President Obama

[hork]

Originally Posted by rich76

Hey Ken...could we stick to the topic? I'm curious as hell as to why you agree with the decision to promote the fellas that scored lower on the test? Now, you've made it clear that many of us here are not quite as intelligent as you are, so please keep your answer as "simple" for me as is humanly possible for you. I, like Peter, am struggling with this decision and would like to hear oppostie positions. I've been a victim of decisions like this on 2 seperate occasions back in the 70's and it has gnawed at me for that long....never got a reason form anyone. So, please, educate me on this.

actually at the risk of sounding condescending, if you go back and read what i said, you'll see i stated clearly i agreed with the SCOTUS decision, not the previous one they over-ruled.

[P562045]

Originally Posted by hork

peter,

especially given your past posts regarding same-sex marriages. or does equal protection not count for gays?

Remind me of this thread when I say that same-sex marriage is a bad thing next time. Now I am trying to remember the context of what we were even discussing when the idea a gay marriage came up before. I would not be surprised if we were not originally discussing gay marriage at the time.

Now I vaguely remember my argument when it comes to same sex couples becoming married. To me before that discussion was about gay couples getting the same benefits as couples that are legally married from various levels of government. In fact I think I even said that if a gay couple truly loves each then they should be allowed to be legally married. I was very opposed to people trying to get benefits from a state just to get the benefits and not because they truly love each other. I think I even used the word shameful when describing a gay couple that wanted the same rights as a married couple when the case was the gay couple just wanted the benefits of being married. I sort of see that my argument was rather stupid actually because of what I have stated several times which is the first section of the 14th amendment to the constitution. That was my basis before of why I was so opposed to gay marriage in the first place. Well I guess I will have to decide if want to be very hypocritical now and still oppose gay marriage when people know that I am fully aware of the 14th amendment now which gives everyone equal protection under the law.

Well now that first section in the 14th amendment of the constitution gives people several fundamental rights and one of them is equal protection under the law. That is exactly why I cited the 14th amendment with regards to the court case in Connecticut in the first place because that is where the equal protection for everyone is at.

Now of course I am not the very first person on the planet to twist the constitution to say what I want it say and not what it actually says. I am talking about gay marriage specifically here. Well a person could actually say I am like Judge Sotomayor it appears to me when she made the court decision in the Ricci v. Destefano. I truly believe that in that case Judge Sotomayor totally ignored the 14th amendment even though it is quite possible she had other reasons why she came to the decision she did. Do we even really know the reason why Judge Sotomayor made the decision she made at this point in time?

Now someone may well have to remind me of the first section of the 14th amendment to the constitution when I speak again about my outrage about gay marriage. Something just tells me that I will be remembering the 14th amendment and say these people should have equal protection when it comes to gay marriage in the future. And if not people can very much remind me of my last few post in this thread or this post as well.

Just as side note it is very much easier to search the new forums well they are not so new anymore than the old forums. I may well try to find what I said before about gay marriage. Now wait I would really have to say that I am wrong so I will probably not do that. I am not the only person that learns from things. Just look at former Vice President Al Gore he used to think that abortion was not an o.k. thing to do at one time. Plus quoting myself sort of creeps me out for some reason and I don't even know why. I am certainly not shy about quoting other people though when I am trying to make my own point.

[rich76]

Originally Posted by hork

actually at the risk of sounding condescending, if you go back and read what i said, you'll see i stated clearly i agreed with the SCOTUS decision, not the previous one they over-ruled.

OK..forgive my denseness. Are you saying you agree with promoting the minorities even though they were outscored on the tests?

[hork]

Originally Posted by rich76

OK..forgive my denseness. Are you saying you agree with promoting the minorities even though they were outscored on the tests?

no, i agree with the court's ruling that throwing out the test scores was wrong, and amounts to nothing less than reverse discrimination.

[rich76]

Thank you for the explaination. I was pretty sure that's what you meant but wanted to confirm,. I'd have to guess after your job searching last year you MUST have come up against that kind of bullshiznit yourself no?

[hork]

Originally Posted by rich76

Thank you for the explaination. I was pretty sure that's what you meant but wanted to confirm,. I'd have to guess after your job searching last year you MUST have come up against that kind of bullshiznit yourself no?

as much as ii hate to admit it i do know of one specific instance where that was exactly what happened. for the sake of professionalism i'll leave the institution's name out (it's a big school any college sports fan is familiar with), but i was explicitly told by one of the folks on the search committee that while over two thirds of the committee voted to hire me, the dean and dept head opted instead to hire another candidate in order to have more women on staff.

and while i think that affirmative action was necessary when first instituted (and may be in some cases still) i am fully aware of the negative impact it has on the flip side (as in the case peter cited).

