A community of 30,000 US Transcriptionist serving Medical Transcription Industry
Division
Posted: Oct 22, 2012
Sad reading these boards. So many misguided people. People voting based on one point. People not voting for Romney because of abortion or the "binders."
Obama has DIVIDED us as a country. If you have seen the debates, did you happen to hear how many times Romney mentioned WORKING TOGETHER, boths democrats and republicans. He did that when he was governor. How has Obama ever worked with others. He cannot even make time to meet with his cabinet, yet he has plenty of time for golf.
You all are so bothered with Romney defending a baby's life, and in your interpretation taking away your right to abort it, yet you have no problem with Obama telling the Catholic church that they have to provide insurance that pays for abortions.
This is also a man who has missed at least 60% of his security briefings. Another four years of Obama and there won't be a US.
;
I won't speak for everyone, - RC
[ In Reply To ..]but I am concerned with many issues, abortion being one of them, but it is not the sole deciding factor.
I also think CONGRESS needs to learn about working together. Not Obama.
Don't make the mistake of thinking abortion is the only issue here.
what I meant was - xx
[ In Reply To ..]people get fixated on one thing and then can't see beyond it.
If Obama doesn't have time to meet with his people, what does that say.
Where do you get your information? - Not true. nm
[ In Reply To ..].
It was well covered in the news - around Benghazi event.
[ In Reply To ..]He missed 60% of his daily briefings in the past year. He also hasn't met with his Jobs Council since January, so jobs must not be paramount to him.
We are in the cyber age. Communication and meetings...sm - VTMT
[ In Reply To ..]are hardly ever held face-to-face anymore.
If he were a conservative president - sm
[ In Reply To ..]he couldn't get away with that behavior.
That is incorrect - The Sarge - sm
[ In Reply To ..]Obama is not an MT or secretary who calls in for meetings.
The president sits in on meeting IN PERSON. He attends meetings (or is supposed to). He doesn't call in.
I know you are trying to make an excuse, but that was a poor one. Wanna try again.
He does use a pad. - RC
[ In Reply To ..]Things aren't like they used to be.
No, he does not use a pad in place of sitting in meetings - You have no fact to back up what you said
[ In Reply To ..]Again, he is not an MT or secretary. He is the President of the United States. He does not use an Ipad instead of sitting in meetings.
Wanna try again?
Yes. He. Does. - RC
[ In Reply To ..]Why is it so hard to believe that the President isn't using technology?
What does it have to do with secretaries or MTs?
Security briefings are national security, not something you want someone to be able to hack into - JC
[ In Reply To ..]First of all, the Obama administration to my knowledge has never refuted the 60% missed security briefings. Your link didn't work so I wasn't sure what it was for.
Bush never missed a single security briefing.
I would, and you should, be scared if national security briefings were done over the internet.
That he trusts them, maybe? - sm
[ In Reply To ..]He selected a cabinet that he doesn't feel he needs to micromanage? Sounds like good leadership to me.
I am not and have never been a one-issue voter. My values are much, much more in line with the Democratic party than the GOP. I reexamine this every election, and it hasn't changed. I wish others would do the same.
As for these particular candidates, Romney's actions speak much louder than his words, and even his words are extremely fluid. He isn't trustworthy on *any* of the issues.
After this Benghazi thing, looks like he picked the wrong people - JC
[ In Reply To ..]All the networks are covering the fact that hundreds of people in the government received emails from the Libyan ambassador begging for help during the attack.
So, either his "trusted" cabinet didn't tell Obama about the situation, or Obama just didn't care. You are going to say, what could he do. Well they had assets (I don't know if that necessarily meant troops or air support) that could have been there within an hour.
Either one is a problem.
Obama's biggest flaw - IMO
[ In Reply To ..]is that he was naive enough to think it was possible to "work together." The Republicans made it clear that wasn't going to happen. If Romney is elected, the same will probably be true of the Democrats. They're all more concerned with protecting the special interests that keep them employed than they are with working together. Romney would have no more luck with that pipe dream than Obama has.
