For the 1st time in his presidential career, obama has acted in a partisan manner and refuses to work and compromise with congress. Or was it the second time........?
Replies (61)
"Given the long history of using debt limit increases to achieve bipartisan deficit reduction and economic reforms, the speaker was disappointed but told the president that the two chambers of Congress will chart the path ahead."
What long history? The debt limit has been raised hundreds of times with no need nor demand for negotiations from either party. The spending that necessitates the raise in the debt limit has already been approved by Congress itself. What is there to "negotiate?"
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Fri, Sep 20, 2013, at 10:38 PM
The repulican controlled House has sent their bill to the Senate for consideration. The Senate has the opportunity to debate it, revise it, and send it back for a conference committee.
Instead, Harry Reid declares it 'dead on arrival' and refuses to put it on the floor for debate. And President Obama declares that he will veto it if it comes to his desk.
Seems to me the democrats in the Senate and the President want a rubber stamp on their proposal rather than a compromise. Plenty of blame on both sides but refusing to even debate a bill that the House has presented? Even if you disagree with what the House came up with; at least they did their part. It is difficult to compromise with a party that will not even discuss.
-- Posted by Robert* on Fri, Sep 20, 2013, at 11:27 PM
The president of "no".
I'm trying to remember who was posting that the republicans were wrong in refusing to compromise for the good of the country simply because they wanted Obama to fail.
Once again it's his way or no way.
That said, we know this is a dog and pony show and it's hard to tell which one is which. Neither party is committed to reducing spending overall. The disagreement is what voters and special interests to please with continued spending increases.
-- Posted by Old John on Fri, Sep 20, 2013, at 11:27 PM
Groucho, I think the fox is running the hen house in the case of the senate.
-- Posted by Old John on Sat, Sep 21, 2013, at 12:45 AM
Seems to be an abundance of misinformation floating around. Try some facts that the American people are aware of even if the SO gang is not ...
Fact - Congress approved the budget knowing that the dollar amount would require a raise of the debt ceiling.
Fact - In past administrations the budget ceiling has been routinely raised without partisan squabbling over previously approved laws.
Fact - If the House was concerned about exceeding the debt ceiling, they could have passed a smaller budget.
Fact -- The administration is fully justified in holding Congress to the budget that the Congress approved.
Fact -- Defaulting on debt will have consequences that will affect the people, the nation and the world economy, and Congress is the only body that can unilaterally prevent this calamity.
Fact - The republicans in the House of Representatives will be blamed.
- - - - - - -
As for the childish attempt to "defund" the ACA, it is about round 45 in something that is not going to happen. The House members that are "expecting different results" from the same futile action are comparable to a spoiled little brat, throwing a fist-pounding, leg- kicking tantrum on the floor, tearfully screaming, "I won't fund Obamacare! I won't fund Obamacare! I won't fund Obamacare! I won't fund Obamacare!"
Senator Reid is doing the same thing that any sane, responsible adult would do in that situation. Throw some cold water on the brat, say no, and leave the room.
It is also a fact that the republican mantra of public support against the evils of the ACA, are highly exaggerated. It is still the case that when people are polled on individual aspects of the act, they overwhelmingly support them. The outrageous conservative lie about the malevolence of "Obamacare" has been repeated so often, even the republicans are starting to believe it. The majority of Americans know better, in spite of some polling results.
Another well known truth is that republicans are terrified of the ACA, not because they are afraid it will fail, but specifically because they are fearful it will succeed.
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Sat, Sep 21, 2013, at 7:24 AM
Fact - Congress approved the budget knowing that the dollar amount would require a raise of the debt ceiling.
The last time I checked we have operated under continuing resolutions the past four years because Congress and this administration have never done the work to establish a working budget according to the Constitution. We now need another continuing resolution by the first of October in order for this country to continue to do business. Perhaps you should study the budget process?
-- Posted by Robert* on Sat, Sep 21, 2013, at 7:57 AM
Common's facts as usual contain mostly spin.
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Sat, Sep 21, 2013, at 8:20 AM
"Perhaps you should study the budget process?"
In the absense of a budget agreement, continuing resolutions are passed, and therefore become the de facto budget. The same fact applies, Congress is totally aware that a deficit ceiling was going to be required based on their continuing resolution.
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Sat, Sep 21, 2013, at 8:24 AM
Common,
They are in the process of formulating a continuing resolution. The House of Representatives came up with a bill doing so and sent it to the Senate. Normally, the Senate debates the House bill, makes changes to it, and then sends it back to the House for reconsideration. They continue to do so until they come up with a bill both parties can sign on to. That bill then is sent to the President for his signature. When one house of Congress decides not to even debate a bill it stops up the whole process. Harry Reid and the Senate can make any changes they want to and send it back to the House. Is Harry afraid that his Senate would pass a bill that he does not like?
