Obama chose to make this his centerpiece. He knew the Republicans were out to destroy it. Keep that in mind, make it work anyway.

His flaw was starting from a compromised plan in the first place, the Heritage plan. If they're going to try to skull-fuck you no matter what you do, don't be nice and use a plan they used to like. No, use a plan that will really make them gnash their teeth.

And takes your time and effort away from moving as fast and far as you otherwise could have on the rest of your agenda, fire them. For love of a full agenda and finite time.

This President can walk and chew gum at the same time.

As long as tea baggers control the House.... His "political capital" means nothing.



Ps. Your slip is showing.

Of course he can walk/chew gum. That is not questioned. The point of the post, to use your vernacular, is that if he is walking less distance and chewing less gum due to subordinates unnecessarily and avoidably causing him to go uphill, into the wind, letting vinegar get into the gum (or whatever results in less gum-chewing), such subordinates need to be fired because there is not a shortage of energetic and capable people around him.

You may be fine with sitting back and watching subordinates allow self-inflicted damaged to very potentially compromise the eventual outcomes of the entire agenda, but many of us are not, sir!

This angle has been done to death, and by those much less obvious about it.

Some must think their cleverness is boundless.

It's not disrespectful.

His slip is showing.

. . . roll-out of ACA. Time and effort that could have already been used on the other agenda items I mentioned. That is not bullshit, and you need to question if your level of concern about potential agenda slippage due to unnecessary and avoidable mistakes by his subordinates should be higher.

...surprise on issues like these he'd have to educate them

Point of OP is subordinates who lack diligence and/or energy don't need to be around unintentionally but clearly avoidably pulling backward on agenda achievement . . . they need to be FIRED!

Whose heads should roll?

Have we met before? You seem familiar.

I would suggest you convey a serious tone of being on topic of this thread. Also, and less optionally, I expressly do not welcome your pursuit of me any further in the manner you have so far.

If you continue to pursue me with images--like the "eating a bag of popcorn" icon--that clearly indicate you don't really care about the topic and are looking simply for entertainment value out of whatever response you are really looking for, and/or also continue focusing on me in that or other non-productive vein, consider it likely that I will consider your messages to me "disruptive . . . or otherwise inappropriate".

In short, stop coming off creepy with the following of me with non-sincere pokes. There's your warning.

Well, you forgot the sarcastic scaredie dude.

and the the administrators of this forum supplied the emoticons, correct?

If you would like me to be serious, answer my question -- and specifically, whose heads would you like to see roll?

I'm waiting.

I don't believe I need you to warn me about anything. I've done nothing worthy of your alert threat. One more thing: You, as a new member of the DU community, could try coming off a little less abrasive, Dan.

Raine

fire them. fire them all.

"Inept subordinates" is just another way to attack Mr. Obama's judgment.

It's why the Republicans are attacking Sebelius.




Tick, tock.

The slip is indeed showing.

You are either really screwed up . . . or desperate to deflect the point, my friend with tea-flavored breath.

that you've suggested that long time DUers are teabaggers. They're not the ones siding with republicans, here. Are there any Democrats calling for heads to roll? Will heads rolling make the pugs/press back off? They'll just see it as blood in the water.

Do you actually think this tired schtick is working?

It has failed many times before, done by those much more subtle at it than you.

In the end, they all get the same reward, free pizza.

Sid

You came on here with a story about how ACA is hurting you. http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023959538

Lots of people in that thread tried to help you. But you refused to give any specific details, claiming that you only posted for "catharsis" and that you already had friends trying to help you and there was just no hope. And the posters who were willing to help you were then subjected to lectures about how we need to be nicer to people who post their ACA sob stories even when they fail to provide the least bit of relevant detail.

Now here you are with a new spin on how the ACA is bad. It's all very interesting.

that's 3.

Really now.

Please be fair and answer my question, as I answered yours, and we can further discuss.

way. Big money is highly upset with all this. Some CEOs are getting their toes stepped on and they don't like it, not one bit.