Who is rushing home to listen to President Obama.

[retro]

When Reagan was pushing for tax cuts and spending cuts (although he did not bother to get the spending cuts done, and drove the deficit up substantially for the first time since the 60's) he was very active on the subject, addressing the nation and making speeches around the country.

Frankly, your gripe about this President addressing the nation too often is amusing and only gets traction from those intent on discrediting him and his agenda.

Again, I'm not talking about Reagan making speeches around the country... because I doubt you could say that Obama has done that any less. I'm talking about national prime-time televised addresses to the Nation. Honestly, is that so effing hard to understand? You brought up Reagan, I brought up the fact that Obama has already addressed the nation in eight months nearly half as many times as Reagan did in his entire first term. Hell, even the television networks are getting sick of him demanding air time so that he can make another speech. So once again, when presented with facts, you present a red herring.

 

[nova]

Again, I'm not talking about Reagan making speeches around the country... because I doubt you could say that Obama has done that any less. I'm talking about national prime-time televised addresses to the Nation. Honestly, is that so effing hard to understand?

Now retro, you can't go insisting on a common standard for debate. The liberals get mad when they can't make shit up as they go.

 

[Minor Axis]

Again, I'm not talking about Reagan making speeches around the country... because I doubt you could say that Obama has done that any less. I'm talking about national prime-time televised addresses to the Nation. Honestly, is that so effing hard to understand? You brought up Reagan, I brought up the fact that Obama has already addressed the nation in eight months nearly half as many times as Reagan did in his entire first term. Hell, even the television networks are getting sick of him demanding air time so that he can make another speech. So once again, when presented with facts, you present a red herring.

So effing what? I never said you were wrong. I just countered your statement with a counter point. You are so intent on debating, you debate when there is nothing there. Reagan pushed for his agenda. Obama is pushing for his. So really what is your problem with Obama National addresses?

 

[nova]

So effing what? I never said you were wrong. I just countered your statement with a counter point. You are so intent on debating, you debate when there is nothing there. Reagan pushed for his agenda. Obama is pushing for his. So really what is your problem with Obama National addresses?

He's already told you. Multiple times. Its the fact that he's giving so damn many of them.

 

[Minor Axis]

He's already told you. Multiple times. Its the fact that he's giving so damn many of them.

Really multiple times? I found this one "obsessed with getting camera time." That's the problem with National addresses? You guys are a riot, despite your agenda.

 

[nova]

Retros second post in the thread Mr. Selective Reader

If he tries to force people's hands, I wouldn't be surprised in the least bit to see a decent number of blue dogs defect to the Republican side, or at least go independent and caucus with the GOP.

As far as Reagan goes... I count 20 addresses "to the nation' and State of the Union addresses in his first term. That number includes radio addresses, and I haven't been able to tell how many of them were prime time speeches. What's Obama up to now? 7-8 prime time addresses to the nation?

And here's a few more from myself and others...

Thank god the president is making another speech. Its been two whole days now. I was starting to have obamagasm withdrawal...

He does love da'camera. PRIMETIME again. 7pm CDT.

Imagine what would happen if he actually spent the time he does on camera, speaking to congress and senate. Hell he might actually change something....Nah too logical.
once he brainwashes the followers, he'll have three more years to take us over

And the last which you yourself quoted

What my response would or wouldn't have been in that situation (and I seriously doubt that situation will ever come to pass) isn't the point of this discussion though. The point of the discussion was how often Obama addresses the Nation on national prime-time television. You brought up Reagan, and I presented you with the fact that Obama has already addressed the Nation in eight months nearly half as many times as Reagan did in four years. So when presented with those facts, you throw out a red herring rather than comment on the facts given to you.

 

[Minor Axis]

Retros second post in the thread Mr. Selective Reader

If he tries to force people's hands, I wouldn't be surprised in the least bit to see a decent number of blue dogs defect to the Republican side, or at least go independent and caucus with the GOP.

As far as Reagan goes... I count 20 addresses "to the nation' and State of the Union addresses in his first term. That number includes radio addresses, and I haven't been able to tell how many of them were prime time speeches. What's Obama up to now? 7-8 prime time addresses to the nation?

And here's a few more from myself and others...

Thank god the president is making another speech. Its been two whole days now. I was starting to have obamagasm withdrawal...

He does love da'camera. PRIMETIME again. 7pm CDT.

Imagine what would happen if he actually spent the time he does on camera, speaking to congress and senate. Hell he might actually change something....Nah too logical.
once he brainwashes the followers, he'll have three more years to take us over

And the last which you yourself quoted

What my response would or wouldn't have been in that situation (and I seriously doubt that situation will ever come to pass) isn't the point of this discussion though. The point of the discussion was how often Obama addresses the Nation on national prime-time television. You brought up Reagan, and I presented you with the fact that Obama has already addressed the Nation in eight months nearly half as many times as Reagan did in four years. So when presented with those facts, you throw out a red herring rather than comment on the facts given to you.

Your allowing your zeal to cloud your judgement. Every comment you posted regarded the fact that Obama was making an address, not an explanation of the problem that I asked retro, he had with National addresses. BTW, this is great rebuttal- "oh another speech", "yep 7pm", "after he gets done brainwashing the followers"

Hilarious! You did say your were brilliant, right?

 

[nova]

And you're allowing your selective reading to cloud yours...

 

[Minor Axis]

There is a battle going on in Congress and across the Nation regarding the future of health care in the U.S.

What is wrong with frequent Presidential addresses to the nation?

Any takers? The challenge is not to sound petty or partisan.

 

[nova]

There is a battle going on in Congress and across the Nation regarding the future of health care in the U.S.

What is wrong with frequent Presidential addresses to the nation?

Any takers? The challenge is not to sound petty or partisan.

The real challenge is to recognize that the presidency is ALWAYS chock full of work vitally important to the nation. That doesn't mean the president needs to be on prime time TV talking about it all the damn time. He needs to buckle down and actually do the damn work.

We've heard 4-5 times already how "vitally important" reform is. We get it. Most of us agree. We just disagree on the path reform should take. We don't need to be told 6-7-8 or 10 times how "vitally important" reform is without any new developments. Get to work on the actual legislative process and give us an update when something changes....

 

[BadBoy@TheWheel]

There is a battle going on in Congress and across the Nation regarding the future of health care in the U.S.

What is wrong with frequent Presidential addresses to the nation?

Any takers? The challenge is not to sound petty or partisan.

The problem is it gives the impression that the person might be more concerned with what people think of him, than what people think about what he's doing.
I would rather never hear from him, or infrequently hear from him, but know he's doing the nation good by what's happening around me, than seeing 7 million people without work, spiraling debt, poor battle strategies while we have men and women overseas, healthcare crisis and collapsing relations with borderline allies and not seeing anything being done, just seeing his smirk everytime I turn on the TV talking about what he wants to do. I say....Well Mr. President....Mr. Change, let's kick lobbies out of DC, clear a path and crack a fucking whip...All do respect your majesty
To me he seems far more concerned what people think of him than what people think of his policies. If he was a moviestar, he would be called an attention whore, but he's the all mighty, so he's just being informative

 

[Accountable]

No clear message? Did you even listen to the speech?

If You Have Health Insurance,
the President's Plan:

• Ends discrimination against people with pre-existing conditions.
• Limits premium discrimination based on gender and age.
• Prevents insurance companies from dropping coverage when people are sick and need it most.
• Caps out-of-pocket expenses so people don’t go broke when they get sick.
• Eliminates extra charges for preventive care like mammograms, flu shots and diabetes tests to improve health and save money.
• Protects Medicare for seniors.
• Eliminates the “donut-hole” gap in coverage for prescription drugs.

If You Don’t Have Insurance,
the President's Plan:

• Creates a new insurance marketplace — the Exchange — that allows people without insurance and small businesses to compare plans and buy insurance at competitive prices.
• Provides new tax credits to help people buy insurance.
• Provides small businesses tax credits and affordable options for covering employees.
• Offers a public health insurance option to provide the uninsured and those who can’t find affordable coverage with a real choice.
• Immediately offers new, low-cost coverage through a national “high risk” pool to protect people with preexisting conditions from financial ruin until the new Exchange is created.

For All Americans,
the President's Plan:

• Won’t add a dime to the deficit and is paid for upfront.
• Requires additional cuts if savings are not realized.
• Implements a number of delivery system reforms that begin to rein in health care costs and align incentives for hospitals, physicians, and others to improve quality.
• Creates an independent commission of doctors and medical experts to identify waste, fraud and abuse in the health care system.
• Orders immediate medical malpractice reform projects that could help doctors focus on putting their patients first, not on practicing defensive medicine.
• Requires large employers to cover their employees and individuals who can afford it to buy insurance so everyone shares in the responsibility of reform.

All these points were covered in his speech last night. He is not the one writing the Bills, he is stating his plan and how he wants to see it play out. Now it's up to congress and the senate to take this plan and work it into the bills they are writing. Would you prefer that he actually sit down and write the bill like Clinton did? Or would you rather he put forth an outline and let congress do their jobs and fill in the details???

Are there rules against plagiarism here?
The Obama Plan: Stability & Security for all Americans | The White House
You really should cite your sources instead of pretending you wrote all this.

Did YOU even listen to the speech? I did. I also found a transcript ( CLICK HERE) so that you can find out what you're really supposed to be supporting after pretending to have vetted it.

Not a word about donut holes, btw, and your list doesn't mention new lipservice to something McCain recommended in the presidential race. Can you find it, then pretend you remember hearing it in the speech?

You also don't mention his droning on about the public option. This is my favorite piece of this stage show.

• It's going to be a good enough deal that private insurance companies will fear it's popularity so much that they will drop their own prices, yet will be such a shitty deal that only 5% of uninsured Americans will even want it.
• It will charge less by taking advantage of being able to avoid "some of the overhead that gets eaten up at private companies by profits, excessive administrative costs and executive salaries," yet will not compete unfairly.
• "t would only be an option for those who don't have insurance," will be affordable to those people, who presumably can't afford regular health insurance, yet will make enough money to be self-sustainable.
  [*]"t would only be an option for those who don't have insurance," yet will make private insurance lower their prices to keep from losing their current customers ... those who have insurance ... who are not eligible for the public option.
  

Impressive, eh? David Copperfield wouldn't have the balls to attempt that even with trick cameras. Who says magic doesn't exist?

 

[nova]

ROFL, thats funny shit right there. They've devolved from simply repeating/retyping the Obama talking points to just cutting and pasting the Obama talking points. The amount of effort and critical thought keeps going further and further down...

 

[Ryder]

He's gonna be on tv again?