• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Obama says loss of American Lives "Not Optimal" , Mother of slain Sean Smith SLAMS

Re: Obama says loss of American Lives "Not Optimal" , Mother of slain Sean Smith SLAM

"Insurance companies are in this industry to make money".

As opposed to the millions of companies in this country who are in business to lose money?

That's all you got from my post? Insurance companies want healthy people.....they lose money if their policy holders are all sickly. It's a business!!....bottom line...I'm not sure what point you are trying to make here but you are clearly going in a direction that I wasn't.
 
Re: Obama says loss of American Lives "Not Optimal" , Mother of slain Sean Smith SLAM

He was responding to what Stewart said using the work optimal also. Stop being so dramatic.

thats beyond lame... so he took bait is your excuse for his crass words.... super

This Obama fella just aint that bright I guess.. a stupid comedian beclowned him...
 
Re: Obama says loss of American Lives "Not Optimal" , Mother of slain Sean Smith SLAM

That's all you got from my post? Insurance companies want healthy people.....they lose money if their policy holders are all sickly. It's a business!!....bottom line...I'm not sure what point you are trying to make here but you are clearly going in a direction that I wasn't.

Insurance companies offer a service. You have to pay for it. If you don't want it, don't get it.

Of course they want healthy people. Can you name me an industry where people want people to get sick?
 
Re: Obama says loss of American Lives "Not Optimal" , Mother of slain Sean Smith SLAM

So in other words, you have no idea exactly why people die. Got it.

You're starting to annoy me with your silliness. People die from conditions they develop over a period of many years, sometimes decades. Diabetes, heart disease, cancers, all kinds of things kill people. Almost all of these conditions can be treated, sometimes cured. You cannot cure or treat people who don't go to the doctor. When people go to the emergency room when their life is in jeopardy they are often many years into a condition, it is too late for much preventive medicine.

Do you not see the disconnect between people having access to health care on a routine basis throughout their lives versus ONLY getting emergency room treatment when they are on the verge of death?
 
Re: Obama says loss of American Lives "Not Optimal" , Mother of slain Sean Smith SLAM

Insurance companies offer a service. You have to pay for it. If you don't want it, don't get it.

Of course they want healthy people. Can you name me an industry where people want people to get sick?

The health care industry wants people to get sick, who do you think owns most of the fast food joints in the U.S.?
 
Re: Obama says loss of American Lives "Not Optimal" , Mother of slain Sean Smith SLAM

You're starting to annoy me with your silliness. People die from conditions they develop over a period of many years, sometimes decades. Diabetes, heart disease, cancers, all kinds of things kill people. Almost all of these conditions can be treated, sometimes cured. You cannot cure or treat people who don't go to the doctor. When people go to the emergency room when their life is in jeopardy they are often many years into a condition, it is too late for much preventive medicine.

Do you not see the disconnect between people having access to health care on a routine basis throughout their lives versus ONLY getting emergency room treatment when they are on the verge of death?

So where is the evidence that 40,000 fewer people would die from these or any other diseases if they had insurance? I know that's a Liberal talking point. I'm asking you to back it up since you're using it. Nothing silly about it. If you believe it, show me some specifics.
 
Re: Obama says loss of American Lives "Not Optimal" , Mother of slain Sean Smith SLAM

So how is he going to "fix" the response? It happened 4 weeks ago.

Seems like he's always "Going to fix it."

And how is he "going to fix" four dead Americans?

I seriously doubt he ever saw the cables from the CIA station chief in Tripoli.

Those 4 guys were killed due to incompetence....period.
 
Re: Obama says loss of American Lives "Not Optimal" , Mother of slain Sean Smith SLAM

Insurance companies offer a service. You have to pay for it. If you don't want it, don't get it.

Of course they want healthy people. Can you name me an industry where people want people to get sick?

You seem to be missing my point and are trying to defend and debate something between us that doesn't exist. I know it's a business and how it makes it money.....there is nothing to dispute or debate or defend here......and to answer your question about who wants sick people then let's say the medical and pharma industries do because without sick people there is no reason to have doctors, nurses, hospitals, specialists, research, medications, etc.
 
