Not good for Obama

Zoso

pandora wrote:

Funny hasn't tilted any of the Seniors I know, who are mostly in the Midwest.

They think Obama has not done a thing!

He's the worst President they have seen in decades.
Not saying they like Romney either but 'Obamanation' is what his nickname is,
kind of says it all.

Saying obama is the worse president is influenced not just because of his policies but maybe because they are GOP voters, racist etc.. The fact is the majority of the world disliked Bush so much during his years that it would be hard to top that level of 'worst president'.. either way Obama would be 10 times the president that Romney is. Romney is pretty much the most bland nothing to say candidiate ever.. John Kerry was a close second to that.

pandora

Zoso wrote:

pandora wrote:

Funny hasn't tilted any of the Seniors I know, who are mostly in the Midwest.

They think Obama has not done a thing!

He's the worst President they have seen in decades.
Not saying they like Romney either but 'Obamanation' is what his nickname is,
kind of says it all.

Saying obama is the worse president is influenced not just because of his policies but maybe because they are GOP voters, racist etc.. The fact is the majority of the world disliked Bush so much during his years that it would be hard to top that level of 'worst president'.. either way Obama would be 10 times the president that Romney is. Romney is pretty much the most bland nothing to say candidiate ever.. John Kerry was a close second to that.

No the Seniors I know are not racists thank you very much, :fp:
not Republicans either, and yes not fans of the Bush era.
But Obama is just as his nickname says, for them, and again they are not comparing him to
Romney they just think he has been a terrible President.
There are many out there who would agree...
Do you wear blue colored glasses? these Seniors do not.

whygohome

pandora wrote:

Funny hasn't tilted any of the Seniors I know, who are mostly in the Midwest.

They think Obama has not done a thing!

He's the worst President they have seen in decades.
Not saying they like Romney either but 'Obamanation' is what his nickname is,
kind of says it all.

And I know plenty of seniors that will vote for him, blah, blah, blah. We can play this game forever, but we would both look like morons. They think"He's the worst president they've seen in decades"--such an idiotic statement. have they been awake over the past few decades as they've seen the middle class that they built be destroyed by Republican policies that always, always favor those at the top.
"Obamanation." Idiotic.

I think the seniors that "you know" need to step back into reality and enter the world of facts. Turn off the channel of con men (Hannity, Huckabee, O'Reilly) and stop listening to the most grotesque Americans in the country (Beck, Limbaugh) and start thinking for yourselves, seniors.

Or, are they the type to be swayed by bull shit like this?:
http://www.snopes.com/politics/medical/over75.asp; and death panels, etc.

A few ways that seniors are benefiting:

The cost controls in "Obamacare" does not effect seniors, but puts controls on providers.
This is good for seniors.
"Obamacare" reverses the negative effects of the doughnut hole in prescription drug coverage that was implemented by Medicare Part D, which was implemented by the Bush administration.
This is good for seniors as the amount they pay for prescription drugs (only a 25% co-pay.) This is fixed as opposed to Medicare Part D, which had a more progressive payment system where seniors had to pay more for their drugs.
My grandparents--89 and 85--have already seen this take effect, and have benefited from provisions in Obamacare that have already taken place. Unfortunately, they are staunch conservative republicans, so they won't admit it since it goes against the narrative of Obama being an anti-America socialist.
I feel the seniors you know suffer from the same inability to think in an objective, bipartisan manner.

There's plenty more to write, but I have wasted enough time. Facts don't matter.

EdsonNascimento

whygohome wrote:

A few ways that seniors are benefiting:

The cost controls in "Obamacare" does not effect seniors, but puts controls on providers.
This is good for seniors.
"Obamacare" reverses the negative effects of the doughnut hole in prescription drug coverage that was implemented by Medicare Part D, which was implemented by the Bush administration.
This is good for seniors as the amount they pay for prescription drugs (only a 25% co-pay.) This is fixed as opposed to Medicare Part D, which had a more progressive payment system where seniors had to pay more for their drugs.
My grandparents--89 and 85--have already seen this take effect, and have benefited from provisions in Obamacare that have already taken place. Unfortunately, they are staunch conservative republicans, so they won't admit it since it goes against the narrative of Obama being an anti-America socialist.
I feel the seniors you know suffer from the same inability to think in an objective, bipartisan manner.

There's plenty more to write, but I have wasted enough time. Facts don't matter.

Facts don't matter indeed.

Reverses the negative effects? Before Bush implemented Part D, Seniors didn't have a prescription drug benefit from the government. So, how could he have created negative effects? I've seen revisionist history, but this has to top it. Bush created negative effects by implementing a coverage for Seniors that NEVER EXISTED BEFORE he implemented it.

