Dreams of my Father

Joe wrote: www.sify.com/news/obama-s-second-year-ap...nal-lcfp4ggbggg.html

"A new poll has found that United States President Barack Obama's approval ratings during his second year in office were the most partisan and polarized they have ever been at two years into a presidency."

"Obama's approval among Republicans averaged just 13 percent, while Democrats' approval of his second year averaged 81 percent."

Sounds like this hope and change and "working across the aisle" are working pretty good.

Do you think any presidents numbers wouldn't reflect better numbers with his own party? I do remember this being especially true of Bush's numbers. what is interesting is his approval ratings with independents, those are up as well.....which means the republicans have a lot of work to do if they want the White House in 2012.....they won't get it by concentrating on Obama's birth certificate, and school records ad nauseum

PrintSmith wrote: You don't see the contradiction, which is as large as the nose on Jimmy Durante's face, with the blurb you have posted here? His parents didn't separate when he was two years old. Anna was living in Washington State within 3 weeks of his birth while Sr was still living in Hawaii. Obama and his mother didn't return to the island until Sr had left to attend Harvard. There is absolutely no indications that Sr was supporting or helping to support them while they were in Washington, where Anna was attending college in the fall of 1961. They not only didn't separate when he was two, there is absolutely no indications that they ever lived together at all. There is no record that they ever shared an address, no record of a marriage license for them in Hawaii or any other state in the union. The birth announcements in the two Hawaii newspapers list an address that Anna lived at with her parents, but there is no record of Obama Sr ever living there. He never listed it as an address at the college, it was never an address that the post office had for him to receive mail at. Separated when he was 2? They were never together in the first place. Anna and Sr were separated, if one wishes to use that term either well before young Obama II was born or within days of his birth, not 2 years after he was born.

My post was in reference to the original post, and some posts that followed. Here is what I thought was the main point from the original post...

Yesterday, while changing feet, barry informed the world he never knew his father except for one meeting. How do you write a book about the dreams of someone you never knew?

I was pointing out that I saw no contridiction because Obama's book never claimed he knew his father, just as he apparently said the other day. He learned about his father from taking to others who knew him. And the book was more about himself rather than about his father. So again, where's the contridiction from Obama's statement the other day?

Now you are throwing out all kinds of other stuff, most of which has nothing to do with the info I posted. The only possible contridiction I see in what you throw out and what was in my post is if Obama's parents got married and later seperated.

Well, I assume they got married, because they did get divorced, and I have seen copies of the divorce certificate. Why get divorced if you aren't married? But whether it was a legal marriage to begin with or later became legal, I'm not sure, and don't see that it matters all that much. And I don't see how you can state that they never seperated. How would you know? You don't necessarily need a document for a seperation. Anyway, this seems pretty nit picky to me.

I think you are taking things way beyond the point I was making in my post.

archer wrote: Do you think any presidents numbers wouldn't reflect better numbers with his own party?

I do. However, if you read the article, the partisian imbalance is off the historic charts. From a Pres who campaigned on change and changin the way business is done in DC. BTW, my taxes have gone up, and I don't get to "keep my health insurance", they decided to exit Colorado, thank you.

Joe wrote: BTW, my taxes have gone up, and I don't get to "keep my health insurance", they decided to exit Colorado, thank you.

I'm sure Obama personally asked them to leave Colorado. If it's Aetna you are talking about they have been having problems in Colorado and other states for several years. But hey, blame it on Obama if it makes you feel better.

If Joe doesn't blame it on Obama, you and your ilk will blame it on Bush and/or Palin. What's the difference? Oh, to you it is different, because you are on the side of what exactly???????

What a FEEL GOOD title, Dreams of My Father, when he never knew him!!!! Wow, a sensation of a book from someone who can say anything and mean nothing!!!!!!!!!!!

Aetna Forcing 600,000-Plus To Lose Coverage In Effort To Raise Profits

Health insurance giant Aetna is planning to force up to 650,000 clients to drop their coverage next year as it seeks to raise additional revenue to meet profit expectations.

In a third-quarter earnings conference call in late October, officials at Aetna announced that in an effort to improve on a less-than-anticipated profit margin in 2009, they would be raising prices on their consumers in 2010. The insurance giant predicted that the company would subsequently lose between 300,000 and 350,000 members next year from its national account as well as another 300,000 from smaller group accounts.

"The pricing we put in place for 2009 turned out to not really be what we needed to achieve the results and margins that we had historically been delivering," said chairman and CEO Ron Williams. "We view 2010 as a repositioning year, a year that does not fully reflect the earnings potential of our business. Our pricing actions should have a noticeable effect beginning in the first quarter of 2010, with additional financial impact realized during the remaining three quarters of the year."

Aetna's decision to downsize the number of clients in favor of higher premiums is, as one industry analyst told American Medical News, a "pretty candid" admission. It also reflects the major concerns offered by health care reform proponents and supporters of a public option for insurance coverage, who insist that the private health insurance industry is too consumed with the bottom line. A government-run plan would operate solely off its members' premiums.

Aetna actually made a profit in 2009 but not at levels that it anticipated.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/12/0 ... 80130.html


Awwww, did that bad ol' Obama take away your Aetna?... I friggin' think NOT...

Insert standard personal insult here: ____________________________________

Nmysys, they are on the side of the "low or no" wage earner, of which they have been members all of their lives. They see an opportunity to get health insurance with no cost to themselves. If Obama goes, so does their chance of getting something for nothing. That is the driving force for the very vocal liberals. Something for nothing for the underclass.

That is how Democrats get votes. They buy them with free stuff at the expense of others.

major bean wrote: Nmysys, they are on the side of the "low or no" wage earner, of which they have been members all of their lives. They see an opportunity to get health insurance with no cost to themselves. If Obama goes, so does their chance of getting something for nothing. That is the driving force for the very vocal liberals. Something for nothing for the underclass.

That is how Democrats get votes. They buy them with free stuff at the expense of others.

:rofl

How pathetic is that, when you have to lie to make your point, if your opinion won't stand on it's own major bean, than maybe you are wrong. I have paid for my own health insurance most of my life because I owned my own business.....never wanted it for free, nor expected help. I do believe in personal responsibility.....where we part ways is that I also understand that there are those less fortunate than I have been and I care about them too.

There is a distinct difference within the many inferences of Obama's Presidential qualities and of those which show just how curiously ineffecive the man is, as a President of the US.

You may entertain yourselves with thoughts of intricate ideologies and any or all of the associated images of grandeur but, Obama is far worse a President than any other, including Jimmy Carter. Both are clearly ineffectual Presidents and therefore solely rely upon their cabinets, to function.

The distinct difference between Obama and Carter lies in the fact that Obama has chosen numerous anti-American, Communists and/or other Social and Civil Reform-types, to serve in his cabinet. Given his choice of associates, it is most likely that only he and David Axlerod can clearly picture the future direction of our nation. It is also therefore likely, that any of us can only surmise what Obama's "Change", encompasses.

Beyond all of this, if anyone were to suggest that Obama is a man of charachter and principle, and otherwise the most American of Presidents, one would not merely be mistaken, but one would be dangerously fooled and misled by the glamour in which he was elected and also by the false pretense under which he gained the most powerful seat in the free world.

As a side note: Obama's Dreams from his Father, were gained while he visited his gravesite. Any of Obama's "Dreams" are merely no more, than dreams.

It may have been an "awakening" for him but, that does not constitute an enlightenment of the world. May he rest in peace.