Total Posts:48|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Obama's Double Standard

YYW
Posts: 36,392
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/21/2014 10:22:55 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
This was a huge step:

https://www.youtube.com...

It should have been celebrated by both sides, but it's not even celebrated by Democrats, which is sad.

Obama's got a lot to answer for, and the reason that's the case is because of the irrational hatred that the GOP has for him. I'm not saying it's a race thing, because Republicans (like Newt Gingrich) did equally idiotic things to Clinton. But, this is sad.

As a country, we are in the midst a darkness from which we will likely not emerge until 2024.
Tsar of DDO
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/21/2014 10:46:06 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/21/2014 10:22:55 AM, YYW wrote:
This was a huge step:

https://www.youtube.com...

It should have been celebrated by both sides, but it's not even celebrated by Democrats, which is sad.

Obama's got a lot to answer for, and the reason that's the case is because of the irrational hatred that the GOP has for him. I'm not saying it's a race thing, because Republicans (like Newt Gingrich) did equally idiotic things to Clinton. But, this is sad.

As a country, we are in the midst a darkness from which we will likely not emerge until 2024.

What's he saying? I can't watch video at work.

Also, did you see the Daily Show regarding that Gruber guy, I think it was Tuesday's or Monday's episode.
Fvck politicains so so much.
What ever happened to statesmen? The people who did good, or what they thought was good, for the country, not themselves, not their party, but their constituency.
My work here is, finally, done.
ConservativePolitico
Posts: 8,210
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/21/2014 10:47:23 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/21/2014 10:22:55 AM, YYW wrote:
This was a huge step:

https://www.youtube.com...

It should have been celebrated by both sides, but it's not even celebrated by Democrats, which is sad.

Obama's got a lot to answer for, and the reason that's the case is because of the irrational hatred that the GOP has for him. I'm not saying it's a race thing, because Republicans (like Newt Gingrich) did equally idiotic things to Clinton. But, this is sad.

As a country, we are in the midst a darkness from which we will likely not emerge until 2024.

Can't support unilateral action by an executive. Everyone whines about Congress but Congress is democracy. Without Congress we live under an executive dictatorship. Applauding actions taken by an executive in your best interest is applauding benevolent dictatorship. That may excite you but it sure as hell doesn't excite me.
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,239
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/25/2014 4:59:46 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/21/2014 10:47:23 AM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
At 11/21/2014 10:22:55 AM, YYW wrote:
This was a huge step:

https://www.youtube.com...

It should have been celebrated by both sides, but it's not even celebrated by Democrats, which is sad.

Obama's got a lot to answer for, and the reason that's the case is because of the irrational hatred that the GOP has for him. I'm not saying it's a race thing, because Republicans (like Newt Gingrich) did equally idiotic things to Clinton. But, this is sad.

As a country, we are in the midst a darkness from which we will likely not emerge until 2024.

Can't support unilateral action by an executive. Everyone whines about Congress but Congress is democracy. Without Congress we live under an executive dictatorship. Applauding actions taken by an executive in your best interest is applauding benevolent dictatorship. That may excite you but it sure as hell doesn't excite me.

Then we can't demand action. If we feel there is a problem, identify the problem, but lack the resources to fix the problem, and the only way for the problem to be fixed is a Congressional process which simply put, isn't happening, we then can not demand further action. Its tabled. Its dead on arrival, still born. Obama might as well turn the Oval office into a rec room since nothing will come out of the legislature due to partisan gamesmanship. Even were something to come out, if Obama was so inclined, just to use (abuse) the process and parttake of the same gamesmanship, he could just as well veto it, and return it back to Congress where it will never get enough votes (currently) to over turn his red stamp.
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
ConservativePolitico
Posts: 8,210
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/25/2014 8:35:02 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/25/2014 4:59:46 AM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 11/21/2014 10:47:23 AM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
At 11/21/2014 10:22:55 AM, YYW wrote:
This was a huge step:

https://www.youtube.com...

It should have been celebrated by both sides, but it's not even celebrated by Democrats, which is sad.

Obama's got a lot to answer for, and the reason that's the case is because of the irrational hatred that the GOP has for him. I'm not saying it's a race thing, because Republicans (like Newt Gingrich) did equally idiotic things to Clinton. But, this is sad.

As a country, we are in the midst a darkness from which we will likely not emerge until 2024.

Can't support unilateral action by an executive. Everyone whines about Congress but Congress is democracy. Without Congress we live under an executive dictatorship. Applauding actions taken by an executive in your best interest is applauding benevolent dictatorship. That may excite you but it sure as hell doesn't excite me.

Then we can't demand action. If we feel there is a problem, identify the problem, but lack the resources to fix the problem, and the only way for the problem to be fixed is a Congressional process which simply put, isn't happening, we then can not demand further action. Its tabled. Its dead on arrival, still born. Obama might as well turn the Oval office into a rec room since nothing will come out of the legislature due to partisan gamesmanship. Even were something to come out, if Obama was so inclined, just to use (abuse) the process and parttake of the same gamesmanship, he could just as well veto it, and return it back to Congress where it will never get enough votes (currently) to over turn his red stamp.

Which means that action will not happen. THATS DEMOCRACY! If any sizable portion of the roughly 50% of Americans who are Republican wanted amnesty then it would have passed. If not we have gridlock. Thats the system. Abide by it or go get yourself a dictator.
xus00HAY
Posts: 1,395
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/25/2014 3:45:39 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Look, what Obama said was not completley unlike " Santa Claus would give all those illegals a visa, I am a cool guy like Santa therefore I am gonna forgive them and let them stay. Screw the law! "

Personally, I think the illegals are welcome to stay here as long as they don't break any of our laws, I'm not a bigot.
Now, I don't need a job, I inherited my father's company.
I like Mexican workers, they work for chump change, yet they do a good job.
The reason they are poor is because they have nothing to sell except their unskilled labor. They keep having all the babies they can, so there is always way more of a supply of unskilled labor than there is a demand for it. This drives down the price.
I can pay them cash, so I don't have to make any deductions for income tax. This enables me to earn a profit, and I have so much money I can afford to wipe my *** with it!
I have a friend at the club who likes Mexicans because if he can hire them, he does not have to hire Blacks.
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,239
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/25/2014 11:56:35 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/25/2014 8:35:02 AM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
At 11/25/2014 4:59:46 AM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 11/21/2014 10:47:23 AM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
At 11/21/2014 10:22:55 AM, YYW wrote:
This was a huge step:

https://www.youtube.com...