[P562045]

I just love how the senior "legal analyst" at CNN Jeffrey Tobin who can read a teleprompter as well as President Obama says there is nothing really relevant in the New Haven firefighter case with regards to Judge Sotomayor being easily confirmed to a lifetime appointment to the supreme court.

Now as I mentioned in post thirteen of this thread which is towards the top of page two what exactly does this sentence mean and where does it come from Mr. Tobin?

"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

I must mention again to be clear the firefighters did get due process because this case was tried in a court of law; but this to me was about if the right decision was made in this particular case or not. What does the last part of what I quoted even mean. That is the question a person needs to ask themselves in this particular matter.

Now just in case a person has forgotten where I got this from a little scrolling down is involved and it is in the first section the fourth amendment down.

Link Here

I would just like to give a huge thank you to President Obama for nominating someone to be a supreme court justice who does not even really know what my quote means because to me this is not how wonderful Judge Sotomayor is this is about if she can interpret the constitution without bringing her own personal beliefs into her rulings as a supreme court justice.

[P562045]

Well after all of the grandstanding by the judiciary committee members Judge Sotomayor said this when testifying yesterday.

Judge Sotomayor promised that she would be faithful to the law.

That is the one of the reasons why the firefighter case was important in the first place. Also is everyone supposed to be equally protected under this amendment to the constitution or not.

In that firefighter case was Judge Sotomayor being faithful to the law or her own personal beliefs about the case.

Story Here

[P562045]

Why was the camera not on Albert Pujols while President Obama threw out the ceremonial first pitch at the all star game.

I know we must focus on President Obama but to not show where the ball ended up is very odd to me.

[P562045]

Well I have given one example where Judge Sotomayor decides to take matters into her own hands and ignore the law but this in not about that it is how this judicial nomination is being reported in the New York Times.

Well of course it would not be the New York Times without a little republicans are evil mantra coming up for the countless time again.

This article several times says that Judge Sotomayor focuses on the law when it comes to making a decision about the court cases in front of her.

"It’s a refrain I keep repeating,” she told the Senate Judiciary Committee, “because that is my philosophy of judging: applying the law to the facts at hand.”

"She added: “Life experiences have to influence you. We’re not robots who listen to evidence and don’t have feelings. We have to recognize those feelings, and put them aside. That’s what my speech was saying.”

Well Judge Sotomayor is not the only judge that let's their own personal experiences get in the way of the law. But court cases are not about past experiences except for what is relevant in any case such as a legal agreement between two parties, a murder trial etc.. This really upsets me sometimes. Any court case should be about what happened and not how someone feels about what happened. Well this is very difficult in a case of a murder trial and other cases as well but we must strive to not let emotions be a part of any legal decision really. In almost any court case at least one that has a jury the jury should be asked a series of questions to try to keep people from not being on the jury by making a decision that could effect the outcome of the case. An example of this is does a potential member of the jury know either the plaintiff or the defendant. This should be asked because it could effect the outcome of the case. Then we had the situation with Michael Vick. I clearly remember that I was pretty upset when I found out that the judge was a dog lover. And I openly questioned at the time if the judge in that case could make an unbiased decision when it came to how long Michael Vick should be in prison. So sorry for getting a little of track here but as a person can sort of tell I can become somewhat passionate about justice and it being fairly administered when it comes to court cases.

"And she [Judge Sotomayor] said she had never rendered a ruling based on her personal feelings."

Now this would be the perfect opportunity for the New York Times to discuss several court cases where this is simply not true but does a person think that the New York Times actually did what I suggested they should do. Well of course not.

"Judges can’t rely on what’s in their heart,” she said. “They don’t determine the law. Congress makes the laws.”

Then after this the rest of the article talks about how democrats are defending Judge Sotomayor on the judiciary committee; and republican Senator Jeff Sessions may be totally biased against Judge Sotomayor because of his past experiences when it comes to not being able to become a federal judge.

And people wonder why we have so many activist judges in the first place. People are not getting the complete story and I could really care less what the actual source of the news is. This article in the New York Times by omitting the court cases, and I could really care less if the New York Times have discussed these types of cases before, where Judge Sotomayor has followed how she fells about a court case is her main concern in some of her legal decisions and what the law says does not even seemed to be considered.

New York Times article here

[hork]

so how about you offer us some examples of those "several court cases where this is simply not true"


***edit****

looking back that seemed a bit snotty which wasn't my intent. I should have included the fact that I know very little of her actual history on the bench. I've seen a handful of her rulings and with the exception of the current highlight i have yet to find any that would fit your description. but, i'm not saying that your assertion is baseless, just that I'd like to see those rulilngs you are referring to as I'm always interested in knowing who the person is that might sit for the next 30 yrs or so on the bench making the ultimate decisions about how the nation is governed.

[P562045]

So the president wants us to go along with his little plan for health care.

