paying the appropriate government taxes in order to line their own pockets, are able to be discovered and dealt with.


    To me, this is the type of compromise that SHOULD be able to work.

    Democrats have to give up some of the SPECIFICS of how they want to accomplish some of their goals (provide citizenship to the children of illegals, provide expedited path to citizenship to illegals) or accept that they can't go to the EXTENT they want right this moment (ALL illegals), but their general goals are met at least for some of the population and that's better than not being met at all.

    Republicans have to give up some of the SPECIFICS of how they want to accomplish some of their goals (no easy/free citizenship, get illegals out of the country) or accept that they can't go to the EXTENT they want right this moment (ALL illegals need to leave the country), but their general goals are met at least for some of the population and that's better than not being met at all.

    This is a different sort of compromise than saying "Look...YOU vote for the Dream Act as it stands, and we'll vote for a border fence". In that situation, one side is having to go along with something that when taken in total actually goes strongly against some of their goals and the other side is then having to do the same. In the situation I stated above, I think it's more of a case of looking at what both sides want to get out of a situation, and attempting to find a THIRD solution that satisfies goals from each without largely stepping on the goals of each as well. Would both sides like MORE? Sure. But compared to status quo, it would be a net gain for both where as the traditional style "compromise" that is talked about currently is more of trading in a net wash (status quo) for a net wash (one thing you love / one thing you hate) which is also a net wash.
    That sounds idyllic from the perspective of Americans who want a reasonable, fair, civil, and prosperous society, but it overlooks aspects of the issue that work on entirely different economic, cultural, and political levels.

    As far this specific issue goes, the Democrats prosper the longer they stretch the issue out and the less they compromise with Republicans.

    If both parties work out a fair and reasoned way to negotiate between the legal and numerical issues of Hispanic citizenship (which is tied to population growth), then over time that would make the Republican Party the party most favored by Hispanics.
    If you notice something good in yourself, give credit to God, not to yourself, but be certain the evil you commit is always your own and yours to acknowledge.

    St. Benedict

  5. #25
    Sage
    Mycroft's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:45 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    25,873

    Re: Will Obama live up to his victory speech?

    Quote Originally Posted by Risky Thicket View Post
    No we aren't. We now know that most Americans don't agree with the old, rich, religious, white guy GOP platform. We also know that women get to maintain ownership of their vaginas for another 4 years. We know that the Tea Party drains life out of the GOP. We now know that unless the GOP begins to champion mainstream positions it's going to continue to suck hind tit. America is changing and the GOP is out of touch. The election proves it.
    ummm...

    You DO know that Obama only got 50% of the popular vote...right? The "old, rich, religious, white guy GOP platform" got the other 50%.

    Liberal hyperbole is alive and well...even after it won.
    TANSTAAFL

    ďAn armed society is a polite society.Ē
    ― Robert A. Heinlein, Beyond This Horizon

  6. #26
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,998

    Re: Will Obama live up to his victory speech?

    Quote Originally Posted by Morality Games View Post
    That sounds idyllic from the perspective of Americans who want a reasonable, fair, civil, and prosperous society, but it overlooks aspects of the issue that work on entirely different economic, cultural, and political levels.

    As far this specific issue goes, the Democrats prosper the longer they stretch the issue out and the less they compromise with Republicans.

    If both parties work out a fair and reasoned way to negotiate between the legal and numerical issues of Hispanic citizenship (which is tied to population growth), then over time that would make the Republican Party the party most favored by Hispanics.
    Oh, it's absolutely idealistic.

    As I said...I think the message sent last night through basically the re-election of pretty much the same government everyone was bitching about before is that by and large the American People either want:

    1) Gridlock, with neither side being able to push as far to the left/right that their parties representatives would allow them to go

    OR

    2) For both sides to make honest and forthright TRUE efforts to seek out bipartisan, collaborative, solutions....not Republican solutions with some scraps of democratic ideas thrown in, or Democratic solutions with scraps of republican ideas thrown in, but unique solutions built upon whatever common ground the two sides can find on an issue and begin from there.

    What I posted, to me...was an example of the TYPE of compromise I think is needed to achieve that. The "Win / Win" style of compromise rather than the "Lose / Lose" or "Draw" style that is more commonly thought about when you hear the word "compromise" used today. Do I think it's likely to happen? No...not at all...I don't think EITHER side will go for that right now because politically it is the more difficult of the two viable methods I posted above.

  7. #27
    I'm kind of a big deal

    AGENT J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Pittsburgh
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:02 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    44,817

    Re: Will Obama live up to his victory speech?

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    Let me try to take an example that I think SHOULD be reasonable if both sides are able to give a bit and compromse.

    Immigration. Specifically, looking at children brought here illegally.