Re: Obama says loss of American Lives "Not Optimal" , Mother of slain Sean Smith SLAM

Why should people who don't want to die or suffer from health problems be at the mercy of those who don't care if they die and don't want health services?

I jumped into this thread thinking it was about the "optimal" comment - but I see a few posts on health insurance instead.

SO = in your example, what is preventing those "people who don't want to die or suffer from health problems be at the mercy of those who don't care if they die and don't want health services" from getting health insurance?

Perhaps this thread has developed a slant somewhere that I am unaware of - but to me the answer is simple - go get insurance.

My question - if this concerns Obamacare - is why I should be prevented from buy low cost insurance for catastrophic illnesses only. Why should I be forced to buy insurance that has built in rates to cover my sex-change operation - pregnancy - contraceptives - sex-change-reversal surgeries?

Insurance SHOULD only be for unforeseen BIG items - not for elective items - or maintenance items.
 
Re: Obama says loss of American Lives "Not Optimal" , Mother of slain Sean Smith SLAM

I don't get the problem, having our diplomats killed is not an optimal situation. It's not a good thing, and that is what he was saying. I don't see how you can logically get mad at that.
Well...see...there are these things called 'binders'...and you use them to store 'resumes'...

Verbal faux pas abound apparently.
 
Re: Obama says loss of American Lives "Not Optimal" , Mother of slain Sean Smith SLAM

You seem to be missing my point and are trying to defend and debate something between us that doesn't exist. I know it's a business and how it makes it money.....there is nothing to dispute or debate or defend here......and to answer your question about who wants sick people then let's say the medical and pharma industries do because without sick people there is no reason to have doctors, nurses, hospitals, specialists, research, medications, etc.
Actually, I could quibble with your assigning nothing but pernicious motives to doctors, nurses, etc.

But, I will just take that meme and apply it to DEMOCRATs and ask you if DEMS were motivated to create more poverty because that is where they harvest the most of their votes. Actually MY example IS what motivates Democrats - they create policies that expand the domain of poor people so that amongst their misery the DEMs can exploit them for votes any time it is needed.
 
Re: Obama says loss of American Lives "Not Optimal" , Mother of slain Sean Smith SLAM

So where is the evidence that 40,000 fewer people would die from these or any other diseases if they had insurance? I know that's a Liberal talking point. I'm asking you to back it up since you're using it. Nothing silly about it. If you believe it, show me some specifics.

To me its just common sense, what other conclusion could you possibly come to? Anyways here are some links.

Health insurance and mortality in US adults. [Am J Public Health. 2009] - PubMed - NCBI
Care Without Coverage: Too Little, Too Late - Institute of Medicine
Dying for Coverage Findings
 
Re: Obama says loss of American Lives "Not Optimal" , Mother of slain Sean Smith SLAM

I jumped into this thread thinking it was about the "optimal" comment - but I see a few posts on health insurance instead.

SO = in your example, what is preventing those "people who don't want to die or suffer from health problems be at the mercy of those who don't care if they die and don't want health services" from getting health insurance?

Perhaps this thread has developed a slant somewhere that I am unaware of - but to me the answer is simple - go get insurance.

My question - if this concerns Obamacare - is why I should be prevented from buy low cost insurance for catastrophic illnesses only. Why should I be forced to buy insurance that has built in rates to cover my sex-change operation - pregnancy - contraceptives - sex-change-reversal surgeries?

Insurance SHOULD only be for unforeseen BIG items - not for elective items - or maintenance items.

Reread the thread if you don't understand what the argument is.

I don't know what the minimal level of "acceptable" insurance is according to Obamacare. I would advocate for something reasonable, I can't imagine forcing people to pay high premiums for sex change operations for all is reasonable. I think insurance should cover what an average person goes through, or else what good is it? People can't even afford regular care without insurance so why should it only cover catastrophes?
 
Re: Obama says loss of American Lives "Not Optimal" , Mother of slain Sean Smith SLAM

I think insurance should cover what an average person goes through, or else what good is it? People can't even afford regular care without insurance so why should it only cover catastrophes?

Do you really think you should be 'insured' against having regular health checkups??

This just doesn't make sense to me. You INSURE against things you absolutely cannot afford to pay for IF they happen. Going to get a physical once a year is something a person should budget for and not have it "insured."

The reason health care is so expensive is that for too long people have bought into the idea it is someone ELSE's responsibility to pay for whatever they need so they can spend all their money on the glitter and tattoos and other nonsense.

IF insurance was only for really unaffordable risks, then it would not cost so much to buy and there would be fewer victims saying they went bankrupt when they got cancer without insurance.

I don't mind if a group wants to join a group that will "insure" their diet pills, condoms, eye drops, yearly physicals. Let them join that group and pay the attendant premiums on what it costs. But don't force ME to have to pay the same premium when all *I* want is to be protected against catastrophic illnesses.

But guess what - if I AM forced to pay the premiums for 'all inclusive' insurance, then it is completely reasonable for me to use it when I DO go in for a physical or get a flu shot. I would let my 'insurance' pay for it because I have already paid the price to THEM instead of the Doctor. Senseless to pay twice just because I don't like being FORCED to pay for the damned higher premiums in the FIRST place.

Maybe my old brain just ain't analyzing the true facts here, so enlighten me if you please.
 
Re: Obama says loss of American Lives "Not Optimal" , Mother of slain Sean Smith SLAM

Obama... wow is this stooge Obama stupid and out of touch with reality..its all over for Obama..

By Daniel Bates and Toby Harnden In Washington
PUBLISHED: 10:49 EST, 19 October 2012 | UPDATED: 12:08 EST, 19 October 2012
Comments (0) Share
The mother of an American diplomat killed during a terrorist raid on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi has hit out at Barack Obama for describing the attack as 'not optimal', saying: 'My son is not very optimal - he is also very dead.'

During an interview shown on Comedy Central, Obama responded to a question about his administration's confused communication after the assault by saying: 'If four Americans get killed, it’s not optimal.'
Speaking exclusively to MailOnline today, Pat Smith, whose son Sean died in the raid, said: 'It was a disrespectful thing to say and I don't think it's right.

'How can you say somebody being killed is not very optimal? I don't think the President has the right idea of the English language.'

SNIP.......

Barack Obama on Benghazi attack: Mother of diplomat criticises President's 'optimal' comment | Mail Online

OMG that is it. I was totally for obama right up until he said not optimal. That was friggen horrible, it was the end of the world for me. I mean 4 people died. That is a lot. It is not like you could point to say a movie theater showing a popular comic book movie where more than 4 people died. It is not like there is any other violence going on in the middle east. No 4 people died and it was not optimal. That brings down every success Obama had. He killed bin laden, ended the war in Iraq, saved the automotive industry, revamped health care for the better, brought our country out of a recession, improved our status around the world, and even helped overthrow wacky khadaffi, but he said it was not Optimal and now I am pissed.

In all seriousness, that was it? that was all he did? What am I supposed to be angry about? If you are getting angry over that you really need to take a chill pill or something because that was nothing in this world of depraived and malicious evil. That doesn't even rate. That is not even on the negative side when you think about it, but you are all butthurt over it. A man you never knew or even cared to know that he was serving america was killed and you are all outraged because the president said it was not optimal. You sir are a faker. You have no business being outraged. You would have never taken the time to find out that there even was a representative in that town if you hadn't heard it on the news. You couldn't care less about those people out there serving our country. All you want is some reason to complain about obama, and you are using this guys death to do it and that is really low down and slimy in my opinion and you should be ashamed to be using that man's good name in your bull**** attack on the president.

you sir disgust me.
 