This is rather fascinating to me because his first stimulus that President Obama so wanted and warned us that if it does not happen unemployment may actually go above some percentage and we have that kind of unemployment already.

Well President Obama we have your little plan that was supposed to create millions of jobs and help get the economy back on its feet and what have been the actual results of the first stimulus package back in February.

"But broadly speaking, the [stimulus] package is the right size, it is the right scope, and it has the right priorities to create 3 to 4 million jobs and to do it in a way that lays the groundwork for long-term growth -- by fixing our schools, modernizing our health care to lower costs, repair our roads and bridges and levees and other vital infrastructure, move us towards energy independence. That is what America needs. It will take months, even years, to renew our economy, but every day that Washington fails to act, that recovery is delayed."

Remarks by President Obama in early February

How is that going? I am sure the president will inflate the number of jobs created and the actual number will be lower than what the president says it is. Well this is quite simple to explain President Obama is in fact a politician plain and simple. Hopefully President Obama can create at least a million jobs by November 2, 2010. Well the last inflated number I heard was 150,000 jobs were created or saved over about a four month period. At that kind of pace it would take two years to create a million jobs. But the pace of jobs created is going to be accelerated dramatically the rest of this year and next year because there is a deadline of September 30 of next year to get a bunch of projects done by then. This is rather fascinating. Just about a month before the congressional elections next year.

So that brings me to health care "reform". President Obama first plan to stimulate the economy is going so well we must move on to the health care industry.

Leave it to the New York Times to reveal what will really happen when this so called "reform" passes.

"The commission’s action kicks off the second phase of a health care overhaul that has succeeded in covering nearly every resident of the state but done little to slow the relentless growth of spending."

But don't worry this commission in Massachusetts will be "fixing" this relentless growth in spending by saying doctors, hospitals, etc. getting a flat fee for each service administered or just getting an annual fee. I think the latter would be much better because we will just be right back where we started because a doctor or hospital will just try to see as many people as possible to get the fee for each thing they do. That is part of the reason we are told that health care is so expensive now. Doctors ordering unnecessary tests so that the hospital and doctors can get reimbursed. This is just part of the fraud that is Medicare and Medicaid. But the latter has it own pitfalls as well. Who exactly in the case of a doctor doing something wrong is going to be getting rid of that doctor. Plus if a doctor just gets a flat salary for each year how exactly is that going to give them incentive to provide the best care possible. I am sure most doctors would provide the best care but some of them would not because they are getting the same amount of money no matter what they do.

To sum up what is going on when Massachusetts decides to try to cover everyone in the state. [97 percent] Massachusetts needs to form a commission to try to fix the problem of "...relentless growth of spending."

Now the New York Times mentions one other important thing when it comes to what is going on in Massachusetts when it comes to health care "reform". This is where President Obama has gotten some of his ideas on how to "fix" health care from.

Would someone like to take a wild guess which state has some of the highest health care costs in the nation?

“We are among the highest-cost states,” said Sarah Iselin, Mr. Patrick’s health policy adviser and the other co-chairwoman of the commission. “Without intervention, our projections are that spending on a per-person basis could double by 2020.”

So even someone that the governor has picked to co-chair the commission acknowledges that their are some severe problems with the program in Massachusetts. I am sure we will all be very glad that President Obama is trying to adopt some of what Massachusetts has already done.

Even some state leaders have a rather interesting admission.

"Those costs have continued to rise at what state leaders acknowledge is an unsustainable annual rate of 6 percent to 9 percent."

In summation President Obama is looking at parts of what Massachusetts has done to "reform" health care. And I have mentioned several of the reasons why this is causing problems in Massachusetts which are rising health care costs. Isn't that rather interesting. President Obama is probably promising lower health care cost so that everyone can afford health insurance. The higher cost in health care, which partly comes from trying to cover everyone, also makes it unsustainable as well.

I would really encourage everyone to read this New York Times article because I truly believe that what is happening in Massachusetts will be happening in the country as a whole eventually if the democrats in congress and President Obama get their way. I must say eventually because I seem to remember hearing that most of this plan will not even start to happen until after November 6, 2012 for some reason. I seem to remember that a couple of billion dollars that is needed to start even paying for the uninsured health care benefits will take a few year years. Yes you read that correctly the people that are uninsured will not get their health care paid for for at least a few years at least if not more.

My second summary of this story because it is very complex is describing what is going on in Massachusetts the cost of health care is rising, Massachusetts has some of the highest health care costs in the country that are not sustainable for the state over time. Massachusetts even had to form a commission because Massachusetts tried to cover everyone and get them some kind of health insurance but it is impacting other parts of the budget because of the "...relentless growth in spending."

I am trying to remember which political party thinks this is a good idea in the first place.

And technically speaking I should say both sides of the political aisle because former Governor Romney signed the health care "reform" bill in Massachusetts into law.