    Republicans don't want to simply give them free citizenship, free government services, or "reward" them with citizenship for doing something that is viewed as a privilege (college) or simply common sense necessary for survival (having a job). They want to see people here illegally go to the back of the line in terms of getting legal citizenship rights.

    Democrats don't want children brought here by their parents to essentially suffer the sins of the parents and wish to give them a method in which they can, relatively speaking, easily gain citizenship in a manner that doesn't require them to self-deport. They would like to see people have some kind of pathway to citizenship.

    A compromise type law that would provide some "wins" for both sides could be something like this...

    A law that institutes the Military side of the Dream Act, allowing those over 18 and brought here illegally to enter into a standard military service contract and provisional citizenship that, upon completion of their initial service, becomes full citizenship. To be able to enter into such a program, their immediate relatives must come forward with them. Their records will be checked, and if they have no criminal record and are gainfully employed they will be allowed to stay in this country for the length of their childs military service in a way similar to our Work Visa (IE, not eligible for the various civil services, etc) during which they can apply to become a permanent citizen. During this time period, 2% of their salary and their child's military salary is garnished by the government as penalty for the illegal entry into the country. Additionally, the business in which they are gainfully employed will be tagged for an automatic check of their employee records for any other illegal workers they may have in their employee.

    This would do a few things...

    For Republicans:
    - It's not allowing citizenship "For free", or "for doing something that's a privledge", or for doing something that's a "basic need to survive" but rather by putting their life at risk serving this country. This provides military manpower AND will help facilitate further "assimilation" into the American Culture by instilling a military mentality into the individuals

    - The requirement of the immediate family coming forward allows us to identify and track more of the illegal population in this country. The designation as a Guest Worker allows a trackable method to check in terms of their attempted use of public services, and the garnished wages help provide a "punishment" for the illegal activity while also provide revenue. The fact they are "Guest Workers" doesn't give them a vote, and they don't get any enhanced movement up the line towards citizenship.

    - The requirement to automatically trigger a check on the place of business allows us to crack down on businesses propagating the support of illegal immigration by hiring them, and potentially discovering a large group of illegals to remove from the country.

    For Democrats:
    - Children of illegals gain a way in which they can become a citizen of this country without having to leave and come back. They also, through access to the military, become eligible for additional government programs to assist them with furthering their education after their military service if they so choose.

    - The Parents of said child get to stay in the country their child is putting their life on the line for, and attempt to gain citizenship without returning to their original country.

    - Business owners are who are paying their individuals under the table, potentially paying inhumane low wages and who are not paying the appropriate government taxes in order to line their own pockets, are able to be discovered and dealt with.


    To me, this is the type of compromise that SHOULD be able to work.

    Democrats have to give up some of the SPECIFICS of how they want to accomplish some of their goals (provide citizenship to the children of illegals, provide expedited path to citizenship to illegals) or accept that they can't go to the EXTENT they want right this moment (ALL illegals), but their general goals are met at least for some of the population and that's better than not being met at all.

    Republicans have to give up some of the SPECIFICS of how they want to accomplish some of their goals (no easy/free citizenship, get illegals out of the country) or accept that they can't go to the EXTENT they want right this moment (ALL illegals need to leave the country), but their general goals are met at least for some of the population and that's better than not being met at all.

    This is a different sort of compromise than saying "Look...YOU vote for the Dream Act as it stands, and we'll vote for a border fence". In that situation, one side is having to go along with something that when taken in total actually goes strongly against some of their goals and the other side is then having to do the same. In the situation I stated above, I think it's more of a case of looking at what both sides want to get out of a situation, and attempting to find a THIRD solution that satisfies goals from each without largely stepping on the goals of each as well. Would both sides like MORE? Sure. But compared to status quo, it would be a net gain for both where as the traditional style "compromise" that is talked about currently is more of trading in a net wash (status quo) for a net wash (one thing you love / one thing you hate) which is also a net wash.
    This doesnt sound bad to me at all but im an independent.

    I only have one question really.

    you said:

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    A law that institutes the Military side of the Dream Act, allowing those over 18 and brought here illegally to enter into a standard military service contract and provisional citizenship that, upon completion of their initial service, becomes full citizenship. To be able to enter into such a program, their immediate relatives must come forward with them. Their records will be checked, and if they have no criminal record and are gainfully employed they will be allowed to stay in this country for the length of their childs military service in a way similar to our Work Visa (IE, not eligible for the various civil services, etc) during which they can apply to become a permanent citizen. During this time period, 2% of their salary and their child's military salary is garnished by the government as penalty for the illegal entry into the country. Additionally, the business in which they are gainfully employed will be tagged for an automatic check of their employee records for any other illegal workers they may have in their employee.
    first I agree that business that hire illegals need put in check but as far as the person you are talking about do you mean the "and" part? they have to not be a criminal AND gainfully employed?
    How do you define gainfully?
    just asking because if they are an illegal that might be hard depending on your definition of gainfully.