Re: Obama says loss of American Lives "Not Optimal" , Mother of slain Sean Smith SLAM

The SECURITY was not optimal. That doesn't make it bad or non-existent. The world is a dangerous place, and resources are limited. There WILL be attacks, and Americans WILL be killed.

Understand that if Romney gets elected, you'll actually have to do more than just deride some out of context statement by Obama. You'll actually be responsible for governing. Do you really want to be held to a standard of any attacks on Americans anywhere means a complete failure.

1. I agree it was an attempt to play off of Jon's lead in line referring to the response being "not optimal," though it was a poor decision on the spot by President Obama to tie-in the loss of life with being "not optimal." Regardless of what he truly meant, the face value of the statement can be one of two things: a) The loss of life was an inconvenient "bump in the road" on the way to a second term or b) The worst way he could describe losing life in that forum was "not optimal." I discount this as a poor choice of words, when he really meant well - similar to Governor Romney's reference to "binders full of women."

2. I agree that Governor Romney will have to govern; thankfully, he has done that before - for a 4-yr term, making him as experienced at governing as President Obama (if not marginally moreso timewise because it is pretty apparent that gubernatorial elections take up substantially less time away from the actual job than the presidential election.
 
Re: Obama says loss of American Lives "Not Optimal" , Mother of slain Sean Smith SLAM

I don't get the problem, having our diplomats killed is not an optimal situation. It's not a good thing, and that is what he was saying. I don't see how you can logically get mad at that.

Actually, all the President did was respond to a statement made by Jon Stewart during an interview on the Daily Show using Stewart's choice of words.

Stewart: I would say even you would admit it was not the optimal response atleast to the American people as far as us all being on the same page.

Pres. Obama: Here's what I'll say: If four Americans get killed, it's not optimal.
Obama on Libya: 'We weren't confused,' deaths weren't 'optimal' - POLITICO.com

Optimal - most favorable

I'd say the killing of innocent Americans is never favorable...uh....ideal...um...optimal...no matter how you phrase it. What I find troubling is it's not like this was some gaff made on the campaign stomp. He responded using the interviewer's choice words. Why this is so harshly being attributed to the President in such a disingenuious manner only shows how desperate some people are in the days leading up to the election.
 
Re: Obama says loss of American Lives "Not Optimal" , Mother of slain Sean Smith SLAM

You're bouncing around from extremes here. Yes it matters they died, it is sad, its possible the Obama administration or state department, or somebody screwed up and they didn't get as good of a shot as they should have of not falling victim yes. Here's the thing though, you guys are going buck wild nuts as though this is the worst thing that has ever happened. Its election time so its being used that way, not a surprise. I'm not really sure what you think you're trying to make a point of?

You got it all wrong, we were attacked by terrorist, that murdered one of our Ambassadors and three other Americans on US soil. This does not seem to bother you. Next, it is now discovered the Ambassador has repeatedly asked for more security and repeatedly stated AQ was building and the security was basically down to two people and was repeatedly denied by the State Department. The Ambassador requested on the day of the attack for more security from the state department. This is incompetence at it's worst. But you blow it off as no big deal.

Second, Obama stated in the second debate that he called it a terrorist attack in the rose garden the day after the attack. But when you read the transcript he was generalizing. For the next two weeks the white house and Obama's administration was calling the attack a demonstration fueled by a video that got out of control and stormed the Embassy. This was a flat out lie. The state department was in real time contact with Libya and knew then it was not a spontaneous attack. This whole Libya fiasco is an administration coverup.

Yes people get killed, but there is way more to this issue, the state department denying security, why? The coverup of really what happened, who knew what and when, who told who what and when. I guess you don't get it, this is national security issue that we had our pants down and were attacked and lost. Then we have a coverup by the white house. This is the nail in Obama's coffin that is going to put him under. This will all come out in the Monday Debate, and you'll see just how important this issue is, this is about way more than just a few Americans getting murdered.
 
Re: Obama says loss of American Lives "Not Optimal" , Mother of slain Sean Smith SLAM

I don't get the problem, having our diplomats killed is not an optimal situation. It's not a good thing, and that is what he was saying. I don't see how you can logically get mad at that.