Do you really not understand how the budget process is supposed to work?
-- Posted by Robert* on Sat, Sep 21, 2013, at 8:34 AM
obama wants the government shut down in order to blame the opposition and score political points for himself and his party.
-- Posted by FreedomFadingFast on Sat, Sep 21, 2013, at 9:27 AM
"Harry Reid and the Senate can make any changes they want to and send it back to the House."
That's exactly what is going on.
Do you really not understand how the budget process is supposed to work?
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Sat, Sep 21, 2013, at 9:35 AM
President Obama "...wants the government shut down in order to blame the opposition..."
That's totally wrong. Supposedly no one wants the government shut down, but Congress is the only body that can prevent it unilaterally, so they will be at fault if it happens.
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Sat, Sep 21, 2013, at 9:39 AM
Supposedly is the key word.
-- Posted by FreedomFadingFast on Sat, Sep 21, 2013, at 9:51 AM
"the criminal in the White House"
You are afforded more freedom to express your opinion about politicians. With that said you, can still be convicted of slander if you falsely accuse even politicians of a crime.
-- Posted by CSIP2016 on Sat, Sep 21, 2013, at 2:05 PM
but Congress is the only body that can prevent it unilaterally, so they will be at fault if it happens.
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Sat, Sep 21, 2013, at 9:39 AM
Wrong. This is a three-legged stool made up of the two branches of Congress and the executive branch represented by the President. Nothing can be done unilaterally. And a possible shutdown would be the result of three bodies not being willing to get together and work the problem out. Those who point the finger of blame at one party in this or the other are part of the problem. Many people are attempting to make partisan political points out of this situation.
-- Posted by Robert* on Sat, Sep 21, 2013, at 3:05 PM
Robert
That's the way our political system works. Partisan politics over doing what's right.
-- Posted by FreedomFadingFast on Sat, Sep 21, 2013, at 3:15 PM
It is time to change the way this political system works or freedom will fade completely away.
-- Posted by Robert* on Sat, Sep 21, 2013, at 3:17 PM
"Nothing can be done unilaterally."
Do you really not understand how the budget process is supposed to work?
Per the Constitution of the United States...
"All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives..."
The President cannot initiate an acceptable financial bill.
The Senate cannot initiale a financial bill acceptable to both houses.
In the case of a stalemate preventing a compromise, only the House of Representatives can initiate a measure that is acceptable to all sides. That's what only the House can do, i.e. come up with a bill that will be acceptable to all and prevent a government shutdown.
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Sat, Sep 21, 2013, at 4:09 PM
Common,
A slight correction. The way it works is this; the bill originates in the House. You have that part correct. Now the bill has been passed on to the Senate.
It now lies on Harry Reid's desk. It is his job to take it before the Senate, debate it, and make whatever changes are necessary to get Senate approval. (very few bills go through the process without being altered)
That version then goes back to the House. The House and the Senate then appoint committees to negotiate their differences and come up with a version that is acceptable to both houses. It is then taken before the full House, the full Senate, and approved. That bill is then presented to the President for his signature.
I know Obama is trying to place the full onus on the House and you feel that you have to back up your guy but that does not change the proper process. By not doing their due diligence and fulfilling their duties (completing the budget process), our representatives in Washington have set up another artificial crisis and both political parties are doing their best to profit from it.
-- Posted by Robert* on Sat, Sep 21, 2013, at 4:33 PM
Robert,
Common is not that dumb, but he should be embarrassed by making himself look like it.
It does show to what lengths he will go to fabricate a story to try and make the opposing party look bad.
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Sat, Sep 21, 2013, at 6:26 PM
Wheels,
It is becoming obvious to me that some on these threads are totally ignorant of how our government is designed to work.....or they are willing to feign that ignorance. I am not the most informed in that regard but I do try to understand how things work.
-- Posted by Robert* on Sat, Sep 21, 2013, at 7:16 PM
"A slight correction."
No correction necessary. Needless to say, I was not talking about the normal legislative procedures. The situation today is that the House has proposed a bill that they know is totally unacceptable, as with the ridiculous "defund" ACA provision. The House knows even now that the Senate will not accept it and that they will turn it down, and return the bill (less the ACA provision) to the House, resulting in a deadlock. Unless one side caves, there will be a default of the nation's credit, which both sides say they do not want.