    Next if you go after these business (which we should) he might not admit he has a job there and/or by default depending on how you define gainful by its going to get harder and harder for him to get a job or someone to supply him with one. (which it SHOULD be)

    But let me be clear, business employing illegals need dealt with and I don think it should be easy for illegals to come get a job but my point is, by circumstances if you mean the "and" you are setting up an act that wont work or "shouldnt" work by defualt.

    he shouldnt have gainful employment is what im saying

    DO you understand what I mean? not sure i explained that well or maybe its me that missed something.
    This space is currently owned by The Great Winchester, stay tuned for future messages!
    Make America Great Again!
    Pro-Equal Rights / Pro-Gun Rights / Pro-Human Rights / Pro-Choice

  8. #28
    Guru
    Morality Games's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Iowa
    Last Seen
    05-24-16 @ 10:00 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    3,733

    Re: Will Obama live up to his victory speech?

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    Oh, it's absolutely idealistic.

    As I said...I think the message sent last night through basically the re-election of pretty much the same government everyone was bitching about before is that by and large the American People either want:

    1) Gridlock, with neither side being able to push as far to the left/right that their parties representatives would allow them to go

    OR

    2) For both sides to make honest and forthright TRUE efforts to seek out bipartisan, collaborative, solutions....not Republican solutions with some scraps of democratic ideas thrown in, or Democratic solutions with scraps of republican ideas thrown in, but unique solutions built upon whatever common ground the two sides can find on an issue and begin from there.

    What I posted, to me...was an example of the TYPE of compromise I think is needed to achieve that. The "Win / Win" style of compromise rather than the "Lose / Lose" or "Draw" style that is more commonly thought about when you hear the word "compromise" used today. Do I think it's likely to happen? No...not at all...I don't think EITHER side will go for that right now because politically it is the more difficult of the two viable methods I posted above.
    My response would be that Democrats should give Republicans a favorable immigration reform (one that would allow them to be competitive with culturally conservative Hispanics in decades to come) if Republicans give Democrats a favorable tax reform.

    As unwilling as the Democratic Party is to give up its Hispanic advantage, the Republicans are far less willing to surrender the supremacy of the financing sector and its special interests that have dominated this country's policies for over thirty years.
    If you notice something good in yourself, give credit to God, not to yourself, but be certain the evil you commit is always your own and yours to acknowledge.

    St. Benedict

  9. #29
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Theoretical Physics Lab
    Last Seen
    01-06-15 @ 11:06 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    25,120

    Re: Will Obama live up to his victory speech?

    Will he live up to it?

    We want our kids to grow up in a country where they have access to the best schools and the best teachers.
    Shouldn't have voted for you then.

    A country that lives up to its legacy as the global leader in technology and discovery and innovation, with all the good jobs and new businesses that follow.
    Definitely shouldn't have voted for you then.

    We want our children to live in an America that isnít burdened by debt
    Uh...lol.

    We believe in a generous America, in a compassionate America, in a tolerant America, open to the dreams of an immigrantís daughter who studies in our schools and pledges to our flag. To the young boy on the south side of Chicago who sees a life beyond the nearest street corner. To the furniture workerís child in North Carolina who wants to become a doctor or a scientist, an engineer or an entrepreneur, a diplomat or even a president ó thatís the future we hope for. Thatís the vision we share. Thatís where we need to go ó forward. Thatís where we need to go.
    There is no way you want them to grow up to be a doctor if you're gung-ho about Obamacare. You're going to create a system where people have zero desire to go into the medical field. But hey - keep telling yourself that.

    Our economy is recovering.
    It's recovering insofar that he took an awful economy and made it, somehow, even worse...and it's bouncing back from this new all-time low. I guess you could argue that he's living up to this.

    I am looking forward to reaching out and working with leaders of both parties to meet the challenges we can only solve together. Reducing our deficit. Reforming our tax code. Fixing our immigration system. Freeing ourselves from foreign oil. Weíve got more work to do.
    At this point in the speech, he's starting to look like a cartoon character when saying this with a straight face.

    It goes on and on, but I've reached my daily limit of banality.

    So will he live up to his victory speech? Yeah...uh...no.

  10. #30
    Guru
    Morality Games's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Iowa
    Last Seen
    05-24-16 @ 10:00 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    3,733

    Re: Will Obama live up to his victory speech?

    There is no way you want them to grow up to be a doctor if you're gung-ho about Obamacare. You're going to create a system where people have zero desire to go into the medical field. But hey - keep telling yourself that.
    Europe has a competitive number of doctors.
    If you notice something good in yourself, give credit to God, not to yourself, but be certain the evil you commit is always your own and yours to acknowledge.

    St. Benedict

Page 3 of 15 FirstFirst 1234513 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •