Ummm,,,,Ahhhh...Um...Ahhhhh....Ummmm

[Cool Beans]

Originally Posted by spence

Well, you seem to believe you have the credentials to make an informed judgment.

-spence

Hell. I think my dog Max is smarter than Mr Obama.
I think Mr. Teleprompter may be smarter than Max though.

[JohnR]

Originally Posted by spence

-spence

[JohnnyD]

Originally Posted by Cool Beans

I think Mr. Teleprompter may be smarter than Max though.

Your ignorance is amazing.

[spence]

Originally Posted by JohnnyD

Your ignorance is amazing.

I don't even think it's ignorance, it's too petty.

One may not agree with Obama's politics, but to think he's not a very bright person is either just stupid. The "teleprompter" remarks are equally stupid...

Have you noticed how nobody every makes a well reasoned critique about what Obama actually says when he's not speaking from a teleprompter? All they can do is poke fun of him for not being on one...

Thank goodness he doesn't have a bad studder, the comments would be heartless.

Lame.

-spence

[Bill L]

Well, you seem to believe you have the credentials to make an informed judgment.

Are you serious? Exactly what "credentials" do I need to have an opinion that I was not impressed by the President's speaking ability? I don't see the need to go into a three paragraph dissertation to support this. Typical Spence response to insult the intelligence of anybody that has a differing opinion.

That being said, for the record, I believe he is very bright, just not very impressive when he speaks. Sorry I hurt your feelings.

By the way, it's "stutter" not "studder"

[spence]

Originally Posted by Bill L

Are you serious? Exactly what "credentials" do I need to have an opinion that I was not impressed by the President's speaking ability? I don't see the need to go into a three paragraph dissertation to support this. Typical Spence response to insult the intelligence of anybody that has a differing opinion.

To make a remark like "If he's as sharp as you say he is you'd think he could put two sentences together a little quicker" clearly seems to indicate you don't feel he reaches your own personal standards for intellect.

As for insulting the intelligence of someone with a differing opinion, that's just nonsense. The issue is that the basis for the remarks about Obama have little to do with his real intelligence.

If you watched his press conference I'd think you'd have some substantial critique
of his responses and perhaps praise or contempt for his policy.

Instead there's just petty.

JohnnyD called this one right.

-spence

[Nebe]

hes a better speaker than the last sucker to have that job...

[Cool Beans]

Originally Posted by JohnnyD

Your ignorance is amazing.

I'm sorry,

That entire post about my dog being smarter than Obama was just my way of poking a hornets nest with a stick

[Cool Beans]

Originally Posted by Nebe

hes a better speaker than the last sucker to have that job...

Yes, that is true, but when Bush spoke, I feel it came more from his heartfelt beliefs (even if you think they were misguided). He made so many mistakes speaking, because he did speak a lot from his feelings without the benefit of utilizing the brain. I thought he was one of those guys, like a 1/2 educated farmer, that would do anything to provide for his family and country. I saw him speak twice at the Naval War College while on active duty and during the question and answers after his speeches, he showed me that he was very patriotic, had a deep love for this country, and would do just about anything to protect this land.

I have yet to see Obama speak besides on tv, so I havent been able to get a real feel for him. From the speeches I have seen, it seems like I'm listening to a lawyer, very well chosen words, and sometimes his words don't seem to be reflected in his eyes. Eerily, reminds me of my days as a cop, when guys would tell the suspect that they were trying to help him, by getting all of the facts or he wasn't your main target (to get more info), when all you really wanted was to get that punk behind bars. When he says something I feel that he means something slightly or completely different. Not trying to be anti Obama, but I can't seem to trust him. I feel like he as good as Clinton at telling lies.

[JohnnyD]

Originally Posted by Cool Beans

Yes, that is true, but when Bush spoke, I feel it came more from his heartfelt beliefs (even if you think they were misguided).

In one sentence, you have completely explained why Bush was the biggest failure of a president.

Being a business owner, I see running a government as not much unlike running a business. Every decision needs to be precisely calculated to produce the most optimal results. Every action or policy put into place must produce the maximum benefit to, not only the company, but also the customer. This is where Bush failed.

I agree that in many aspects, many of Bush's actions stemmed from heartfelt beliefs. However, it is my opinion that almost *all* of Bush's policies were based on his "heartfelt belief" as opposed to calculated decisions.

[spence]

Originally Posted by JohnnyD

I agree that in many aspects, many of Bush's actions stemmed from heartfelt beliefs. However, it is my opinion that almost *all* of Bush's policies were based on his "heartfelt belief" as opposed to calculated decisions.

Or worse, the heartfelt beliefs of those around him.

Example.

Bush (protect the American people) + Advisers (democratize the Middle East) = Policy (protect the American people by democratizing the Middle Ease)

I think Bush came across as genuine for many because he believed most of what he was saying. He did though appear to lack the intellectual curiosity to dive into issues and explore the various facets. He was more apt to simply take things for what they appeared to be (or was told) and if he felt he was making the right decision he would be clear with this choice.

This works fine when everything is rosy, but I think proven to be dramatically insufficient when dealing with the complex problems that he was presented with. The world isn't black and white but they tried to make it out to be so as to be easier for the American people to swallow.

-spence

[buckman]

Originally Posted by JohnnyD

In one sentence, you have completely explained why Bush was the biggest failure of a president.

Being a business owner, I see running a government as not much unlike running a business. Every decision needs to be precisely calculated to produce the most optimal results. Every action or policy put into place must produce the maximum benefit to, not only the company, but also the customer. This is where Bush failed.

I agree that in many aspects, many of Bush's actions stemmed from heartfelt beliefs. However, it is my opinion that almost *all* of Bush's policies were based on his "heartfelt belief" as opposed to calculated decisions.

This raises the question...What the hell makes you think Obama won't fail? He should be poised to be the worst President ever by your logic.

And I agree 100% with your statement.

[spence]

Originally Posted by buckman

This raises the question...What the hell makes you think Obama won't fail? He should be poised to be the worst President ever by your logic.

Not necessarily.

Take health care for instance. It's perhaps our biggest challenge and yet one where there's an abundance of cash flow. If I was a business person I'd treat the systemic issues with strategic solutions.

For instance we may be able to dramatically reduce costs through early detection, or achieve economies of scale by consolidating services. These solutions have proven difficult if not impossible to deploy with a hybrid free market system. Hell, we don't even let the Government negotiate discount rates for pharmaceuticals!

The counter argument of course is that it could limit choice, or create socialistic entitlements. But these are ideological issues that ignore a potential net gain to the system, and that could be a better use of the same taxpayer money.

A business person would ignore ideology at first and look for innovative solutions to the big problems, then use their ideology as guiding principals to stress test the actual solutions.

-spence

[buckman]

Originally Posted by spence

Not necessarily.

Take health care for instance. It's perhaps our biggest challenge and yet one where there's an abundance of cash flow. If I was a business person I'd treat the systemic issues with strategic solutions.

For instance we may be able to dramatically reduce costs through early detection, or achieve economies of scale by consolidating services. These solutions have proven difficult if not impossible to deploy with a hybrid free market system. Hell, we don't even let the Government negotiate discount rates for pharmaceuticals!

The counter argument of course is that it could limit choice, or create socialistic entitlements. But these are ideological issues that ignore a potential net gain to the system, and that could be a better use of the same taxpayer money.

A business person would ignore ideology at first and look for innovative solutions to the big problems, then use their ideology as guiding principals to stress test the actual solutions.

-spence

As long as the President, his wife and children have the same health insurance I get. No exceptions, otherwise I like my freedom to choose for my own children.

[spence]

Originally Posted by buckman

As long as the President, his wife and children have the same health insurance I get. No exceptions, otherwise I like my freedom to choose for my own children.

That's a good way to look at it. I'm not for a pure single payer system, but I also don't think what we have now is workable either. I think there's a solution where we have a limited single payer system to provide base coverage and people or companies can upgrade somewhat like they do with Medicare today.

The American people also need to stop subsidizing pharmaceuticals for the rest of the world. We're the only industrialized nation who allows price fixing.

-spence

[buckman]

Originally Posted by spence

That's a good way to look at it. I'm not for a pure single payer system, but I also don't think what we have now is workable either. I think there's a solution where we have a limited single payer system to provide base coverage and people or companies can upgrade somewhat like they do with Medicare today.

The American people also need to stop subsidizing pharmaceuticals for the rest of the world. We're the only industrialized nation who allows price fixing.

-spence

Well Medicare is going bankrupt too. I would feel a little better if the Feds had just one program that had succeeded in it's intended purpose. This bunch that's in charge now, can't do anything right. Spend, spend, spend....

[Cool Beans]

It will be very tough to make nationalized health care work. One possibility would be to do like the military, your initial visit would be to a nurse (corpsman) who would evaluate and treat you for minor issues and then refer you up to actual doctors for more serious things. This would make routine visits much cheaper as they could pay considerably less for the nurse compared to a doctor. Wait times would definately increase, just like all government services (DMV, DEM, of Post Office). It is doable, I lived in Japan for 8 years and wife received National insurance from Japan and payed a 500 yen ($5.00) co-pay each visit. It seemed to be pretty efficient. All employers are required to pay for health insurance and if not employed you are required to sign up for national insurance (it was pretty cheap).

just a few leftist thoughts from a right leaning guy.......

If we can use the good from both sides without bringing the garbage from both sides, this country could possibly pull this off. I don't hold out much faith in our system though,,, it will end up with a hundred or more added earmarks for various senators from both parties.

[spence]

Originally Posted by buckman

Well Medicare is going bankrupt too. I would feel a little better if the Feds had just one program that had succeeded in it's intended purpose. This bunch that's in charge now, can't do anything right. Spend, spend, spend....

I don't think Medicare is by any means perfect, and as for a program, believe it or not Social Security isn't all that terrible and had the Government not raided the SS funds to pay for other bills it wouldn't be nearly the issue that it is.

-spence

[spence]

Originally Posted by Cool Beans

One possibility would be to do like the military, your initial visit would be to a nurse (corpsman) who would evaluate and treat you for minor issues and then refer you up to actual doctors for more serious things. This would make routine visits much cheaper as they could pay considerably less for the nurse compared to a doctor. Wait times would definately increase, just like all government services (DMV, DEM, of Post Office).

A lot of hospitals already employ this regardless of your insurance. I've been to Charlton in Fall River several times and they always do this at the walk in.

Ultimately it doesn't make things cheaper for me, but I would note that they run a very efficient business and have excellent turn around time for minor issues, even with x-rays.

In the end it probably has more to do with great management.

-spence