The Bucknuts Hot Spot

This is what Obama calls his transformation of america. From the greatest nation in the world (ever) to a broke European socialist country.

Drama queen.

I'd like to know what exactly is so fundamentally different about our country now compared to a little over 3 years ago when Obama took office? Unemployment- down a little, not much. Economy showing some signs of recovery but again, not much. Essentially, things are a little better than Bush's last year or two but not different in a huge way.

Or do you think eliminating DADT is what brought us down?

Or is it the continuation of Bush policies like indefinite detention? Is that what upsets you?

Or is it Obamacare, meaning if the Supremes overturn it then you're fine with where our country is headed?

I also love the way you conservatives pretend GWB had nothing to do with skyrocketing deficits, made far worse by stupid policies like tax cuts during a war. I'm sure that had nothing to do with it, though, right? Or the fact that Bush had the first stimulus and bailout packages teed up before he ran out of time. If he was still President they would have been sound fiscal policy, right?

Name one socialist law in our country that has been passed. Obamacare expands Medicaid, an existing federal program that has existed under several Republican Presidents. So name one.

Yes, I will rebut your statement. The funny thing is that I am FAR from the one of the most liberal Buckeyes on here. I think I see things fiscally much the same way that codexp2 and maybe even sryan see things. I am not in favor of higher taxation and have said so many times. I have said I want to cut spending and would start there first. I really don't understand why none of this processes for you. Many of my talking points are not very liberal at all. Some of them used to be Republican talking points. Several of them are Ron Paul's talking points.

I am liberal socially. I don't want the government telling me what I can and can't do as long as I'm not harming anyone else. In that way I am really libertarian. It is Republicans who claim they don't want the government interfering in our lives when they really do. If you don't see it I don't think I am the one with clouded vision.

Europe is in trouble, but so are we. Yes, I guess you can say that anything their governments spend money on contributes to the problem, but the point you seem incapable of acknowledging is that we spend more per person on health care than any other country in the world by a wide margin. So if socialized medicine is a huge part of their economic problem, our system is an even bigger part of the problem.

I'd still love an answer to naming a single socialist policy that Obama has implemented. Obamacare is not socialist. It protects all of us against insurance company abuse and expands Medicaid. I bet you had no problem with the mandate when Republicans proposed it, did you? At that time I bet you were screaming at your TV, "Yeah! Make those liberals who don't take personal responsibility accountable!" But of course, now that a Democrat has proposed it, you can't accept it.

Your whole post was pretty good, but I wanted to highlight this. I posted this in another thread before I came to this one and saw it. I am glad that other people remember when this happened as well. Liberals seem to have a short memory regarding this type of stuff.

T like what you have written. In many ways I am like you. No one wants more taxes. It's like the abortion issue. I don't like abortion anymore that a Righty does but it's not my call. I am not the woman who has tocarry a baby. It should be her choice.

Nobody is disputing the quality of care in the U.S., just the access to it. It would be logical to say that "any" Prime Minister would have access, but what about those with no insurance or means to pay?

Just to clarify the teen pregnancy rates are the highest of the industrial countries. Those against education in favor of abstinence
cause more harm than good. I don't understand those that want as little government as possible, but want their church to dictate my life.

You are correct that in fact I believe we are in agreement on many more issues than which we are on opposite sides. Additionally, I recognize the absolute necessity for healthcare reform but just do not believe Obamacare is the answer because it subsidizes the "mandate" for insurance for everyone by having the people already paying for everything pay even more while receiving less (and I am NOT talking about the Buffet's and Gate's of the world... They will be just fine not matter who is in office)... Enough. There are intelligent people in both parties. Sit down and get a viable piece of legislation on the table and go to work.

Obama is much further to the left than you are admitting and he has only been limited by the constitution and other branches of government from implementing the agenda he wants (and often times by more moderate members of his own party... See Obamacare). The irony is that the only true "moderate" on either ticket based upon his record is Mitt Romney... I'd think you'd give him a fair shake and listen to his message in the upcoming months.

Amen! In the secular sense, of course.

Obama might have more liberal leanings than what he has tried to pass, which would make him smart not to waste any political capital trying to get something passed that never had a chance. As an example, Obama never proposed a single payer system. Also, he has repeatedly moved toward the middle and shown a willingness to compromise to get things done, which is more than any Republican "leaders" have done. As another example, as a gun owner, I am glad Obama expanded gun rights so that I can carry in national parks now since I hike in them with my family.

I will take a look at Romney, but haven't been impressed so far. The funny thing is, the Romney that passed universal health care, the one that said the NRA didn't line up with his thinking, or the one that was pro-choice with some business sense might have appealed to me a lot. Since he has done a 180 on all of them and more, not only do I care for his positions less, but don't think much of his pandering to appeal to the most extreme elements of the right. I do understand that sometimes you have to do what you have to do in order to get the nomination, though I suspect he will take the anti-Obama position on every issue just to create a stark contrast between them and to continue to appeal to the religious right. Without that base he'd be doomed.

I do wish there was a third option.

That seems like a pretty simple solution to me, but our politicians and school boards can't seem to figure that out.