It should have been celebrated by both sides, but it's not even celebrated by Democrats, which is sad.

Obama's got a lot to answer for, and the reason that's the case is because of the irrational hatred that the GOP has for him. I'm not saying it's a race thing, because Republicans (like Newt Gingrich) did equally idiotic things to Clinton. But, this is sad.

As a country, we are in the midst a darkness from which we will likely not emerge until 2024.

Can't support unilateral action by an executive. Everyone whines about Congress but Congress is democracy. Without Congress we live under an executive dictatorship. Applauding actions taken by an executive in your best interest is applauding benevolent dictatorship. That may excite you but it sure as hell doesn't excite me.

Then we can't demand action. If we feel there is a problem, identify the problem, but lack the resources to fix the problem, and the only way for the problem to be fixed is a Congressional process which simply put, isn't happening, we then can not demand further action. Its tabled. Its dead on arrival, still born. Obama might as well turn the Oval office into a rec room since nothing will come out of the legislature due to partisan gamesmanship. Even were something to come out, if Obama was so inclined, just to use (abuse) the process and parttake of the same gamesmanship, he could just as well veto it, and return it back to Congress where it will never get enough votes (currently) to over turn his red stamp.

Which means that action will not happen. THATS DEMOCRACY! If any sizable portion of the roughly 50% of Americans who are Republican wanted amnesty then it would have passed. If not we have gridlock. Thats the system. Abide by it or go get yourself a dictator.

The system is cool and all, but gridlock still doesn't fix anything. Which is more unAmerican, attempting to mitigate the problem that is posting a threat, or doing nothing? Political gamesmanship most assuredly will lead to more problems. It already has done so once, that is why our credit rating took a ding. That was a warning shot about all this. If gridlock continues, there won't be a system to abide by.
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
Iredia
Posts: 1,608
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/28/2014 5:30:58 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/21/2014 10:22:55 AM, YYW wrote:
This was a huge step:

https://www.youtube.com...

It should have been celebrated by both sides, but it's not even celebrated by Democrats, which is sad.

Obama's got a lot to answer for, and the reason that's the case is because of the irrational hatred that the GOP has for him. I'm not saying it's a race thing, because Republicans (like Newt Gingrich) did equally idiotic things to Clinton. But, this is sad.

As a country, we are in the midst a darkness from which we will likely not emerge until 2024.

Obama has a lot to answer for because the GOP hates him. SMH. Maybe the GOP's hate got him to lie about Obamacare and Benghazi. Or maybe the Americans like you are far too dumb to see that they've got a lazy, golf-loving person in the White house.
Porn babes be distracting me. Dudes be stealing me stuff. I'm all about the cash from now. I'm not playing Jesus anymore.
pj43176
Posts: 306
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/28/2014 11:47:02 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/25/2014 4:59:46 AM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 11/21/2014 10:47:23 AM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
At 11/21/2014 10:22:55 AM, YYW wrote:
This was a huge step:

https://www.youtube.com...

It should have been celebrated by both sides, but it's not even celebrated by Democrats, which is sad.

Obama's got a lot to answer for, and the reason that's the case is because of the irrational hatred that the GOP has for him. I'm not saying it's a race thing, because Republicans (like Newt Gingrich) did equally idiotic things to Clinton. But, this is sad.

As a country, we are in the midst a darkness from which we will likely not emerge until 2024.

Can't support unilateral action by an executive. Everyone whines about Congress but Congress is democracy. Without Congress we live under an executive dictatorship. Applauding actions taken by an executive in your best interest is applauding benevolent dictatorship. That may excite you but it sure as hell doesn't excite me.

Then we can't demand action. If we feel there is a problem, identify the problem, but lack the resources to fix the problem, and the only way for the problem to be fixed is a Congressional process which simply put, isn't happening, we then can not demand further action. Its tabled. Its dead on arrival, still born. Obama might as well turn the Oval office into a rec room since nothing will come out of the legislature due to partisan gamesmanship. Even were something to come out, if Obama was so inclined, just to use (abuse) the process and partake of the same gamesmanship, he could just as well veto it, and return it back to Congress where it will never get enough votes (currently) to over turn his red stamp.

In reality Obama has been one of the few adults in the room when it comes to actually believing in and making compromises with his adversaries. However, the GOP as usual has shown a sinister genius for controlling the congressional agenda, and bombarding the President with one bogus scandal after another. The GOP has come right out and stated publicly, that their primary goal is to defeat Obama, and while they are trying to do this, they have been killing perfectly reasonable bills, and refusing to allow most of the bills offered by Democrats to even be debated. And, all the while, they have continuously blocked more of the President's choices for judicial posts and cabinet positions than has any other opposing party.

A favorite myth that Republicans have counted on in order to disguise their lopsided influence in causing this obstruction, is that both sides do it equally. But the GOP has used more outright lies and political maneuvering than any of Obama's strategies have even come close to. So what is he supposed to do to please the GOP--refuse to raise the debt ceiling in order to pay for expenses that the government has already incurred?---give in to Mobster power plays made by Republicans who think nothing of shutting down the government in order to extort and force their own objectives on Congress? Yet despite the fact that our S&P credit rating was lowered by their irresponsible insistence on using thug tactics rather than using honest debates and compromises, Republicans immediately blamed Obama for causing the downgrade? And, if the President gave in for one moment, to these forced forms of blatant thuggery, the result would be the creation of a wild west government that could potentially be made impotent and unable to enforce its own protocols when dealing with normal Congressional political issues--the next time, when Democrats control the economic purse strings in Congress, they could use for the same kinds of power-plays to stop anything and everything proposed by Republicans!

Lets remember that even though the GOP won the midterms, they really did not win by a very large majority at all. Especially, considering that, many states continue to use voter suppression laws, and have employed outrageous Gerrymandering tactics to tilt the scales their own way! They did win, but only by using clever and unethical tactics to control the political progress, and by making so many false and even silly claims about Obama's role as a "Dictator, a Communist, and/or a neo-conservative anti---colonial Kenyan nationalist,???

The only double standard used by Obama is between his effort to use fairness and compromise to make legislative progress happen, and being forced to accept the political strategy used by Republicans to implement the same kinds of power plays that the GOP traditionally uses so well, including the fact that most Republican's have signed on to support of the Norquist pledge already, and thus, have already agreed ahead of time NOT to raise ANY money for taxes without making other spending cuts---but that's not only impossible, but also undesirable for growing an economy!

Obama's struggle, i.e. working to improve things, or else give in to those who are paralyzing our lawmakers, and effectively destroy any real progress for brainwashed voters who are controlled by deceptive politics, is an important struggle to undertake. But, the GOP has moved one step closer towards attaining total control of Congress, for the rest of all our personal lives! Seeing that this is as good a reason to oppose the GOP, with the use of greater political chutzpah, and with an even more dedicated effort to create fair political reform, calls for a having a President dedicated to working hard for change---like Obama!

Ten years from now, if we still have a world with a blatant disregard for political equality, and one dedicated to supporting conservative obstructionism, it will become more and more obvious that Barack Obama has really been a very good president---one without whom the ill intentioned efforts by ALEC and the GOP, to control the lives of others--- would already have won! Perhaps when most people become aware of the political immorality of the GOP, we can then finally hit the reset button and get on with our lives once more!

Democracy will work fine without letting the SCOTUS hang a sign saying , "to the highest bidders" on our polling booths! If you do anything worthwhile at all, support the efforts to overturn, Citizen's United! Until that happens we will all continue being pawns in the many and various, shady endeavors undertaken by Republicans!
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,325
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/29/2014 10:07:27 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/21/2014 10:22:55 AM, YYW wrote:

Obama's got a lot to answer for, and the reason that's the case is because of the irrational hatred that the GOP has for him. I'm not saying it's a race thing, because Republicans (like Newt Gingrich) did equally idiotic things to Clinton. But, this is sad.
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,325
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/29/2014 10:19:33 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/28/2014 11:47:02 PM, pj43176 wrote:

In reality Obama has been one of the few adults in the room when it comes to actually believing in and making compromises with his adversaries.
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,325
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/29/2014 10:23:24 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/28/2014 11:47:02 PM, pj43176 wrote:

In reality Obama has been one of the few adults in the room when it comes to actually believing in and making compromises with his adversaries.

http://www.chicagonow.com...
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,325
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/29/2014 10:30:13 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
http://humanevents.com...

Literally hundreds of these kinds of articles reminding people the truth of Obama's "compromises."

Cause he just has a list miles long of compromises...
pj43176
Posts: 306
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/29/2014 10:49:10 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
GreyParrot,

I'm not really sure what you are referring to by using the term,"Borg" but I do remember an episode FROM one of one of the STAR TREKS that came after the original, which was about a mythical race of computer--humanoid beings bent on conquering the Universe.

Firstly, if this is you're references, then you are using a fictitious piece of creativity to argue that Obama marches in lockstep with Democrats who are incapable of thinking for themselves. But tell me, how many Republicans openly disagreed that shutting down the government was a wise thing to do, and how many Democrats are bound by their signatures on an agreement to NEVER vote for something that might raise taxes, like Republicans are? And, when it comes to voting on those issues which were actually debated in Congress, how many members of the GOP dared to defy the TEA PARTY even once!

All political parties use the concept of solidarity to convince Congressmen to vote party line on many important issue, but I hardly see where democrats are mindlessly agreeing with the President anymore than his opponent agree with their leaders when they are the party in power? He has often had difficulty convincing all Democrats to agree with his proposed legislation and, as in the case of the vote on the Toomey-Manchin gun bill, several democrats openly committed legislative mutiny by refusing to get on board---well before the 2012 elections!
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,325
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/29/2014 11:05:55 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/29/2014 10:49:10 AM, pj43176 wrote:
GreyParrot,

I'm not really sure what you are referring to by using the term,"Borg" but I do remember an episode FROM one of one of the STAR TREKS that came after the original, which was about a mythical race of computer--humanoid beings bent on conquering the Universe.

Firstly, if this is you're references, then you are using a fictitious piece of creativity to argue that Obama marches in lockstep with Democrats who are incapable of thinking for themselves. But tell me, how many Republicans openly disagreed that shutting down the government was a wise thing to do, and how many Democrats are bound by their signatures on an agreement to NEVER vote for something that might raise taxes, like Republicans are? And, when it comes to voting on those issues which were actually debated in Congress, how many members of the GOP dared to defy the TEA PARTY even once!

All political parties use the concept of solidarity to convince Congressmen to vote party line on many important issue, but I hardly see where democrats are mindlessly agreeing with the President anymore than his opponent agree with their leaders when they are the party in power? He has often had difficulty convincing all Democrats to agree with his proposed legislation and, as in the case of the vote on the Toomey-Manchin gun bill, several democrats openly committed legislative mutiny by refusing to get on board---well before the 2012 elections!

You are absolutely right. He can't even compromise with his own party.
pj43176
Posts: 306
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/29/2014 4:56:54 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/29/2014 11:05:55 AM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 11/29/2014 10:49:10 AM, pj43176 wrote:
GreyParrot,

I'm not really sure what you are referring to by using the term,"Borg" but I do remember an episode FROM one of one of the STAR TREKS that came after the original, which was about a mythical race of computer--humanoid beings bent on conquering the Universe.

Firstly, if this is you're references, then you are using a fictitious piece of creativity to argue that Obama marches in lockstep with Democrats who are incapable of thinking for themselves. But tell me, how many Republicans openly disagreed that shutting down the government was a wise thing to do, and how many Democrats are bound by their signatures on an agreement to NEVER vote for something that might raise taxes, like Republicans are? And, when it comes to voting on those issues which were actually debated in Congress, how many members of the GOP dared to defy the TEA PARTY even once!

All political parties use the concept of solidarity to convince Congressmen to vote party line on many important issue, but I hardly see where democrats are mindlessly agreeing with the President anymore than his opponent agree with their leaders when they are the party in power? He has often had difficulty convincing all Democrats to agree with his proposed legislation and, as in the case of the vote on the Toomey-Manchin gun bill, several democrats openly committed legislative mutiny by refusing to get on board---well before the 2012 elections!

You are absolutely right. He can't even compromise with his own party.
True, not always, but is this through any fault of his own? Before the recent midterms, an election which always holds the current administration at fault for any problems on capitol Hill--rightly or wrongly--many Democrats intent on re-election quickly distanced themselves from Obama, due to his lack of popularity---just as Republicans distanced themselves from Bush, in the 2008 Republican primaries.

I distinctly remember that in 2000 Bush promised earnestly to reach across the aisles to gain solid bipartisan support. However an issue of Time magazine, characterized his first 100 days as being among the most bipartisan in history. He also promised not to engage in nation building shortly before being elected and then invading Iraq on false pretenses!---in order to establish an oil rich democracy in the middle east!

