(10-07-2014 07:53 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(10-07-2014 04:27 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(10-07-2014 03:55 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  Obama never wanted to be president. He wanted to be king.. And when he controlled a super majority in both chambers for the first two years, he was king. Now he's not, and he been over it ever since.

You fail facts son.

Debunking the Myth: Obama's Two-Year Supermajority

Facts do not fail, son. During that time, the senate could hold up passing anything they needed 60 votes on until they had sixty votes. You are hung up on there not be on 60 votes continuously. But it didn't have to be.

And it didn't matter anyway. Reid simply changed the rules so that a simple majority would do. Can't wait for the republicans to gain control of the senate and start using that nice new feature.

Yes...facts are facts. A Super Majority is defined as having 60 votes in your caucus to prevent filibuster. The Dems DID NOT have 60 votes in their caucus for 2 years. Saying otherwise is simply not true no matter how you spin it, sorry.

And you're also wrong on the rules change...that happened like 2 weeks ago in the grand scheme of things (actually, last November). And it only applies to presidential nominations for Cabinet secretary posts and lower federal court judgeships anyway...not normal legislation.

Finally...even a 3 or 4 vote majority for the Republicans is not going to change anything. The dems will still be able to block nearly everything with the filibuster and the repubs won't have enough votes to override any Obama veto. It will be gridlock as usual.

(10-08-2014 07:28 AM)gdunn Wrote:  

(10-07-2014 04:29 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(10-07-2014 03:51 PM)gdunn Wrote:  

(10-07-2014 03:48 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(10-07-2014 03:18 PM)gdunn Wrote:  No sh*t..

Honestly.. I don't think he wanted the 2nd term. The first debate with Romney showed he wasn't prepared..

And the second and third debates where he cleaned Romney's clock was what exactly?

I don't recall him cleaning any clocks. I do recall ol' girl from MSNBC or CNN not allowing Romney the same graces as Obama.

Not to mention that history tells us that the incumbent almost always loses the first debate. It happened in like 5 of the last 6 cycles IIRC.

So ignore my comment and then try to change the subject.. Nice job Tom.

I ignored your comments because I don't agree with them and I ain't going to change your perceptions no matter what I say. Sorry.

(10-08-2014 08:40 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(10-08-2014 07:28 AM)gdunn Wrote:  

(10-07-2014 04:29 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(10-07-2014 03:51 PM)gdunn Wrote:  

(10-07-2014 03:48 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  And the second and third debates where he cleaned Romney's clock was what exactly?

I don't recall him cleaning any clocks. I do recall ol' girl from MSNBC or CNN not allowing Romney the same graces as Obama.

Not to mention that history tells us that the incumbent almost always loses the first debate. It happened in like 5 of the last 6 cycles IIRC.

So ignore my comment and then try to change the subject.. Nice job Tom.

I ignored your comments because I don't agree with them and I ain't going to change your perceptions no matter what I say. Sorry.

The opinion of "cleaning his clock" was definitely one that you and MSNBC shared.. I'd like to know why you think Romney's "clock got cleaned".

Very Effective Muslim Sympathizer though,... I must say!

Nothing meaningful is going to get done with the current congress specifically the House. IMO as long as the Tea Party has the influence they now possess in the House nothing will ever get done. I also believe that The Tea Party is so out of touch with the majority of Americans and that this influence will erode support from the GOP especially among the fiscal conservative, socially liberal republicans.

If the GOP puts forth a socially conservative Tea Party type for the President, no way in hell that person wins. If the GOP wants the White House they need to get someone like Susana Martinez or even Chris Christie nominated...the question of course is with the Tea Party faction can that be accomplished?

(10-08-2014 10:16 AM)BobL Wrote:  Nothing meaningful is going to get done with the current congress specifically the House. IMO as long as the Tea Party has the influence they now possess in the House nothing will ever get done. I also believe that The Tea Party is so out of touch with the majority of Americans and that this influence will erode support from the GOP especially among the fiscal conservative, socially liberal republicans.

If the GOP puts forth a socially conservative Tea Party type for the President, no way in hell that person wins. If the GOP wants the White House they need to get someone like Susana Martinez or even Chris Christie nominated...the question of course is with the Tea Party faction can that be accomplished?

But that is nothing but finger pointing. Those folks were elected in response to Obama and his policies. Those are the people Obama has to work with, and he won't. It is, after all, HIS job to work with Congress because he is the President.

Obama seems to agree with you though in that he sees it entirely as a political game with election consequences, not a care in the world about actually governing or getting anything done.

In the end, it sort of goes along with what Panetta himself said about governing by crisis, just moving from one to the next. Obama, his supporters, a large portion of the people who dislike him, etc just seem to want to move from election to election.

Besides, Panetta said it himself, they've given up and don't want to engage. I guess that is the Tea Party's fault too?

(10-07-2014 03:48 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(10-07-2014 03:18 PM)gdunn Wrote:  No sh*t..

Honestly.. I don't think he wanted the 2nd term. The first debate with Romney showed he wasn't prepared..

And the second and third debates where he cleaned Romney's clock was what exactly?

Not sure pudgy, what do you think it was?

(10-08-2014 10:38 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(10-08-2014 10:16 AM)BobL Wrote:  Nothing meaningful is going to get done with the current congress specifically the House. IMO as long as the Tea Party has the influence they now possess in the House nothing will ever get done. I also believe that The Tea Party is so out of touch with the majority of Americans and that this influence will erode support from the GOP especially among the fiscal conservative, socially liberal republicans.

