<p>@romanigypsyeyes: At least in my neck of the woods, the public will be hurt, not helped, by the passage of those bills. So in that case, stall tactics are better than nothing.</p>
<p>@jackbenimble: I agree that we place too much importance on the President. I like Obama as a person: he is inspiring, has a pretty wife and cute kids, and seems to truly belive he’s working in the best interests of the American people. But the people he’s appointed, and the congress his party controls (ahem- did control) is a disaster.</p>
<p>@Riseup: Could you please not use his race as a reason to make an excuse for why people don’t like Obama? Because a majority of those that don’t like him feel that way because of the things that he has/hasn’t done, not because of his skin color.</p>
<p>@someone: what you said was either untrue or I agree with it, much like the last few posters</p>
<p>Well don’t get me wrong, his skin tone has a small portion to do with why SOME people don’t like him. I am not saying his race is the main reason because he has made mistakes, but which president hasn’t. He is no different from any other president that we have had. He said things so that people would vote for him. Which president didn’t do this? </p>
<p>He, IN MY OPINION, seems to be trying his hardest. He can’t tackle everything at once. Although it seems that is what he is trying to do and failing at. He is doing what any other president would do,yes, he has made some questionable decisions, but remember, the man is only human. We all make mistakes. Now granted his mistakes are at a larger scale.</p>
<p>MosbyMarion:</p>
<p>You’re funny. I’m sorry, but the Republican Party isn’t working for anyone right now. They aren’t doing anything! You sound pretty ignorant, tbh. You think we’re unpopular now? I hate to see what you would have called us under Bush. And how are we any less powerful under Obama? And no, I don’t think harvesting stem cells is murder. I don’t see how any reasonable person could.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Nothing is exactly what we want our GOP senators to be doing right now. We want them to step aside so we can rebuild this country.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I would have called us feared. Don’t get me wrong, I was no big fan of Bush’s policy, but he was better than what we have now.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Because he’s sending a message to the rest of the world that we can’t/won’t do anything besides wave a finger and say “now now, play nice”. I’d like to see a much harder line against Iran and North Korea. We are still the strongest power in the world, but we will lose that if we don’t work to keep it.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Are we talking about a process that destroys human fetuses? If not, then I have no problem with it. But I think, to quote Dr. Suess of all people “A person’s a person, no matter how small.” Killing an unborn baby is just as bad as killing a child or an adult. Worse, because the baby has no way of defending itself.</p>
<p>Oh, and if I’m ignorant, then enlighten me. I’m a reasonable person. If you know something I don’t know that proves any of the things I’ve said wrong, then the sooner you refute me the better for both of us. Your best chance is probably on the foreign policy issue, since that is less well defined, and more open for opinions.</p>
<p>mosby-</p>
<p>wake up. You lost the elction in a landslide. the people have spoken. you had your way for eight years and it was terrible. You made the mess. Now you are in the way while we are trying to clean it up. Get out of Fox News candyland and quit being so gullible.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It’s absolutely shocking to hear that you think that.</p>
<p>It’s nice to see that I’m not alone on this.</p>
<p>Mosby: Harvesting stem cells doesn’t destroy fetuses. It destroys embryos. And I don’t see how anyone can call an embryo a person. All it is is a collection of cells. It bears absolutely no resemblance to a human being.</p>
<p>Thank you. Yet another example of the regrettably significant influence of religion on today’s modern politics. Apparently it logical for religious leaders to use theories and ideas of life proposed in the 1st century to combat the progressive and revolutionary advances in modern biology in the 21st century. It can be said, however, that there we should be happy to have a president who understands the relatively little necessity of theology in modern prescriptions of social and human advancement. </p>
<p>We have a president who doesn’t make third grade English teacher weep when he delivers the State of the union address. There’s something to be said in that. :)</p>