Even though Obama has been the brunt of one of the worst and most intense propaganda campaigns in American history, he has always acknowledged that the buck stops with him. And, most of the baloney told about him has been accepted by under informed voters. Then, with the onset of incredible spending by wealthy benefactors and anonymous corporations, it can hardly be said that Republicans won this election fair and square. Yes Democrats also worked with wealthy donors and Super-packs---they would have been dead out of the starting gates if they didn't! But funny how the President had the guts to scold members of the SCOTUS, in front of both houses of Congress and millions of American television viewers? The difference is that democrats really want the playing field to be made more fair by eliminating citizens united, but very few Republicans have recognized the corruption it produces, and even fewer have had the guts to admit how truly wrong it is.

Obama has no real double standard aside from deciding to take executive actions because of receiving virtually no cooperation from the GOP! But this decision happened as the result of finding out that all his attempts at reasonable compromises, have been DOA because Republican have hardly ever granted the bi-partisan support necessary to make the government work. Obama has learned that seeking cooperation from political thugs is never going to work, so now he is using his executive authority (just like so many other Presidents have), to make sure that at least something receives the attention it needs to overcome obstruction, and produce at least some results.
pj43176
Posts: 306
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/29/2014 5:27:58 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/29/2014 4:58:38 PM, Grey Parrot wrote:
Clinton was already considered the great compromiser. Obama just elevated him to heroic status.

I have a hard time responding seriously to someone who gives the impression that the Obama administration is analogous to the "BORG." But here goes.

Clinton lost his battle over health care, and negotiated with people who had actually learned from their own political folly. The only thing learned by today's Republicans is that the longer and louder they lie, the more the public will believe their lies. Genius propagandists like Karl Rove, have managed to convince an electorate that voted for Obama, partly because he promised to reform the health insurance industry, to distrust and fear his policies once that goal was finally accomplished? If there is anything at all that is even remotely related to Obama, Republicans will try anything to blame it all on him--sadly they lie so long and loud that the lies they told years ago, still reverberated freshly when voters entered the polling booth. Today its not always the best man that wins, but the one who most successfully manipulates public opinion--- but, way more brazenly than in the past!
pj43176
Posts: 306
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/29/2014 10:14:53 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/29/2014 4:56:54 PM, pj43176 wrote:
At 11/29/2014 11:05:55 AM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 11/29/2014 10:49:10 AM, pj43176 wrote:
GreyParrot,

I'm not really sure what you are referring to by using the term,"Borg" but I do remember an episode FROM one of one of the STAR TREKS that came after the original, which was about a mythical race of computer--humanoid beings bent on conquering the Universe.

Firstly, if this is you're references, then you are using a fictitious piece of creativity to argue that Obama marches in lockstep with Democrats who are incapable of thinking for themselves. But tell me, how many Republicans openly disagreed that shutting down the government was a wise thing to do, and how many Democrats are bound by their signatures on an agreement to NEVER vote for something that might raise taxes, like Republicans are? And, when it comes to voting on those issues which were actually debated in Congress, how many members of the GOP dared to defy the TEA PARTY even once!

All political parties use the concept of solidarity to convince Congressmen to vote party line on many important issue, but I hardly see where democrats are mindlessly agreeing with the President anymore than his opponent agree with their leaders when they are the party in power? He has often had difficulty convincing all Democrats to agree with his proposed legislation and, as in the case of the vote on the Toomey-Manchin gun bill, several democrats openly committed legislative mutiny by refusing to get on board---well before the 2012 elections!

You are absolutely right. He can't even compromise with his own party.
True, not always, but is this through any fault of his own? Before the recent midterms, an election which always holds the current administration at fault for any problems on capitol Hill--rightly or wrongly--many Democrats intent on re-election quickly distanced themselves from Obama, due to his lack of popularity---just as Republicans distanced themselves from Bush, in the 2008 Republican primaries.

I distinctly remember that in 2000 Bush promised earnestly to reach across the aisles to gain solid bipartisan support. However an issue of Time magazine, characterized his first 100 days as being among the most partisan in history. He also promised not to engage in nation building shortly before being elected and then invading Iraq on false pretenses!---in order to establish an oil rich democracy in the middle east!

Even though Obama has been the brunt of one of the worst and most intense propaganda campaigns in American history, he has always acknowledged that the buck stops with him. And, most of the baloney told about him has been accepted by under informed voters. Then, with the onset of incredible spending by wealthy benefactors and anonymous corporations, it can hardly be said that Republicans won this election fair and square. Yes Democrats also worked with wealthy donors and Super-packs---they would have been dead out of the starting gates if they didn't! But funny how the President had the guts to scold members of the SCOTUS, in front of both houses of Congress and millions of American television viewers? The difference is that democrats really want the playing field to be made more fair by eliminating citizens united, but very few Republicans have recognized the corruption it produces, and even fewer have had the guts to admit how truly wrong it is.

Obama has no real double standard aside from deciding to take executive actions because of receiving virtually no cooperation from the GOP! But this decision happened as the result of finding out that all his attempts at reasonable compromises, have been DOA because Republican have hardly ever granted the bi-partisan support necessary to make the government work. Obama has learned that seeking cooperation from political thugs is never going to work, so now he is using his executive authority (just like so many other Presidents have), to make sure that at least something receives the attention it needs to overcome obstruction, and produce at least some results.

I have edited the word (bipartisan) mistakenly used in the 2nd paragraph of the above post, to (partisan) instead.
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,325
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/3/2014 12:53:47 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/29/2014 5:27:58 PM, pj43176 wrote:
At 11/29/2014 4:58:38 PM, Grey Parrot wrote:
Clinton was already considered the great compromiser. Obama just elevated him to heroic status.

I have a hard time responding seriously to someone who gives the impression that the Obama administration is analogous to the "BORG." But here goes.

Clinton lost his battle over health care, and negotiated with people who had actually learned from their own political folly. The only thing learned by today's Republicans is that the longer and louder they lie, the more the public will believe their lies. Genius propagandists like Karl Rove, have managed to convince an electorate that voted for Obama, partly because he promised to reform the health insurance industry, to distrust and fear his policies once that goal was finally accomplished? If there is anything at all that is even remotely related to Obama, Republicans will try anything to blame it all on him--sadly they lie so long and loud that the lies they told years ago, still reverberated freshly when voters entered the polling booth. Today its not always the best man that wins, but the one who most successfully manipulates public opinion--- but, way more brazenly than in the past!