Bush's implementation not only installed this benefit, it helped salvage the BETTER benefits that some folks had through their employers by helping to subsidize those EXISTING benefits that employers were starting to get rid of for their retirees. And in doing so, he made the plan more affordable to the taxpayer (someone has to pay for the benefit) by reducing the number of folks that got dumped out of their employer sponsored retiree coverage because employers would no longer feel the need to provide it. Instead, by providing the 2/3rds subsidy by the gov't, he capped the gov't cost on those retirees that had BETTER drug coverage throught their employers at 2/3rds of the FULL COST of the gov't plan. And, in case you missed it - those retirees ended up with BETTER coverage. Win, win, win all around on that idea.

Now, the so called donut hole - that was created to make an Actuarially sound plan that would be more affordable to the tax payer (someone has to pay for the benefit). So, yes, there were folks that unfortunately had their coverage temporarily reduced in the middle, so it can be more affordable to the whole. However, catastrophic costs were covered (thus the proverbial donut hole). Again, a plan created with an eye to cover the most folks at a more cost efficient basis for the tax payer (someone has to pay for the benefit).

Now, Obama comes in and fills in the donut hole. Thus, pandering to the masses and "drilling for fear" (you might fall in the donut hole!!! Good gracious!!!). The problem is - he just raised your taxes and raised health care costs at the same time. It's easy giving other people's money away and it wins you votes!!!!!

So, you can agree with the donut filling (enjoy the higher taxes). But, you CANNOT say Bush somehow created negative effects. He created the coverage in the first place!!! Folks who had NO coverage, now HAD coverage.

And Obama raised your taxes (or increased the deficit - and probably both).

pandora

whygohome wrote:

pandora wrote:

Funny hasn't tilted any of the Seniors I know, who are mostly in the Midwest.

They think Obama has not done a thing!

He's the worst President they have seen in decades.
Not saying they like Romney either but 'Obamanation' is what his nickname is,
kind of says it all.

And I know plenty of seniors that will vote for him, blah, blah, blah. We can play this game forever, but we would both look like morons. They think"He's the worst president they've seen in decades"--such an idiotic statement. have they been awake over the past few decades as they've seen the middle class that they built be destroyed by Republican policies that always, always favor those at the top.
"Obamanation." Idiotic.

I think the seniors that "you know" need to step back into reality and enter the world of facts. Turn off the channel of con men (Hannity, Huckabee, O'Reilly) and stop listening to the most grotesque Americans in the country (Beck, Limbaugh) and start thinking for yourselves, seniors.

Or, are they the type to be swayed by bull shit like this?:
http://www.snopes.com/politics/medical/over75.asp; and death panels, etc.

A few ways that seniors are benefiting:

The cost controls in "Obamacare" does not effect seniors, but puts controls on providers.
This is good for seniors.
"Obamacare" reverses the negative effects of the doughnut hole in prescription drug coverage that was implemented by Medicare Part D, which was implemented by the Bush administration.
This is good for seniors as the amount they pay for prescription drugs (only a 25% co-pay.) This is fixed as opposed to Medicare Part D, which had a more progressive payment system where seniors had to pay more for their drugs.
My grandparents--89 and 85--have already seen this take effect, and have benefited from provisions in Obamacare that have already taken place. Unfortunately, they are staunch conservative republicans, so they won't admit it since it goes against the narrative of Obama being an anti-America socialist.
I feel the seniors you know suffer from the same inability to think in an objective, bipartisan manner.

There's plenty more to write, but I have wasted enough time. Facts don't matter.

I was replying to the tilting of seniors... mine haven't at all.
Didn't claim a thing about yours...

Actually the majority of seniors I know are free thinkers for life ... Independents...
entrepreneurs and not into a bunch of meds.
Boy did you call that wrong
and perhaps you might want to aspire to be like them
I know I have and have done just that, they are impressive indeed.

I'm studying to learn the positives of our current President,
not through blue colored glasses.
I realize why he was elected, it was based in our first black President.
But second term should not be based on race, only accomplishments.
As I have said my biz and us personally are not better off but
I'm researching and remaining unbiased to make an informative decision
not based in party....
making my old folks proud

I think most of which are writing in Ron... gotta make a stand sometime in life :thumbup:
can't be a sellout right?

whygohome

pandora wrote:

whygohome wrote:

pandora wrote:

Funny hasn't tilted any of the Seniors I know, who are mostly in the Midwest.

They think Obama has not done a thing!

He's the worst President they have seen in decades.
Not saying they like Romney either but 'Obamanation' is what his nickname is,
kind of says it all.