My point has always been that the House of Representatives is the only body that can bring up a clean debt ceiling increase bill, without irrelevant agenda issues, for the Senate to take action on. If they decide not to do that, the blame will rest squarely on the shoulders of Speaker Boehner.
I maintain that the American people are fully aware of this fact. There is no reason why the President nor the Senate should be coerced into accepting an ultimatum that will bring extensive harm to the country.
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Sat, Sep 21, 2013, at 8:15 PM
Common,
I know that you are all attempting to slant the discussion so as to place all blame on the House of Representatives. That is the normal technique for the democrats under Obama.........if you can't blame Bush, point your finger at Boehner. But I am not buying it and neither is anyone who is truly paying attention to what is going on. Obama wants bipartisanship........as long as the House acts as a rubber stamp for him.
As I have mentioned before, even if the House did so it would just mean we would go through the same theatrics in 90 days when another continuing resolution is necessary. I for one am tired of watching that game.
-- Posted by Robert* on Sat, Sep 21, 2013, at 8:29 PM
Robert,
Obama is acting like that black guy that was being interviewed after the hurricane in New Orleans where the money was being delayed for some reason and he wasn't getting his handouts. Before they could cut him off you could hear.... "Just give me my f***ing money"
No negotiating what we as a nation need... do it his way or he will do as he did when they gave him what he wanted but then didn't want last go around. Shut off White House tours for the school chidren but the partying with celebrities goes on at great expense.
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Sat, Sep 21, 2013, at 9:22 PM
"...slant the discussion so as to place all blame on the House of Representatives."
How is it "slanting the discussion" when the House is the body Constitutionally responsible for initiating financial bills. Therefore it is clearly their job to put forward a bill that will pass. They know full well that what they have done to date does not fulfill that criteria. Sending bills to the Senate that will not pass is their way to shut down the government and they will take the blame.
There are numerous republicans that clearly recognize the risk that the Speaker is taking by refusing to send a clean bill to the Senate. Any hopes his party has of not losing House seats and gaining Senate seats will be dashed by any government shutdown.
Remember what I always said about conservatives and their problem with the understanding of logic.
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Sat, Sep 21, 2013, at 9:49 PM
Isn't it nice of Common to worry that republican tactics might cause them to lose some elections in the future? I did not know he was so concerned about the future of the republican party! And all this time I thought he was just defending Obama.
-- Posted by Robert* on Sat, Sep 21, 2013, at 10:38 PM
"Therefore it is clearly their job to put forward a bill that will pass."
Therefore there is no need for the House of Representatives.
If they are so limited in their bill writing capacity that they must send a bill over to the Senate what the President and/or the Senate wants, why do we need them.
Where in the Constitution does it say "Therefore it is clearly their job to put forward a bill that will pass.".
Common, it is clear, you do not know what you are talking about. If Harry Reed does not have the gnads to present that bill to his members for suggestion and proposed changes, it is Harry Reed that is at fault. It is not the House's job to cater to Prince Harry.
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Sat, Sep 21, 2013, at 10:43 PM
Consider this:
Ronald Reagan was able to work with a democrat controlled Congress to do the nation's business.
William Jefferson Clinton was able to work with a republican controlled Congress to do the nation's business.
George H. W. Bush was able to work with a democrat controlled Congress to do the nation's business.
George W. Bush was able to work with a democrat controlled Congress to do the nation's business.
Barrack Obama came in with a democrat controlled Congress and decided to cram through as much partisan legislation as he could even though the people protested. The electorate rose up and elected enough republicans to control the House and to nearly control the Senate. Now Barack Obama and his supporters can't seem to understand why republicans refuse to cave in and rubber stamp his proposals. His actions and attitude in cramming through partisan legislation alienated enough voters and key republican leaders that it is impossible for him to work with the republican controlled Congress to do the nation's business. My momma once told me, 'when you make your bed, you have to sleep in it'. He created the problems he faces today. And the nation suffers for it.
-- Posted by Robert* on Sat, Sep 21, 2013, at 11:34 PM
Reagan communicated his agenda well to the people.
Clinton saw he couldn't get his agenda and took credit for the opposition's ideas.
GHWB's Kinder gentler nation was defeated by ruder rougher political tactics.
GWB, a uniter not a divider blurred the line between compromise and surrender.
BHO is doing as he promised, fundamentally change America as we know it.
-- Posted by Old John on Sun, Sep 22, 2013, at 1:27 AM
oh look, posters are holding hands and singing Kumbayah.