Not a single point in that rant came remotely close to describing the phantom of anything that could be considered an Obama compromise.
pj43176
Posts: 306
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/3/2014 4:57:12 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/3/2014 12:53:47 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 11/29/2014 5:27:58 PM, pj43176 wrote:
At 11/29/2014 4:58:38 PM, Grey Parrot wrote:
Clinton was already considered the great compromiser. Obama just elevated him to heroic status.

I have a hard time responding seriously to someone who gives the impression that the Obama administration is analogous to the "BORG." But here goes.

Clinton lost his battle over health care, and negotiated with people who had actually learned from their own political folly. The only thing learned by today's Republicans is that the longer and louder they lie, the more the public will believe their lies. Genius propagandists like Karl Rove, have managed to convince an electorate that voted for Obama, partly because he promised to reform the health insurance industry, to distrust and fear his policies once that goal was finally accomplished? If there is anything at all that is even remotely related to Obama, Republicans will try anything to blame it all on him--sadly they lie so long and loud that the lies they told years ago, still reverberated freshly when voters entered the polling booth. Today its not always the best man that wins, but the one who most successfully manipulates public opinion--- but, way more brazenly than in the past!

Not a single point in that rant came remotely close to describing the phantom of anything that could be considered an Obama compromise.

Perhaps you're right. My understanding about this forum is that it's a discussion intended to examine Obama's contradictory political acts, like promising to end the partisan divide and now insisting on using his executive powers to take measure that all of Congress does not support, and, has not had a chance to pass through legislation---at least not the way Republicans would want.

About that, my point is that the President HAS tried to work with Republicans in Congress for most of the last six years, but has only received stubborn partisan obstruction from the GOP and the Tea Party---virtually blocking almost everything he proposes, (even though these proposals have been quite reasonable). This is relevant to the criticisms of Obama's executive actions, for which he has been described as an emperor or a King---all of which contradicts his claims to be willing to work with Republicans. However, my take on these criticisms, is that the President is only doing what he can do by making small changes with executive actions---now necessary because working with the rest of Congress has been fruitless from the day the GOP quite openly stated that their first priority was to defeat the President.

The truth is NOT that the divide in Congress is caused equally by both parties, but that the GOP is really culpability for creating a, "do nothing Congress" and its refusal to consider anything proposed by the President. The GOP is almost solely to blame for what Obama considers one of his only remaining course of action.

So to put it in a nutshell, there really is NO DOUBLE STANDARD on the President's part. The myth that there is, is yet another political devise used to create political drama as another of GOP's continual efforts to pass the buck and blame the President for the inaction that they themselves have created i.e. there really is NO double standard---since Obama is only trying to use executive actions in the same way that Reagan and every other modern President has used them---in order to promote changes that otherwise just cannot happen--such as all the reasonable but ignored legislation proposed by Democrats which has not even been allowed to come to a vote due to the obstruction created by Republicans in the House.

When I decided to comment on this post, I assumed that the so called power hungry actions taken by the President were what was meant to be discussed on this thread. I also thought your mention of Clinton was intended to contrast the changes that happened during his administration (such as a budget surplus), and to insinuate that if Clinton could do so much, then Obama should have been able to also---that's why I emphasised differences between their political circumstances. If you want to frame the intended question posed by the title of this thread in another way, perhaps I can participate in the types of discussions you feel it's intended for. Although I looked, I couldn't find a description of specifically what was intended to be addressed in this forum---I only hope that while you're at it, you can explain fully what your comment about "Borgs," is intended to convey?
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,325
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/3/2014 6:34:55 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Okay first off.. the solid line below a persons post is a space reserved for an arbitrary signature quote, which I pasted from the user "Bladerunner" I believe long ago. It bears no relevance, and is purely cosmetic in nature.

Now, to your points.
111th session Entire congress is Democrat... (1st two years for Obama)
112th Congress... Senate is Dem, House is Rep
113th Congress same composition....

So these 6 years you mention, The first 2 years, Repubs were not even in any position to block anything Obama proposed, so you are false in stating so.

The last 4 years is only a partial majority for Reps, so yes they could block legislation.

If you examine the legislation from the Clinton era, both Democrats and Republicans supported proposed legislation across the board because Clinton was a man who knew how to compromise to get laws passed quickly with unilateral support. Most of his legislation had wide support from both parties.

Obama might have gotten a grand total of 6 republican votes for all the legislation he has signed into law. As you already stated, much of his legislation was largely opposed by his own party!

Clinton is the compromiser.

Obama is not. Examine the legislation and support.
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,325
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/3/2014 6:46:04 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
In July 2004, Forbes published Presidents and Prosperity " a special report on America"s presidents since 1945. After updating that report"s seven economic performance measures to reflect the economic performance of George W. Bush and Barack H. Obama, the conclusion is clear: William J. Clinton was our best president in the last 66 years while W and Obama hug the cellar.

Here are the seven performance measures that Dan Ackman, the report"s author, used to rank the presidents:

"GDP growth
"Disposable income growth
"Employment growth
"Unemployment rate decline
"Inflation decline
"Deficit reduction
"Stock market increase

Based on these statistics, Clinton came out ahead of the pack. Here"s how well Clinton did on these seven measures:

GDP growth: +3.6% average annual growth " from $7.5 trillion in 1993 to $9.9 trillion in 2000.
"Disposable income growth: +3.5% average annual growth " from $5.5 trillion in 1993 to $7.3 trillion in 2000
"Employment growth: +2.3 million jobs/year " from 120 million to 138 million
"Unemployment rate decline: 0.41% per year " from 8% to 4.7%
"Inflation decline: This is the one area where things got worse as inflation actually increased an average of 0.05% per year " from 3.3% to 3.7%
"Deficit reduction: -$48 million per year " from a budget deficit of $255 billion to a surplus of $127 billion
"Stock market increase: +17.4% a year " from an S&P 500 of 433 to 1,343

While Clinton did not outdo his presidential peers on all of these measures, his most impressive performance came where it mattered " in disposable income growth, GDP growth, job growth, employment growth, and deficit reduction.

Clinton was such an exceptional leader that when he entered office a Gallup poll of public confidence in the economy was at an all-time low and in the summer of 2000, months before the end of his term, that same poll indicated public confidence in the economy at an all-time high.

As Alice Rivlin " Clinton"s director of management and budget told Forbes, Clinton"s economic success was a result of budget discipline and luck. Specifically, he followed the so-called "pay/go" deal that President George H. W. Bush cut with a Democratic Congress " those rules required tax cuts or entitlement increases to be funded on a current basis.

Rivlin said that Mr. Clinton increased taxes just as incomes were starting to rise after years of going nowhere " and the resulting surge in tax revenues led to the smallest government as a percent of GDP since President Lyndon Johnson and the first big federal budget surplus since Harry S. Truman.