So the real question about this is what will happen if we adopt even a portion of the Massachusetts plan for a lack of better term for the whole country as congressional democrats and President Obama think is so necessary. We better start thinking about the consequences of this before it even happens. As a person can clearly see we are discussing something that is very complex and there are no easy answers no matter what the politicians in Washington are saying.

One of the most important news articles so far this year

P.S. I am trying to remember which political party in Washington thinks this is so necessary and wants to "reform" health care no matter what despite the complexities of what is being discussed at a speed that we should not even really discuss the consequences of our actions in the first place. I have tried to explain part of the reason here why discussing this is not really an option because this needs to be completely done and signed by the president early next month which is just a few weeks away. Don't worry I will remind people several times at least three and half years from now which political party thought it was such a good idea to "reform" something as large as the health care industry.

[P562045]

Well the second story today about President Obama being such a liar.

A person should just assume that when President Obama talks about health care reform the exact opposite of what he says will actually be what happens in the long term. I must remind people again this is not even really going to do much of anything except raise money to pay for people health insurance until after November 6, 2012.

Now President Obama praised the first stimulus package as having no pork in it all. My response to this was just because there are no earmarks in the bill which is technically true does not mean there is not some pork in this bill.

Well we come to find out that some of the stimulus money was in fact used to purchase canned pork.

"Vilsack put out the statement after the Drudge Report posted several contracts from the government’s stimulus website. The contracts suggest the administration spent $1.19 million on two pounds of ham, $1.56 million for mozzarella cheese and $16.8 million on canned pork, among other items. Republicans sent blast e-mails of screenshots from the Drudge Report, highlighting the contracts as wasteful spending."

If President Obama would boldly declare no pork would be in this bill I wonder what else President Obama is going to lie about?

Story here
recovery.gov canned pork purchase page

[P562045]

Now I very much doubt that President Obama would even let one lobbyist visit or work at the White House.

Now wait I seem to remember that President Obama several times has had to waive his own promise.

Well there is a little street called K that has it business picking up in the last three months for some reason. Well come to think of it K street is republican lobbyist territory for sure. Only six words are really needed to describe why K street is getting so much money all of sudden.

Health care "reform"; cap and trade.

Oh so interesting President Obama abhors lobbyists or so he said in the past but he helps both sides of the political lobbyist make a whole lot of money. And if lobbyist had no money would they be able to lobby members of congress. The answer is simply no.

I mentioned both sides of the political aisle. The Podesta group has seen a large increase in money as well so far this year. The Podesta's are large donors to democrats mostly. What a great way even though John Podesta has absolutely no ties to the group now for him to get some extra money. That has to because John Podesta was a part President Obama's transition team and we would not want a part of that transition team to be anyway connected to a lobbying firm now would we?

Story Here

I will try to refrain from anymore unsavory stories about President Obama until he tells us about health care reform tomorrow. I will have to be revising the complete story though to make it even remotely true. Unless President Obama actually for once tells us how much this "reform" is going to cost us but even then he will be lowering that number to make it easier for people to take. I already know what the price tag is but I don't know for how many years it is. The range is one trillion to just over one and half trillion dollars. [1.6 trillion] President Obama just amazes me sometimes the amount he says he will save on health care costs will be just about the exact same amount we will be paying for these so called "reforms" Pretty amazing until a person remembers that President Obama has so promised that these "reforms" will not put any burden on the deficit at all. I think that President Obama should make this promise to the people about that particular point and stick to it. People are very slowly starting to figure President Obama out. That just as any other politician they will say just about anything to get what they want done. Just as a reminder former President George W. Bush had some really good sounding reasons why we must go into Iraq as well. But there is a huge difference between the two. We will eventually be getting out of Iraq President Obama has so promised that as well. So how long do people think that these health care "reforms" will be around for?

[P562045]

The promises by President Obama about health care "reform" from this past Tuesday.

1. Lower long term costs.
2. Increase the number of people getting health care coverage.
3. Give more choices when it comes to plans.
4. No denial of coverage for preexisting conditions.
5. No lose of coverage when it comes to several conditions which include changing jobs, losing a job, or starting a new business.
6. A person does not lose their coverage if they get sick.
7. People will be able to pick the plan that they want.
8. Health insurance companies which are a huge part of the problem of rising health care cost are being totally dishonest now will under the President Obama plan be made to become honest and this is so necessary to make coverage affordable for everyone.
9. Wellness and prevention programs are very important because they will save money, prevent illness, and increase the competitiveness of our country.
10. Protection for families if they get sick from a catastrophic illness. Which basically means a family will not go bankrupt if a catastrophic illness does occur to a family member.
11. Dramatic measures to cut costs while improving quality.

Now just remember as you have read these promises by President Obama this is the same person that has said before that he will improve the economy and create or save millions of jobs with the stimulus bill President Obama signed last February.

President Obama's remarks about health care