<p>Didn’t support his agenda. Still don’t support his agenda. IMO he’s nothing more than a smooth talker. You can still see traces of his campaign coming up in his interviews, over a year after he took office. One of those traces being the classification of the Republican party as “The Party of No.” It’s a clever line for the Democrats to use, but at the same time it’s ironic because it is essentially an accusation of partisanship by the Democrats as they exercise partisanship.</p>
<p>I actually prefer that they say no to what is being proposed. It’s easy to say no when the president is on the complete opposite side of the political spectrum on most, if not all, major issues. To say the Republicans don’t have things together is just ignorant, because even if you disagree with their tactics, a party divided as severely as it is made to seem would simply not be able to unite as they have. It’s not necessarily their stubbornness (though not denying it plays a role); it’s just basic philosophical differences with the president and the leaders of the House and Senate.</p>
<p>As for them doing nothing, I prefer it in comparison to what the changes would be. There’s good change and bad change, and, as I see it, what Obama, Pelosi, and the other Democrats are trying to pass is bad change.</p>
<p>And to doctorb- Losing one presidential election does not break a party. Think about it this way: They won two before that. And, as proven by the elections in New Jersey, Virginia, and Massachusetts, the people aren’t too thrilled with what the super-majority accomplished (or failed to).</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>52% to 45% to you. In other words, a 7% landslide. If 7% of the people is enough to be mandate to Washington, why haven’t they changed when polls show far greater percentages opposing them? Is their 7% more important than our 18% (the most recent number I saw on health care reform)? I would also like to point out that for the last 5 years, while the mess was being made, we had a Democratic congress. So, do the people run this country, or don’t they?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Ok! Thanks for telling me.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Let’s put it this way: Do you think a mother should be allowed to kill her 2 year old child because the child interferes with her career or private life? How about a few hours after she is born? A few hours before? But a premature baby is at the same stage of development. So is it ok to kill premies? Is there some arbitrary line that divides humans from non-humans? If so, who draws it? The government? You either have to accept that the government decides who has a right to live, or that it doesn’t, and therefore can’t decide that for unborn humans either.</p>
<p>I’ll ignore the faith-bashing for the present, and stick to reasonable debate.</p>
<p>Mosby:</p>
<p>We weren’t talking about killing babies. You just changed the subject. We were talking about stem cell research and the destruction of embryos. Premature babies and 2 year olds have absolutely nothing to do with stem cell research. Nice try, though. Maybe come up with a scientific argument next time.</p>
<p>Gotta love a conservative kid pointing out that he preferred Bush to Obama.</p>
<p>Blame the Republicans. Blame Bush. Bush and the Republicans were/are morons but the Dems could have done a lot more, without the help of any Republicans.</p>
<p>They have the White House.
They have majority in the House
They had 60-40 majority in the Senate for a year under Obama. </p>
<p>And what have they accomplished…?</p>
<p>Oh well. Best I’m hoping for in 2012 is Ron Paul sucking enough votes from the GOP candidate, so that hopefully the GOP will get the message that the base is tired their pseudo plans for shrinking government.</p>
<p>Well, one thing I think most of us can agree on is that our parent’s generation really f’ed us other. I think we’re in for a long haul. This recession(though technically they say we are out of it right?) is only the tip of the iceberg.</p>
<p>mosby-</p>
<p>You obviously failed 10th grade civics. google electoral college and READ. I cant help you with comprehension. Also 7% represents MILLIONS of people. Get a clue.</p>
<p>Baltimoron: You missed the point. When does an embryo become a human? Who sets that standard? What is your standard? I assume you consider a 2 year old to have the right to live, but you seem to support destroying embryos. Where does the line between the two fall? I think it falls at conception. What is your reason for putting it somwhere else?</p>
<p>swish: 21.5 million, to be exact. You seem to think that a vast majority of Americans support the liberal democratic agenda. In fact, if you took 100 random Americans and stood them in a room, they’d be split about 40-40, with the middle 20 swinging first one way and then the other.</p>