W"s economic performance was fairly strong in some areas and terrible in others. For example, from 2001 to 2008, GDP grew at an average annual rate of 4.4% " ranking him third among his peers.

But when it comes to deficit reduction and the stock market, W was by far the worst president In the last 66 years " he presided over an average annual 5.7% decline in the stock market while adding an average of $141 billion a year to the federal budget deficit. And as far as employment growth and disposable income, W hugged the cellar floor.

The one area where W led the pack was in inflation reduction " from 3.9% to 0.1% when he left " but that good news reflects the severity of the economic contraction that he left Obama.

Obama"s economic performance has been relatively poor. One bright spot is that stocks have risen an average of 12.4% " putting him in second place behind Clinton.

But in terms of disposable income growth and employment growth " Obama"s performance is so bad that he is in a league of his own " he is the only president for whom real disposable income grew at less than 1% (0.7% on average during his 2.9 year tenure) and the only one who suffered a decline in the civilian work force " down an average of 690,000 a year.

Clinton... the best rated president since 1945. Think about why that was. And don't even claim "Newt made him do it."

Clinton knew how to compromise and pass the legislation he knew everyone would support, and was also good for the country.
pj43176
Posts: 306
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/3/2014 10:03:14 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/3/2014 6:34:55 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
Okay first off.. the solid line below a persons post is a space reserved for an arbitrary signature quote, which I pasted from the user "Bladerunner" I believe long ago. It bears no relevance, and is purely cosmetic in nature.

Now, to your points.
111th session Entire congress is Democrat... (1st two years for Obama)
112th Congress... Senate is Dem, House is Rep
113th Congress same composition....

So these 6 years you mention, The first 2 years, Repubs were not even in any position to block anything Obama proposed, so you are false in stating so.

True, during the first two years there was a brief period when Democrats controlled both branches of the legislature, but during that time Kennedy died, and only deals with Republicans provided a snowballs chance in hell that the health care bill would survive. Its only because Obama bent over backwards and opted for a subsidized system which included the health care industry retaining a primary role, (like in Mitts plan), and after one compromise after another kept the bill alive, that the ACA became law. Then of course Obama worked on the health care bill, while he and his advisers were scrambling to prevent the entire economy of America, and perhaps of the world from going down the tubes. During all of this, the GOP lead an incredibly outrageous and vicious propaganda campaign against virtually anything the President thought, said or did. This revolt was presumably because the health care legislation that Obama had promise voters in 2008 was passed over intense opposition. Of course Obama's use of an obscure legislative maneuver, used to force a vote on the bill, (conciliation?) I can't remember the exact term, caused outrage from Republicans, but it was one that had also been used several times by Republicans in the past. The really ironic thing is that right after the 2008 elections even the GOP made public appearances singing while Kumbaya and appearing to support the need to improve health care--but after it was actually done as promised, they declared outright war on Obama, and basically failed to approve virtually anything the President suggested!---just because it might make him look good? Then of course, after 2010, the midterms resulted in a Republican sweep basically because the Tea Party's propaganda and Republican lies, made the public fear the very things they had voted Obama into office for. You may say, that it was honest rejection of his agenda, but good God! Rarely has there ever been such an intense and vicious battle of lies and propaganda aimed at one President. And, it would be foolish to think that many voters who voted against Democrats did so out of an informed and accurate assessment of the facts--the Gop made sure, and is still making sure that very few facts are usually involved.

So lets see, the GOP has threatened a couple times not out increase the debt ceiling and to shut down the government, and ironically these are the same Republicans now having a hissy fit over an executive order? As far as a partial majority of Republicans during the last 4 years--that's true--but only through lock step, Norquist revering obstruction, has that majority in the House, been able to singlehandedly grind the business of Congress to a virtual halt. The President has learned that's its impossible to compromise with people who only want to see his head on a platter!

I suppose Clinton had a way with others and even survived his oval office offense because the public liked him. But nothing equal to the propaganda aimed at Obama, was ever slung at Clinton. Of course he was threatened with impeachment, but even so, the GOP propaganda machine didn't focus nearly so much incredible BS at him, as it did Obama. And despite enduring one faux, and falsely created scandal after another, which has been ruthlessly aimed at the President, none of them has really stuck. I think the real problem here is resentment aimed at Obama for politically preventing the GOP from getting its way on health care. They are still having temper tantrums just about at least every other day.

It would have been interesting to see what additional flak Clinton would have been subjected to and how much cooperation he would have received if Hillary's Health care efforts had paid off. And, it would have been interesting to see how much resistance he would have gotten, if the economy had tanked just before he took office and required him to take measures similar to Obama's, just to keep Wall street from going down? I also think its significant that Clinton's GOP responded to losing the government shutdown by actually learning a lesson from their folly, thus motivating them to compromise with Clinton in a sane and reasonable way, and positively receiving his attempts to do the same.

Yes Clinton was a great peacemaker, but he didn't literally have the economic health of the world on his shoulder,and his attempts at health care reform were defeated. The fact is that even with the Monica Lewinsky scandal, Clinton was not lied about and attacked nearly as viciously as Obama is still being attack right now. And when considering Obama, one immediately becomes aware of an incredible number of scandalous allegations and outrageous lies which are meant as nothing but character assassination. Even if he had the same political charm as Clinton, one has to wonder if he would still be the brunt of so much BS anyway. Call this a rant if you want, and perhaps you'd be right, but Clinton also had many clear advantage that Obama didn't. I also don't know if race is really the largest part of it, but its likely that race plays at least some part. Its also true that the GOP of today, does not resemble even those during Reagan's administration. Considering what has landed on, and been willfully placed on the President's plate, he has accomplished nothing short of miracles so far. Once he retires and can be judge without the input of people like Sarah palin and Rush Limbaugh, I think historians are going to give him a lot of credit for keeping us together as long as he has.

The last 4 years is only a partial majority for Reps, so yes they could block legislation.

If you examine the legislation from the Clinton era, both Democrats and Republicans supported proposed legislation across the board because Clinton was a man who knew how to compromise to get laws passed quickly with unilateral support. Most of his legislation had wide support from both parties.

Obama might have gotten a grand total of 6 republican votes for all the legislation he has signed into law. As you already stated, much of his legislation was largely opposed by his own party!

And, much of the protestations from his own party have been from those who consider him to have been too moderate. Thanks for the discussion.

Clinton is the compromiser.