And I know plenty of seniors that will vote for him, blah, blah, blah. We can play this game forever, but we would both look like morons. They think"He's the worst president they've seen in decades"--such an idiotic statement. have they been awake over the past few decades as they've seen the middle class that they built be destroyed by Republican policies that always, always favor those at the top.
"Obamanation." Idiotic.

I think the seniors that "you know" need to step back into reality and enter the world of facts. Turn off the channel of con men (Hannity, Huckabee, O'Reilly) and stop listening to the most grotesque Americans in the country (Beck, Limbaugh) and start thinking for yourselves, seniors.

Or, are they the type to be swayed by bull shit like this?:
http://www.snopes.com/politics/medical/over75.asp; and death panels, etc.

A few ways that seniors are benefiting:

The cost controls in "Obamacare" does not effect seniors, but puts controls on providers.
This is good for seniors.
"Obamacare" reverses the negative effects of the doughnut hole in prescription drug coverage that was implemented by Medicare Part D, which was implemented by the Bush administration.
This is good for seniors as the amount they pay for prescription drugs (only a 25% co-pay.) This is fixed as opposed to Medicare Part D, which had a more progressive payment system where seniors had to pay more for their drugs.
My grandparents--89 and 85--have already seen this take effect, and have benefited from provisions in Obamacare that have already taken place. Unfortunately, they are staunch conservative republicans, so they won't admit it since it goes against the narrative of Obama being an anti-America socialist.
I feel the seniors you know suffer from the same inability to think in an objective, bipartisan manner.

There's plenty more to write, but I have wasted enough time. Facts don't matter.

I was replying to the tilting of seniors... mine haven't at all.
Didn't claim a thing about yours...

Actually the majority of seniors I know are free thinkers for life ... Independents...
entrepreneurs and not into a bunch of meds.
Boy did you call that wrong
and perhaps you might want to aspire to be like them
I know I have and have done just that, they are impressive indeed.

I'm studying to learn the positives of our current President,
not through blue colored glasses.
I realize why he was elected, it was based in our first black President.
But second term should not be based on race, only accomplishments.
As I have said my biz and us personally are not better off but
I'm researching and remaining unbiased to make an informative decision
not based in party....
making my old folks proud

I think most of which are writing in Ron... gotta make a stand sometime in life :thumbup:
can't be a sellout right?

So, I'm not a free thinker.
I wear blue-colored glasses even though I am a registered independent.
Obama was elected because he was black (not because both he and McCain were running against Bush).
If your biz is not better off, maybe it is time for new management. So when your biz doesn't do well, it is Obama or the government's fault, but if you were doing well, it would be all because of you. I got it now.
Obama voters are sellouts.

Did I miss anything?

whygohome

EdsonNascimento wrote:

whygohome wrote:

A few ways that seniors are benefiting:

The cost controls in "Obamacare" does not effect seniors, but puts controls on providers.
This is good for seniors.
"Obamacare" reverses the negative effects of the doughnut hole in prescription drug coverage that was implemented by Medicare Part D, which was implemented by the Bush administration.
This is good for seniors as the amount they pay for prescription drugs (only a 25% co-pay.) This is fixed as opposed to Medicare Part D, which had a more progressive payment system where seniors had to pay more for their drugs.
My grandparents--89 and 85--have already seen this take effect, and have benefited from provisions in Obamacare that have already taken place. Unfortunately, they are staunch conservative republicans, so they won't admit it since it goes against the narrative of Obama being an anti-America socialist.
I feel the seniors you know suffer from the same inability to think in an objective, bipartisan manner.

There's plenty more to write, but I have wasted enough time. Facts don't matter.

Facts don't matter indeed.

Reverses the negative effects? Before Bush implemented Part D, Seniors didn't have a prescription drug benefit from the government. So, how could he have created negative effects? I've seen revisionist history, but this has to top it. Bush created negative effects by implementing a coverage for Seniors that NEVER EXISTED BEFORE he implemented it.

Bush's implementation not only installed this benefit, it helped salvage the BETTER benefits that some folks had through their employers by helping to subsidize those EXISTING benefits that employers were starting to get rid of for their retirees. And in doing so, he made the plan more affordable to the taxpayer (someone has to pay for the benefit) by reducing the number of folks that got dumped out of their employer sponsored retiree coverage because employers would no longer feel the need to provide it. Instead, by providing the 2/3rds subsidy by the gov't, he capped the gov't cost on those retirees that had BETTER drug coverage throught their employers at 2/3rds of the FULL COST of the gov't plan. And, in case you missed it - those retirees ended up with BETTER coverage. Win, win, win all around on that idea.

Now, the so called donut hole - that was created to make an Actuarially sound plan that would be more affordable to the tax payer (someone has to pay for the benefit). So, yes, there were folks that unfortunately had their coverage temporarily reduced in the middle, so it can be more affordable to the whole. However, catastrophic costs were covered (thus the proverbial donut hole). Again, a plan created with an eye to cover the most folks at a more cost efficient basis for the tax payer (someone has to pay for the benefit).

Now, Obama comes in and fills in the donut hole. Thus, pandering to the masses and "drilling for fear" (you might fall in the donut hole!!! Good gracious!!!). The problem is - he just raised your taxes and raised health care costs at the same time. It's easy giving other people's money away and it wins you votes!!!!!

So, you can agree with the donut filling (enjoy the higher taxes). But, you CANNOT say Bush somehow created negative effects. He created the coverage in the first place!!! Folks who had NO coverage, now HAD coverage.

And Obama raised your taxes (or increased the deficit - and probably both).

A bad plan has negative effects. Yes, it is possible. This plan made taxes go up for seniors AND increased the deficit. Cost were higher=negative effect. (More profits for the drug companies=negative effect for seniors.)

It's that simple.
I've done the research. No need to tread a trodden trail.

This is a start:

http://www.forbes.com/2009/11/19/republ ... tlett.html

Trail of Corruption: Consider the following political payoffs:

From Wikipedia (with sources):
Former Congressman Billy Tauzin, R-La., who steered the bill through the House, retired soon after and took a $2 million a year job as president of Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA), the main industry lobby group.
Medicare boss Thomas Scully, who threatened to fire Medicare Chief Actuary Richard Foster if he reported how much the bill would actually cost, was negotiating for a new job as a pharmaceutical lobbyist as the bill was working through Congress.
A total of 14 congressional aides quit their jobs to work for the drug and medical lobbies immediately after the bill’s passage.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/03/ ... 5305.shtml

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/200 ... oison-pill

http://www.factcheck.org/2011/08/more-mediscare/

hedonist

whygohome wrote:

And I know plenty of seniors that will vote for him, blah, blah, blah. We can play this game forever, but we would both look like morons. They think"He's the worst president they've seen in decades"--such an idiotic statement. have they been awake over the past few decades as they've seen the middle class that they built be destroyed by Republican policies that always, always favor those at the top.
"Obamanation." Idiotic.

I think the seniors that "you know" need to step back into reality and enter the world of facts. Turn off the channel of con men (Hannity, Huckabee, O'Reilly) and stop listening to the most grotesque Americans in the country (Beck, Limbaugh) and start thinking for yourselves, seniors.
There's plenty more to write, but I have wasted enough time. Facts don't matter.

Jeesh. Sometimes you make good points, but I call bullshit on the above. Thanks for insulting my mom and the other "idiotic" senior folks I know.

And for what it's worth, we can (maybe should?) listen to a wide spectrum of views, whether or not there's agreement. Happens here, no? Or...does it? :think: .

For me anyway, I find that opens the mind more than limiting or putting down other sources of information - not to mention those who seek them out.

whygohome

hedonist wrote:

whygohome wrote:

And I know plenty of seniors that will vote for him, blah, blah, blah. We can play this game forever, but we would both look like morons. They think"He's the worst president they've seen in decades"--such an idiotic statement. have they been awake over the past few decades as they've seen the middle class that they built be destroyed by Republican policies that always, always favor those at the top.
"Obamanation." Idiotic.

I think the seniors that "you know" need to step back into reality and enter the world of facts. Turn off the channel of con men (Hannity, Huckabee, O'Reilly) and stop listening to the most grotesque Americans in the country (Beck, Limbaugh) and start thinking for yourselves, seniors.
There's plenty more to write, but I have wasted enough time. Facts don't matter.

Jeesh. Sometimes you make good points, but I call bullshit on the above. Thanks for insulting my mom and the other "idiotic" senior folks I know.

And for what it's worth, we can (maybe should?) listen to a wide spectrum of views, whether or not there's agreement. Happens here, no? Or...does it? :think: .

For me anyway, I find that opens the mind more than limiting or putting down other sources of information - not to mention those who seek them out.

My apologies. I got carried away; however, I do feel those statements are quite ludicrous, and I feel that they miss the big picture. And, I was pointing out that those statements, were idiotic.

Anyway, back to reading a great New Yorker article that exposes the hypocrisy of the cry-baby ultra-rich who have benefited greatly under the socialist president and a do-nothing Congress. I'll post a link for everyone.