If the GOP puts forth a socially conservative Tea Party type for the President, no way in hell that person wins. If the GOP wants the White House they need to get someone like Susana Martinez or even Chris Christie nominated...the question of course is with the Tea Party faction can that be accomplished?

But that is nothing but finger pointing. Those folks were elected in response to Obama and his policies. Those are the people Obama has to work with, and he won't. It is, after all, HIS job to work with Congress because he is the President.

Obama seems to agree with you though in that he sees it entirely as a political game with election consequences, not a care in the world about actually governing or getting anything done.

In the end, it sort of goes along with what Panetta himself said about governing by crisis, just moving from one to the next. Obama, his supporters, a large portion of the people who dislike him, etc just seem to want to move from election to election.

As far as compromising, I believe the Bush Tax Cuts are still in place, Eliminating the public option to ACA was a compromise, hell the entire ACA was a compromise from the single payer he preferred...just off the top of my head..here is something I found online:
Instead, he insisted he was genuinely seeking a budget deal. He told them he was prepared to stand up to his own party and make concessions on welfare benefits, which Republicans want cut, but needed them to stand up to their party grassroots by agreeing to tax increases. Only a combination of the two could resolve the budget crisis.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/ma...n-senators

Finger pointing? here is Boehner's view of the tea party faction:

"Frankly I think they're misleading their followers. I think they're pushing our members in places they don't want to be," he added. "And frankly I just think they've lost all credibility."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/12/12...33631.html

“When groups come out and criticize an agreement that they’ve never seen, you begin to wonder just how credible those actions are,” he said. “Yesterday when the criticism was coming, frankly I thought it was my job and my obligation to stand up for conservatives here in the Congress who want more deficit reduction.”

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2013/12/12...ty-groups/

(10-08-2014 10:44 AM)bevotex Wrote:  

(10-07-2014 03:48 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(10-07-2014 03:18 PM)gdunn Wrote:  No sh*t..

Honestly.. I don't think he wanted the 2nd term. The first debate with Romney showed he wasn't prepared..

And the second and third debates where he cleaned Romney's clock was what exactly?

Not sure pudgy, what do you think it was?

Please save your childishness for the WWE room. Thanks.

Bob, many of the Bush tax cuts (the credits, exemptions and stuff) need to be renewed again this year. And with this always on vacation congress who keeps saying they plan on doing nothing the rest of the year, who knows if and/or when they will get passed.

Some have to run for reelection.
They have got little done anyway. May be better if they take
off a long time.

Funny...I guess...but congress is different than the president. He's always on the job. They can't do their job really at all when not in Washington.

(10-07-2014 10:15 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(10-07-2014 03:48 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  And the second and third debates where he cleaned Romney's clock was what exactly?

Superior intellect for one. He left Romney with mouth dribbling.

Say what you will, but Romney was the CEO of a company that did not fail horribly. There is zero possibility of Obama doing the same. You can claim your superficial but vacuous "superior intellect", but it is clear it comes with poor decision making skills and is worth nothing without a cadre of political advisers, without whom, Obama will go down for accomplishing not a thing.

(10-08-2014 11:05 AM)BobL Wrote:  As far as compromising, I believe the Bush Tax Cuts are still in place,

No they aren't. The Bush Tax Cuts expired. The Obama Tax Cuts took their place. Which was a bipartisan compromise.

Quote:Eliminating the public option to ACA was a compromise, hell the entire ACA was a compromise from the single payer he preferred...just off the top of my head..

Both were compromises with his fellow Democrats. And the bill was so bad that they still had to bribe Democrats for their support.

Quote:here is something I found online:
Instead, he insisted he was genuinely seeking a budget deal. He told them he was prepared to stand up to his own party and make concessions on welfare benefits, which Republicans want cut, but needed them to stand up to their party grassroots by agreeing to tax increases. Only a combination of the two could resolve the budget crisis.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/ma...n-senators

Well as long as he insists he was genuine, it must be true.

oH yEAH, he is always on the job.

(10-08-2014 11:39 AM)jh Wrote:  

(10-08-2014 11:05 AM)BobL Wrote:  As far as compromising, I believe the Bush Tax Cuts are still in place,

No they aren't. The Bush Tax Cuts expired. The Obama Tax Cuts took their place. Which was a bipartisan compromise.

That's impossible! Obama never cut any taxes...he only raises them. See the TEA Party.

Obama unleashed the IRS on the Tea Party, but he won't unleash the military against ISIS.

Makes complete sense.

(10-08-2014 12:50 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  Obama unleashed the IRS on the Tea Party, but he won't unleash the military against ISIS.

Makes complete sense.

I suppose you have proof of this? Yeah...didn't think so. Might want to post your conspiracy theories over on the WWE site. Thanks.

And what do you call hundreds of bombing runs if not the military?

(10-08-2014 12:50 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  Obama unleashed the IRS on the Tea Party, but he won't unleash the military against ISIS.

Makes complete sense.

http://www.cnn.com/2013/06/24/politics/irs-targeting/

This is pretty funny.

We have life-long democrat public servants that have served at THE highest levels of our Government, in positions like Chief of Staff, Sec of State, Sec of Defense (2) ALL bemoaning the failures of this empty suit, yet here they are.

The ardent yellow dog dims, ready to go down with the sinking ship. I'll applaud your loyalty, that's for sure. Like the dopey, loyal little puppy that keeps coming back for more even after being swatted on the nose over and over and over again.

I mean, heck, when you've lost the WashcomPost you KNOW it's gotten bad!

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/righ...president/