Obama is not. Examine the legislation and support.
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,325
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/4/2014 12:28:17 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Then you agree that Obama is no compromiser when compared to Bill Clinton.

He really should have weighed the cost of his first 2 years when he decided to lock the minority out of the back room deals.

Obama's whole "you can come along for the ride but you have to sit in the back" attitude has an actual political cost.

Obama could have learned alot from Clinton. Burning bridges is a poor strategy to get what you want.
pj43176
Posts: 306
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/4/2014 12:32:44 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/3/2014 10:03:14 PM, pj43176 wrote:
At 12/3/2014 6:34:55 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
Okay first off.. the solid line below a persons post is a space reserved for an arbitrary signature quote, which I pasted from the user "Bladerunner" I believe long ago. It bears no relevance, and is purely cosmetic in nature.

Now, to your points.
111th session Entire congress is Democrat... (1st two years for Obama)
112th Congress... Senate is Dem, House is Rep
113th Congress same composition....

So these 6 years you mention, The first 2 years, Repubs were not even in any position to block anything Obama proposed, so you are false in stating so.

True, during the first two years there was a brief period when Democrats controlled both branches of the legislature, but during that time Kennedy died, and only deals with Republicans provided a snowballs chance in hell that the health care bill would survive. Its only because Obama bent over backwards and opted for a subsidized system which included the health care industry retaining a primary role, (like in Mitts plan), and after one compromise after another kept the bill alive, that the ACA became law. Then of course Obama worked on the health care bill, while he and his advisers were scrambling to prevent the entire economy of America, and perhaps of the world from going down the tubes. During all of this, the GOP lead an incredibly outrageous and vicious propaganda campaign against virtually anything the President thought, said or did. This revolt was presumably because the health care legislation that Obama had promise voters in 2008 was passed over intense opposition. Of course Obama's use of an obscure legislative maneuver, used to force a vote on the bill, (conciliation?) I can't remember the exact term, caused outrage from Republicans, but it was one that had also been used several times by Republicans in the past. The really ironic thing is that right after the 2008 elections even the GOP made public appearances singing while Kumbaya and appearing to support the need to improve health care--but after it was actually done as promised, they declared outright war on Obama, and basically failed to approve virtually anything the President suggested!---just because it might make him look good? Then of course, after 2010, the midterms resulted in a Republican sweep basically because the Tea Party's propaganda and Republican lies, made the public fear the very things they had voted Obama into office for. You may say, that it was honest rejection of his agenda, but good God! Rarely has there ever been such an intense and vicious battle of lies and propaganda aimed at one President. And, it would be foolish to think that many voters who voted against Democrats did so out of an informed and accurate assessment of the facts--the Gop made sure, and is still making sure that very few facts are usually involved.

So lets see, the GOP has threatened a couple times not out increase the debt ceiling and to shut down the government, and ironically these are the same Republicans now having a hissy fit over an executive order? As far as a partial majority of Republicans during the last 4 years--that's true--but only through lock step, Norquist revering obstruction, has that majority in the House, been able to singlehandedly grind the business of Congress to a virtual halt. The President has learned that's its impossible to compromise with people who only want to see his head on a platter!

I suppose Clinton had a way with others and even survived his oval office offense because the public liked him. But nothing equal to the propaganda aimed at Obama, was ever slung at Clinton. Of course he was threatened with impeachment, but even so, the GOP propaganda machine didn't focus nearly so much incredible BS at him, as it did Obama. And despite enduring one faux, and falsely created scandal after another, which has been ruthlessly aimed at the President, none of them has really stuck. I think the real problem here is resentment aimed at Obama for politically preventing the GOP from getting its way on health care. They are still having temper tantrums just about at least every other day.

It would have been interesting to see what additional flak Clinton would have been subjected to and how much cooperation he would have received if Hillary's Health care efforts had paid off. And, it would have been interesting to see how much resistance he would have gotten, if the economy had tanked just before he took office and required him to take measures similar to Obama's, just to keep Wall street from going down? I also think its significant that Clinton's GOP responded to losing the government shutdown by actually learning a lesson from their folly, thus motivating them to compromise with Clinton in a sane and reasonable way, and positively receiving his attempts to do the same.

Yes Clinton was a great peacemaker, but he didn't literally have the economic health of the world on his shoulder,and his attempts at health care reform were defeated. The fact is that even with the Monica Lewinsky scandal, Clinton was not lied about and attacked nearly as viciously as Obama is still being attack right now. And when considering Obama, one immediately becomes aware of an incredible number of scandalous allegations and outrageous lies which are meant as nothing but character assassination. Even if he had the same political charm as Clinton, one has to wonder if he would still be the brunt of so much BS anyway. Call this a rant if you want, and perhaps you'd be right, but Clinton also had many clear advantage that Obama didn't. I also don't know if race is really the largest part of it, but its likely that race plays at least some part. Its also true that the GOP of today, does not resemble even those during Reagan's administration. Considering what has landed on, and been willfully placed on the President's plate, he has accomplished nothing short of miracles so far. Once he retires and can be judge without the input of people like Sarah palin and Rush Limbaugh, I think historians are going to give him a lot of credit for keeping us together as long as he has.

The last 4 years is only a partial majority for Reps, so yes they could block legislation.

If you examine the legislation from the Clinton era, both Democrats and Republicans supported proposed legislation across the board because Clinton was a man who knew how to compromise to get laws passed quickly with unilateral support. Most of his legislation had wide support from both parties.

Obama might have gotten a grand total of 6 republican votes for all the legislation he has signed into law. As you already stated, much of his legislation was largely opposed by his own party!

And, much of the protestations from his own party have been from those who consider him to have been too moderate. Thanks for the discussion.

Clinton is the compromiser.

Obama is not. Examine the legislation and support.

I agree that legislation during Clinton's Presidency often enjoyed wide bipartisan support, but now-a-days there is almost none of that--a failing I see the GOP and the Tea Party much more culpable for than the President. As I said, there were different influences on Clinton than on Obama---including the apparently hostile attitude continually maintained by obstructionists.

And, again the amount of lies and BS in politics today is truly amazing--most of it aimed at Obama if course! Have a good holidays.
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,325
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/4/2014 12:35:30 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/4/2014 12:32:44 PM, pj43176 wrote:

Obama might have gotten a grand total of 6 republican votes for all the legislation he has signed into law. As you already stated, much of his legislation was largely opposed by his own party!

And, much of the protestations from his own party have been from those who consider him to have been too moderate. Thanks for the discussion.

Clinton is the compromiser.