EdsonNascimento

whygohome wrote:

EdsonNascimento wrote:

whygohome wrote:

A few ways that seniors are benefiting:

The cost controls in "Obamacare" does not effect seniors, but puts controls on providers.
This is good for seniors.
"Obamacare" reverses the negative effects of the doughnut hole in prescription drug coverage that was implemented by Medicare Part D, which was implemented by the Bush administration.
This is good for seniors as the amount they pay for prescription drugs (only a 25% co-pay.) This is fixed as opposed to Medicare Part D, which had a more progressive payment system where seniors had to pay more for their drugs.
My grandparents--89 and 85--have already seen this take effect, and have benefited from provisions in Obamacare that have already taken place. Unfortunately, they are staunch conservative republicans, so they won't admit it since it goes against the narrative of Obama being an anti-America socialist.
I feel the seniors you know suffer from the same inability to think in an objective, bipartisan manner.

There's plenty more to write, but I have wasted enough time. Facts don't matter.

Facts don't matter indeed.

Reverses the negative effects? Before Bush implemented Part D, Seniors didn't have a prescription drug benefit from the government. So, how could he have created negative effects? I've seen revisionist history, but this has to top it. Bush created negative effects by implementing a coverage for Seniors that NEVER EXISTED BEFORE he implemented it.

Bush's implementation not only installed this benefit, it helped salvage the BETTER benefits that some folks had through their employers by helping to subsidize those EXISTING benefits that employers were starting to get rid of for their retirees. And in doing so, he made the plan more affordable to the taxpayer (someone has to pay for the benefit) by reducing the number of folks that got dumped out of their employer sponsored retiree coverage because employers would no longer feel the need to provide it. Instead, by providing the 2/3rds subsidy by the gov't, he capped the gov't cost on those retirees that had BETTER drug coverage throught their employers at 2/3rds of the FULL COST of the gov't plan. And, in case you missed it - those retirees ended up with BETTER coverage. Win, win, win all around on that idea.

Now, the so called donut hole - that was created to make an Actuarially sound plan that would be more affordable to the tax payer (someone has to pay for the benefit). So, yes, there were folks that unfortunately had their coverage temporarily reduced in the middle, so it can be more affordable to the whole. However, catastrophic costs were covered (thus the proverbial donut hole). Again, a plan created with an eye to cover the most folks at a more cost efficient basis for the tax payer (someone has to pay for the benefit).

Now, Obama comes in and fills in the donut hole. Thus, pandering to the masses and "drilling for fear" (you might fall in the donut hole!!! Good gracious!!!). The problem is - he just raised your taxes and raised health care costs at the same time. It's easy giving other people's money away and it wins you votes!!!!!

So, you can agree with the donut filling (enjoy the higher taxes). But, you CANNOT say Bush somehow created negative effects. He created the coverage in the first place!!! Folks who had NO coverage, now HAD coverage.

And Obama raised your taxes (or increased the deficit - and probably both).

A bad plan has negative effects. Yes, it is possible. This plan made taxes go up for seniors AND increased the deficit. Cost were higher=negative effect. (More profits for the drug companies=negative effect for seniors.)

It's that simple.
I've done the research. No need to tread a trodden trail.

This is a start:

http://www.forbes.com/2009/11/19/republ ... tlett.html

Trail of Corruption: Consider the following political payoffs:

From Wikipedia (with sources):
Former Congressman Billy Tauzin, R-La., who steered the bill through the House, retired soon after and took a $2 million a year job as president of Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA), the main industry lobby group.
Medicare boss Thomas Scully, who threatened to fire Medicare Chief Actuary Richard Foster if he reported how much the bill would actually cost, was negotiating for a new job as a pharmaceutical lobbyist as the bill was working through Congress.
A total of 14 congressional aides quit their jobs to work for the drug and medical lobbies immediately after the bill’s passage.

How did the plan make taxes go up for SENIORS? :? Yes, it resulted in a bigger deficit. I actually wasn't necessarily lauding the overall plan. But, at least there was THOUGHT put in to it to balance the greater good (providering Rx benefit to Seniors) and the financial implications of the country. Obama puts no thought into the latter. And that's a problem. It's easy to give money away.

Funny thing is, what you point out about folks leaving politics for parmacy companies were made RICHER by Obama filling the donut hole. That's the hypocricy of your 2 comments on this topic - Bush sucks because he cost us money and made money for the lobbies, Obama rules because he provided a great benefit. :?

Again - Bush provided a lesser benefit than Obama now does. Yet, Bush is the one to blame for the cost of the program and those that got rich off it? The solution to your supposed problem is that Bush never provide a benefit at all. Was that the intention of your comments?