What happened in Libya was beyond tragic.

I thought Lib-Socialists were overflowing with compassion?
I saw none. I see none.
I thought they deplored a culture of corruption? Seems like blowjobs, lying under oath, dead Americans and corruption are exceptions.

I do believe they used a phrase not too long ago... connect the dots. We're not talking about finding the secrets of a secretive terror state. We are talking about diplomats in an Embassy in a hostile region that asked for protection.
The only protection Obama wants to give out is contraception. Screw the men and women on the front lines.

Getting caught in the lie was not optimal. Getting caught in the lie this late in the campaign was not optimal. This dragging out for so long is not optimal. This being a far more sinister cover-up than Watergate or lying under oath (Clinton) is not optimal (because people died).

Obama without Le Teleprompteur... even on a show that propagandizes for him and lofts soft balls... fails.
 
Re: Obama says loss of American Lives "Not Optimal" , Mother of slain Sean Smith SLAM

Actually, all the President did was respond to a statement made by Jon Stewart during an interview on the Daily Show using Stewart's choice of words.


Obama on Libya: 'We weren't confused,' deaths weren't 'optimal' - POLITICO.com

Optimal - most favorable

I'd say the killing of innocent Americans is never favorable...uh....ideal...um...optimal...no matter how you phrase it. What I find troubling is it's not like this was some gaff made on the campaign stomp. He responded using the interviewer's choice words. Why this is so harshly being attributed to the President in such a disingenuious manner only shows how desperate some people are in the days leading up to the election.

I completely agree that this should be a non-issue. I am absolutely - positively - forevermore - completely against the 'gotcha' form of political attacks in this day where a phrase - or in this case a singe word - is taken out of the context of the larger statement and used in an attack - almost always a falsehood-laden attack - on a political opponent.

I do however completely ENJOY watching the DEMs 'recoil in horror' when one of these moments is directed at THEM.

IF it were the GOP who rely almost completely on this type of campaign, I would join in the OUTRAGE over their doing it again. But alas (or in my case to my everlasting joy) it is the DEM who tripped over his foreskin and is caught in the 'gotcha' moment.

So - to all the leftists, independents, socialists, centrists, undisclosed - out there who are feigning outrage over this 'unseemly' attack on their dear leader - enjoy the blow back and look into your own dark record of making this a mainstay of your own campaign strategy. Perhaps you might re-direct your operatives who shadow every GOP candidate with a video camera just waiting for a misplace word that can be isolated from its context and highlighted in a misinformation commercial.

If you live, you ought to like it.
 
Re: Obama says loss of American Lives "Not Optimal" , Mother of slain Sean Smith SLAM

Reread the thread if you don't understand what the argument is.

I don't know what the minimal level of "acceptable" insurance is according to Obamacare. I would advocate for something reasonable, I can't imagine forcing people to pay high premiums for sex change operations for all is reasonable. I think insurance should cover what an average person goes through, or else what good is it? People can't even afford regular care without insurance so why should it only cover catastrophes?

First, this thread is about Libya, and have commented before on how surprised I was that 'insurance' seems to be brought up. I should not have responded to the 'insurance' deflection in keeping with the original intent of the thread.

My argument still stands, and I won't repeat it here. Look up the word 'insurance' and see if you can reconcile that definition with routine maintenance.

See you in another thread on this topic.
 
Re: Obama says loss of American Lives "Not Optimal" , Mother of slain Sean Smith SLAM

thats beyond lame... so he took bait is your excuse for his crass words.... super

This Obama fella just aint that bright I guess.. a stupid comedian beclowned him...

Like I said, stop being so dramatic.
 
Re: Obama says loss of American Lives "Not Optimal" , Mother of slain Sean Smith SLAM

What would have been "optimal" in that addled brain of his?

I thought Obama was the smartest President in history? Joe Biden couldn't even be this clueless - could he?
Biden was probably his writer for that night.
 
Back
Top Bottom