Obama is not. Examine the legislation and support.

I agree that legislation during Clinton's Presidency often enjoyed wide bipartisan support, but now-a-days there is almost none of that--a failing I see the GOP and the Tea Party much more culpable for than the President. As I said, there were different influences on Clinton than on Obama---including the apparently hostile attitude continually maintained by obstructionists.

And, again the amount of lies and BS in politics today is truly amazing--most of it aimed at Obama if course! Have a good holidays.

Obama brought alot on himself by choosing to lock the minority out of discussions the first two years Clinton never did that. Obama is not a helpless race victim archetype. He is intelligent and a big enough man (politician) to shoulder responsibility for that.

Happy Holidays!
pj43176
Posts: 306
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/4/2014 6:11:35 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Greyparrot,

When I Googled, "Did Obama lock out Republicans from the health care negotiations," this link to an article that explains and dispels this commonly held belief, as being a myth, popped up.

http://www.salon.com...

Of course if one clicks on the sites that are about supporters of business or who have strong ties with businesses, like the WSJ, one will find laments about Obama's alleged refusal to include the minority party in discussions and negotiations about the Health Care bill. The fact is, that only those Americans who earn more than $250,000 a year as a family or $200,000 as individuals will pay for the brunt of many ACA costs through their taxes, and that, the GOP traditionally is lobbied heavily by the Insurance Industry which would rather have all the winning cards in their hand. So, affirmation of this myth by journals dedicated to business interests, like the WSJ are completely expected to buy into the same hype.

The fact is that Obama bent over backwards to try and appease Republicans. The ACA involved more than a year of Congressional Committee hearings in which progressive ideas like, a single payer or public option system were rejected. The law also was the result of hundreds of GOP amendments that were included in it. D Max Baucus and R Chuck Grassley, held dozens of meetings, released joint "policy papers," and presided over 31 meetings lasting a total of 60 hours with the "gang of six," in an attempt to offer a compromise that would suit Republicans. In fact it was the administration's determination to reach a compromise that allowed centrist Baucus to drive the caucus that caused Democrats to enter the August 2009 recess without a bill that they could effectively defend. It was during this time that Tea Party activists spread one damaging lie about the President and his bill after another, each seeming to be even more outrageous than the last, but ideas that would stick in the minds of many Americans who were devastated financially by the recession, and who were then treated to one vicious propaganda assault on the stimulus after another! This included the bogeyman of TARP, and the "evils" of Obama's (Socialist?) health care bill being slammed repeatedly and shamelessly every day. In short it was this constant barrage by Republicans that convinced Americans to beware of anything "Obama," at a critical juncture in political history--the 2010 Republican sweeps were the result. Republicans doubled down on their defund/delay/ repeal, strategy which ever since has paralyzed Congress, and erected a solid wall of obstruction that no amount of compromises made by the President have even made a dent in!

So, now, the President has realized that his only hope to realize the implementation of ANY of his policy issues, involves use his executive power to do so.

GreyParrot, you point out that Democrats had control of both houses at the beginning, but if that were the case, ask yourself why Democrats debated the issue with Republicans for more than a year? Any President who refused to engage in negotiations, would have already "rammed through" any kind of sketchy bill at all---before Kennedy died, and the Democrats would most likely lose control. If there were large questionable parts of such a bill, Democrats could have claimed that these were only issues that needed more work, and would have defended such provisions after the main bill had already been passed. So, why would Democratic non-negotiators grant the GOP any amount of their precious time, which would only delay passage of the bill?

The point is that, although Clinton and Obama were indeed, different personalities, many of those in Congress were also different personalities. Recently Republicans have doubled down on their power plays in lieu of even the most simple compromises. Some of them voted against many job creating bills in order not to make the President look good, but were then present to cut ribbons during photo-op sessions for themselves?

I also think it's very likely that Clinton's congress was full of politicians who still valued the worth of prudent compromise and traditional Congressional processes. They knew that working with Clinton made them look good, and that it also made Clinton look good--- there was actually a common respect for the idea that they were all there to get important work done through compromise. Any President like Obama can make as many gestures for compromises as he might want, but if those Presidents become the victims of a full court obstructionist blockade, like the one that invokes the Norquist pledge, then Republicans have already decided what things they will refuse to vote for in advance---some willingness to compromise?

I suppose you will object to my side of the issue as propaganda and claim that the GOP are victims of a cruel and Dictatorial President, but how can they raise such a stink about a simple executive order, when they have willingly tried to shut down the government, and destroy the established protocol for raising the debt limit? Is Obama expected to completely surrender to thug tactics in order to effect change? Was there really any half-way point involved? The best deal agreed upon was the sequester, and the GOP even came out ahead on that one.

Unfortunately today's GOP doesn't even accept the concept of learning though their mistakes---instead they will only debate how far thug political practices might get them. No sooner than they had failed one debt ceiling assault, then they began planning the next. And even with the expected disastrous results of their government shutdown, there has been recent talk of trying another one? As I said to begin with, Obama has finally learned to use a little force. He has also learned that you cannot negotiate with political terrorists. In large part the GOP itself, is really responsible for this very change in attitude by the President!
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,325
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/4/2014 6:21:01 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
President Obama listened to Republican gripes about his stimulus package during a meeting with congressional leaders Friday morning - but he also left no doubt about who's in charge of these negotiations. "I won," Obama noted matter-of-factly, according to sources familiar with the conversation.

The exchange arose as top House and Senate Republicans expressed concern to the president about the amount of spending in the package. They also raised red flags about a refundable tax credit that returns money to those who don"t pay income taxes, the sources said.

The Republicans stressed that they want to include more middle class tax cuts in the package, citing their proposal to cut the two lowest tax rates " 15 percent and 10 percent " to ten percent and five percent, rather than issue the refundable credit Obama wants.

At another point in the meeting, sources said Obama told the group: "This is a grave situation facing the country." White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said Obama would hold another economic meeting in the White House Saturday for a "broader group."

After Friday's meeting, Democratic and Republican leaders publicly wrangled over the developing stimulus plan.

But perhaps taking a cue from Obama"s "I won" line when Democrats were asked if they were concerned about Republicans blocking the package, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid had a swift one-word answer: "No."

The "I Won, deal with it" attitude is not compromise.

Obama is responsible for the bridges he burned in 2009.
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,325
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/4/2014 6:28:37 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Obamacare....34 Democrats and all 178 Republicans voting against it.

That's all you need to know about how Obama operates.

Get bare minimum support and let it fly, damned the people.

Uncompromising to the last.