Wacky.

pandora

whygohome wrote:

pandora wrote:

whygohome wrote:

And I know plenty of seniors that will vote for him, blah, blah, blah. We can play this game forever, but we would both look like morons. They think"He's the worst president they've seen in decades"--such an idiotic statement. have they been awake over the past few decades as they've seen the middle class that they built be destroyed by Republican policies that always, always favor those at the top.
"Obamanation." Idiotic.

I think the seniors that "you know" need to step back into reality and enter the world of facts. Turn off the channel of con men (Hannity, Huckabee, O'Reilly) and stop listening to the most grotesque Americans in the country (Beck, Limbaugh) and start thinking for yourselves, seniors.

Or, are they the type to be swayed by bull shit like this?:
http://www.snopes.com/politics/medical/over75.asp; and death panels, etc.

A few ways that seniors are benefiting:

The cost controls in "Obamacare" does not effect seniors, but puts controls on providers.
This is good for seniors.
"Obamacare" reverses the negative effects of the doughnut hole in prescription drug coverage that was implemented by Medicare Part D, which was implemented by the Bush administration.
This is good for seniors as the amount they pay for prescription drugs (only a 25% co-pay.) This is fixed as opposed to Medicare Part D, which had a more progressive payment system where seniors had to pay more for their drugs.
My grandparents--89 and 85--have already seen this take effect, and have benefited from provisions in Obamacare that have already taken place. Unfortunately, they are staunch conservative republicans, so they won't admit it since it goes against the narrative of Obama being an anti-America socialist.
I feel the seniors you know suffer from the same inability to think in an objective, bipartisan manner.

There's plenty more to write, but I have wasted enough time. Facts don't matter.

I was replying to the tilting of seniors... mine haven't at all.
Didn't claim a thing about yours...

Actually the majority of seniors I know are free thinkers for life ... Independents...
entrepreneurs and not into a bunch of meds.
Boy did you call that wrong
and perhaps you might want to aspire to be like them
I know I have and have done just that, they are impressive indeed.

I'm studying to learn the positives of our current President,
not through blue colored glasses.
I realize why he was elected, it was based in our first black President.
But second term should not be based on race, only accomplishments.
As I have said my biz and us personally are not better off but
I'm researching and remaining unbiased to make an informative decision
not based in party....
making my old folks proud

I think most of which are writing in Ron... gotta make a stand sometime in life :thumbup:
can't be a sellout right?

So, I'm not a free thinker.
I wear blue-colored glasses even though I am a registered independent.
Obama was elected because he was black (not because both he and McCain were running against Bush).
If your biz is not better off, maybe it is time for new management. So when your biz doesn't do well, it is Obama or the government's fault, but if you were doing well, it would be all because of you. I got it now.
Obama voters are sellouts.

Did I miss anything?

No just misinterpreted everything

hmmmm

I did not say you wore blue colored glasses
and I truly don't know if you are a free thinker, I did not say you weren't,
I mentioned my peeps are.
But you assume a lot and judge the old folks you don't know, that doesn't seem free to me.
You mentioned your seniors as being Republicans and assumed much of mine,
so I told you about mine.

Are you assuming most all small businesses are doing better
under our current administration?

And if not they all need new management? and it is their fault not the state of the economy?

Are you an entrepreneur?

Most know their business good or bad relies heavily on the economy.
We rely on others being employed, we rely on others buying our service and our products.
We rely on other businesses. Pretty basic stuff.
And no most owners do not take the credit, most are just damn thankful and appreciative
when all is going well. We know how fragile this thing called business is.

Moonpig

pandora wrote:

whygohome wrote:

pandora wrote:

Funny hasn't tilted any of the Seniors I know, who are mostly in the Midwest.

They think Obama has not done a thing!

He's the worst President they have seen in decades.
Not saying they like Romney either but 'Obamanation' is what his nickname is,
kind of says it all.

And I know plenty of seniors that will vote for him, blah, blah, blah. We can play this game forever, but we would both look like morons. They think"He's the worst president they've seen in decades"--such an idiotic statement. have they been awake over the past few decades as they've seen the middle class that they built be destroyed by Republican policies that always, always favor those at the top.
"Obamanation." Idiotic.

I think the seniors that "you know" need to step back into reality and enter the world of facts. Turn off the channel of con men (Hannity, Huckabee, O'Reilly) and stop listening to the most grotesque Americans in the country (Beck, Limbaugh) and start thinking for yourselves, seniors.

Or, are they the type to be swayed by bull shit like this?:
http://www.snopes.com/politics/medical/over75.asp; and death panels, etc.

