Originally posted by NewAgeMan
reply to post by harvib
No it's the whole thing, his Healthcare Plan, even though they had to end up ramming it through which was divisive, was a good thing and
It was in no way a good thing, not by any stretch of the imagination. NO ONE, not government, not citizen, has the right to force me to make a
purchase of something I neither want nor need. The ONLY good to come out of it is a "good" opportunity for me to practice civil disobedience and
refusal to comply. Not failure to comply, but a willful refusal to do so.
I'm not going to comply with Obamacare, and I wouldn't comply if governmental edict attempted to force me to buy a pink Cadillac, either. If I
don't need something, don't want something, and will never use something, I'm not about to pay for said something, end of story. I don't give a
rat's ass WHO says I "have to".
The gay rights issue was a good stance to take. (even though I'm straight and a Christian).
Got no quarrel with that, in theory. I think gays ought to have the same precise rights as the rest of us - but should not have MORE rights, or be
"more equal" than the rest.
The immigration reform and soon to come Education reform are good things.
If, by "immigration reform" you are using code for amnesty, then it's NOT a good thing. You don't reward people who START OUT by breaking your
laws with a citizenship, and if they've not broken law, then there is no need for an "amnesty".
I don't know what "education reform" is code for, so I can't address that, as to whether it's a good thing or a bad thing.
Ending the wars. Very important.
Yes, it is. I doubt he gets around to that, however. There's not much time in his agenda between bouts of shoving draconian "reforms" down the
Avoiding war with Iran.
I may disagree there - I'm not sure. I'll avoid conflict with no one who really wants it. On the other hand, we should not be PURSUING conflict,
either. There is a place between cowardly "avoidance" and aggressive "pursuit" that suits me.
Re-presenting a friendlier, soft power USA within a multilateral global framework - check.
How does an obsequious approach to international politics equate to ANY kind of "power", "soft" or not?
And to top it off I think he's the right kind of Christian, from what I've seen and heard.
From what I've seen and heard, he's not ANY kind of Christian - nor is he any variety of Muslim, Buddhist, or Hindu that I've ever run across. The
man appears to be entirely areligious, but that's not a bad mark against him - it doesn't matter to me what he believes. He hasn't been hired to
run a church or masjid, but to operate a government.