Honestly, IMO, I suspect Romney would have that problem - with the GOP. He's moderate economically but
[ In Reply To ..]hard right socially and will find opponents every direction he turns. There might be a honeymoon, or maybe not.
Also, many of his fellow far right religious conservatives, a very aggressive group, do not consider him a Christian. How long they work with him to suit themselves and the point at which they turn on him to bring the Mormon down is something I can't guess. He might make some mutually profitable deals with them, but there's no chance he'd be able to charm them, not that they are easily charmable anyway, but most politicians who know him don't like him (nobody says exactly why, he just rubs them the wrong way) and don't want to work with him.
In the meantime, in trying to get these guys' support, he's worried and offended moderate Republicans, economic, religious, and social.
One thing we do know. Bigots have a long list of "them" they hate. It's the way they're wired. If they hate Democrats, you can pretty much count on it that they also hate blacks, Hispanics, Jews, Arabs, Chinks, pushy women, heretics, etc. Romney will at some point meet Obama's fate at the hands of these guys because they are both "them" and always will be. Never "us."
XX, a classic political ploy is to accuse the opponent of what - people don't like about you, or something
[ In Reply To ..]bad you want to get away with. Confuses 'em and, if you do it well enough, sufficient people will blame the opponents for everything you do that you'll be free to continue.
Your description of what you don't like about Obama is, in fact, a mirror of some things I don't like about the CURRENT GOP behavior. Just some of it.
Did you know that on the day of Obama's swearing in, the Republican leadership met and planned to do their best to make his administration a total failure? Four years of administrative failure if they could manage it--for a nation already in serious trouble.
They failed, of course, but hardly entirely, and in the process betrayed an entire nation. And specifically all those citizens who put their trust in them and dutifully opposed the Obama administration because they thought that was the thing to do. Go team!
This needs to be repeated AGAIN - as there are some that still don't
[ In Reply To ..]get it. Since you and others keep overlooking this fact...
When a republican president wins an election, that day the democrats vow and openly say they plan to make him a one term president and are determined to make his presidency fail.
It happens every election whether or not its republican or democrat.
One-term/4-year president is DIFFERENT from fail-every-day- - for-4-years-if-we-can-help-it president. sm
[ In Reply To ..]The President is our nation's chief administrator. If he doesn't work, our country doesn't work. Our economy would be booming again if the Republican leadership hadn't sabotaged it to get power back for themselves.
A true leader always has opposition and gets things done - Obama is not a true leader - JC
[ In Reply To ..]All successful people have to deal with opposition and roadblocks, but they still get things done.
Obama is not a leader, he is a celebrity. Clinton is the only president that even comes close to being on the same number of talk shows and entertainment shows.
You are crazy, the first two years Obama had both the house and senate - JC
[ In Reply To ..]Did the Republicans dress up as Democrats and block Obama in the first two years?
The only reason the Republicans can block Obama now is because of the Republican resurgance in 2010 in opposition of Obama's policies. So don't tell me about the big, bad republicans.
When Bush was president and the democrats had both houses, they did the same to him. Stop being such a cry baby.
Also, the things they said about Bush were much more vile (Hitler, the devil, every single foul word know to man, etc) than anything that has been said about Obama. There was even a video game where killing Bush was the objective.
Similar Messages:
Russia Is Accomplishing Their Goal, Creating Division And Havoc Among...smJun 06, 2017
allies around the world. Never before has it been more important for us to stand together and not allow Russian propaganda to influence us. If Russians are known to be the best at anything, it is propaganda. ...
Hispanic Immigrant: Trump Says Democrats Have Created Hate And DivisionOct 16, 2016
http://www.westernjournalism.com/hispanic-immigrant-trump-says-democrats-have-created-hate-and-division/?utm_source=Facebook&utm_medium=THENewVoice&utm_campaign=manualpost Hispanic immigrant: Trump says democrats have created hate and division Legal immigrant from Panama gives his views: “We are so sick and tired of Democrats and liberals trying to twist everything that Trump does on his supporters,” the man said. “Liberals are desperate because they know they are going to lose ...