A few ways that seniors are benefiting:

The cost controls in "Obamacare" does not effect seniors, but puts controls on providers.
This is good for seniors.
"Obamacare" reverses the negative effects of the doughnut hole in prescription drug coverage that was implemented by Medicare Part D, which was implemented by the Bush administration.
This is good for seniors as the amount they pay for prescription drugs (only a 25% co-pay.) This is fixed as opposed to Medicare Part D, which had a more progressive payment system where seniors had to pay more for their drugs.
My grandparents--89 and 85--have already seen this take effect, and have benefited from provisions in Obamacare that have already taken place. Unfortunately, they are staunch conservative republicans, so they won't admit it since it goes against the narrative of Obama being an anti-America socialist.
I feel the seniors you know suffer from the same inability to think in an objective, bipartisan manner.

There's plenty more to write, but I have wasted enough time. Facts don't matter.

I was replying to the tilting of seniors... mine haven't at all.
Didn't claim a thing about yours...

Actually the majority of seniors I know are free thinkers for life ... Independents...
entrepreneurs and not into a bunch of meds.
Boy did you call that wrong
and perhaps you might want to aspire to be like them
I know I have and have done just that, they are impressive indeed.

I'm studying to learn the positives of our current President,
not through blue colored glasses.
I realize why he was elected, it was based in our first black President.
But second term should not be based on race, only accomplishments.
As I have said my biz and us personally are not better off but
I'm researching and remaining unbiased to make an informative decision
not based in party....
making my old folks proud

I think most of which are writing in Ron... gotta make a stand sometime in life :thumbup:
can't be a sellout right?

Wow, for someone who goes on about being objective, just wow. What an idiotic statement to make, I'm not saying it may not have been a factor for some, but to make such a sweeping statement just reeks of bias.

I know there is little point in leaving this comment as you will somehow try to skew it, but I really just couldn't let it go.

pandora

Moonpig wrote:

Wow, for someone who goes on about being objective, just wow. What an idiotic statement to make, I'm not saying it may not have been a factor for some, but to make such a sweeping statement just reeks of bias.

I know there is little point in leaving this comment as you will somehow try to skew it, but I really just couldn't let it go.

No it was a huge factor here... did you watch the hundreds of thousands fill the streets
on your telly
No bias just truth... he is our first black President.
Can you try to imagine what this meant to people? More than just some by far.
If you can't understand, that is sad, it was a celebration!

Moonpig

pandora wrote:

Moonpig wrote:

Wow, for someone who goes on about being objective, just wow. What an idiotic statement to make, I'm not saying it may not have been a factor for some, but to make such a sweeping statement just reeks of bias.

I know there is little point in leaving this comment as you will somehow try to skew it, but I really just couldn't let it go.

No it was a huge factor here... did you watch the hundreds of thousands fill the streets
on your telly
No bias just truth... he is our first black President.
Can you try to imagine what this meant to people? More than just some by far.
If you can't understand, that is sad, it was a celebration!

What's sad is you actually believe that. Can you please provide some facts to back up your claim that being the first black president was the main driver to voting for Obama, and that his message of hope and change had little or nothing to do with such.

Why would it be sad if I failed to not understand something, why even equate an emotion to my understanding, I'm asking for facts so as to broaden my understanding, not an emotional response from Yoda.

EdsonNascimento

Moonpig wrote:

What's sad is you actually believe that. Can you please provide some facts to back up your claim that being the first black president was the main driver to voting for Obama, and that his message of hope and change had little or nothing to do with such.

95% of African-Americans voted for 1 candidate in 2008.

If 95% of Caucasians voted for 1 candidate, what would the reaction have been?

pandora

Moonpig wrote:

pandora wrote:

No it was a huge factor here... did you watch the hundreds of thousands fill the streets
on your telly
No bias just truth... he is our first black President.
Can you try to imagine what this meant to people? More than just some by far.
If you can't understand, that is sad, it was a celebration!

What's sad is you actually believe that. Can you please provide some facts to back up your claim that being the first black president was the main driver to voting for Obama, and that his message of hope and change had little or nothing to do with such.

Why would it be sad if I failed to not understand something, why even equate an emotion to my understanding, I'm asking for facts so as to broaden my understanding, not an emotional response from Yoda.

Your comments tried to show me as racist... biased, you sure don't know me.
When seeing race that is not a racist. Celebrating race is not a racist.

Many of the people who went to Washington did not go for other Presidents,
this a known fact greatly discussed by the media reporting.
They went because he was like them, a black man, a wonderful black man,
a symbol of where our country has been and where it came to when he took office.
Blacks and whites walked together in celebration. It was beautiful!

Sorry if I base much on emotion, that's me. Not accused of being real logical
most of the time. I do find it sad you don't understand. You say failed but your mind
was made up. You prejudged my words.

If you don't like a bit of Yoda in your life perhaps you should stop quoting me
You seem to resort to that each time you speak to me, what's up with that?

Moonpig

pandora wrote:

Moonpig wrote:

pandora wrote:

No it was a huge factor here... did you watch the hundreds of thousands fill the streets
on your telly
No bias just truth... he is our first black President.
Can you try to imagine what this meant to people? More than just some by far.
If you can't understand, that is sad, it was a celebration!

What's sad is you actually believe that. Can you please provide some facts to back up your claim that being the first black president was the main driver to voting for Obama, and that his message of hope and change had little or nothing to do with such.

Why would it be sad if I failed to not understand something, why even equate an emotion to my understanding, I'm asking for facts so as to broaden my understanding, not an emotional response from Yoda.

Your comments tried to show me as racist... biased, you sure don't know me.
When seeing race that is not a racist. Celebrating race is not a racist.

Many of the people who went to Washington did not go for other Presidents,
this a known fact greatly discussed by the media reporting.
They went because he was like them, a black man, a wonderful black man,
a symbol of where our country has been and where it came to when he took office.
Blacks and whites walked together in celebration. It was beautiful!

Sorry if I base much on emotion, that's me. Not accused of being real logical
most of the time. I do find it sad you don't understand. You say failed but your mind
was made up. You prejudged my words.

If you don't like a bit of Yoda in your life perhaps you should stop quoting me
You seem to resort to that each time you speak to me, what's up with that?

What are you on about. You made a fairly sweeping statement, I asked you to back it up. Let's just stick to that shall we.

So...any facts yet?

Moonpig

EdsonNascimento wrote:

Moonpig wrote:

What's sad is you actually believe that. Can you please provide some facts to back up your claim that being the first black president was the main driver to voting for Obama, and that his message of hope and change had little or nothing to do with such.

95% of African-Americans voted for 1 candidate in 2008.

If 95% of Caucasians voted for 1 candidate, what would the reaction have been?

88% of African Americans voted for Kerry in 2004.

The Republicans have struggled for some time to secure the black vote, long before Obama

Moonpig

Oops, now I'm falling into the stereotype trap, guess it's what happens when one gets overly exposed to it.

I meant to say - 88% of African Americans who voted, voted for Kerry. Like 95% of African Americans who voted, voted for Obama.

Saying that 95% of African Americans voted for Obama is slightly misleading.

pandora

Moonpig wrote:

pandora wrote:

Moonpig wrote:

What's sad is you actually believe that. Can you please provide some facts to back up your claim that being the first black president was the main driver to voting for Obama, and that his message of hope and change had little or nothing to do with such.

Why would it be sad if I failed to not understand something, why even equate an emotion to my understanding, I'm asking for facts so as to broaden my understanding, not an emotional response from Yoda.

Your comments tried to show me as racist... biased, you sure don't know me.
When seeing race that is not a racist. Celebrating race is not a racist.

Many of the people who went to Washington did not go for other Presidents,
this a known fact greatly discussed by the media reporting.
They went because he was like them, a black man, a wonderful black man,
a symbol of where our country has been and where it came to when he took office.
Blacks and whites walked together in celebration. It was beautiful!

Sorry if I base much on emotion, that's me. Not accused of being real logical
most of the time. I do find it sad you don't understand. You say failed but your mind
was made up. You prejudged my words.

If you don't like a bit of Yoda in your life perhaps you should stop quoting me
You seem to resort to that each time you speak to me, what's up with that?

What are you on about. You made a fairly sweeping statement, I asked you to back it up. Let's just stick to that shall we.

So...any facts yet?

What exactly do you need facts on other than I am not a racist
I think you immediately wanted to pull the racist card, twisting into ugly...
shame on you or was it just not politically correct enough for you?

Nothing ugly about the celebration our country had with our first black President.

Are you challenging the fact that race played a part in his election?
I think most everyone knows this.

Are you challenging that blacks arrived in buses to celebrate their first black President?
That record numbers came to celebrate. I think you can google as well as I.

Again you presumed wrongly that my comment was based in hate,
it is based in love. Is that too much Yoda for ya.

As far as what am I on about... it is you who make personal comments
do you expect another not to acknowledge and address them?

I would ask you as I did already what's up with that?
kind of like "on about" but

maybe best to agree to disagree... you can think race had little effect on
his election or our celebration and I can definitely think otherwise.