-- Posted by notrump on Sun, Sep 22, 2013, at 6:46 AM
Consider this:
The fatal flaw that you failed to address in your comparison is that in none of the previous administrations did the opposition leadership publicly and explicitly state their primary goal was to make the newly elected President a "one-term president" and whatever he was for, they would be against. Tip O'Neill met with President Reagan for drinks, he did not plot his failure in the capital cloakrooms. Furthermore, he did not have to be concerned over being attacked by someone from a more extreme wing of his party in his home district, for being too chummy and cooperating with the President.
Note that the republicans did not even acknowledge their Constitutional responsibility to accomplish the nation's business and work for the good of the American people, but went right to establishing the failure of the President as their primary, most important task. And remembering that President Obama was elected on a platform of cooperation in Washington, the republicans embraced "non-cooperation" as their premise and immediately devolved into the well recognized "party of no."
In your comparison above you also may well have just said, "All those white presidents could work with Congress, so why can't a black president do as well?" If you really suppose that race has not been part of the issue, you may need to go over and join the gullible group that believes in the "great pumpkin," the tooth fairy and the Easter bunny.
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Sun, Sep 22, 2013, at 7:04 AM
The fatal flaw that you failed to address in your comparison is that in none of the previous administrations did the opposition leadership publicly and explicitly state their primary goal was to make the newly elected President a "one-term president" and whatever he was for, they would be against.
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Sun, Sep 22, 2013, at 7:04 AM
Common,
Not one of those "White" (since you brought race into the discussion) Presidents so far mentioned told their opposition to go to the back of the bus.
And your from the beginnng rhetoric has already been proven a lie on here so we don't need to discuss that.
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Sun, Sep 22, 2013, at 8:01 AM
Mic,
I need a copy of that dictionary you and common use. It is difficult to communicate with someone who is speaking an entirely different language. Or is there an interpreter available?
Is this the 'compromise' you refer to? And I hope you still accept CBS as a reliable source.
-- Posted by Robert* on Sun, Sep 22, 2013, at 8:05 AM
"1. Obamacare: HUGE compromise. No nationalized health care, no public option, biggest effect is an individual mandate which was first suggested by the conservative Heritage Foundation."
Surely you jest.... there was no compromise with those across the isle, they had no input. The compromise if there was any was to get enough Democratic votes to stuff that atrocity down the throats of Americans opposed to it.
Obama does not compromise.... he has to be forced after there is no other way. He is a narcissist and it is all about him.
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Sun, Sep 22, 2013, at 8:08 AM
In your comparison above you also may well have just said, "All those white presidents could work with Congress, so why can't a black president do as well?" If you really suppose that race has not been part of the issue, you may need to go over and join the gullible group that believes in the "great pumpkin," the tooth fairy and the Easter bunny.
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Sun, Sep 22, 2013, at 7:04 AM
It is good to know where I stand with you, Common. Obviously I do not have the intellect to debate a subject with you. And apparently at least to one of us race is the basis for every argument. That does not leave us much of a foundation for a civil conversation.
-- Posted by Robert* on Sun, Sep 22, 2013, at 8:10 AM
Robert
If you try to debate Common you are going to have to get used to his reworded fabrications of the same talking points long after they are proved to be just that... fabrications, by someone on Speak Out.
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Sun, Sep 22, 2013, at 8:18 AM
Would you have rather he said special interest and republicans can sit shotgun and middle classes families gotta sit in the back?
-- Posted by miccheck on Sun, Sep 22, 2013, at 8:07 AM
I would prefer that he would attempt to be the President of all of us. And I would rather he would at least attempt to establish a working relationship with our representatives in Congress. He has a condescending attitude to anyone who disagrees with him. It shows in his 'they gotta sit in the back' remarks. And it shows among his supporters when they label anyone who disagrees with him as 'racist'.
He called on Democrats to "go back to the beginning" and "remove all the special deals for the special interests and the favored few,
For your information, this is the foundation for my basic argument. Obama did not compromise in order to get ObamaCare passed. He refused to allow republicans any input; instead preferring to offer special deals with democrat representatives to buy their votes. He made the most of his veto proof majority for two years but that tactic alienated many voters and moderate republicans whom he now needs. As I stated before; he created the problem he now faces.
-- Posted by Robert* on Sun, Sep 22, 2013, at 8:22 AM
You can't have it both ways, buddy!
-- Posted by miccheck on Sun, Sep 22, 2013, at 8:17 AM
Let's get this to a level of understanding.... I am not your "Buddy". So don't try that high and mighty talk down to me BS.
And compromise and being forced are two different things in my book. In a compromise both parties to the debate win something. When you are forced to do something, you win nothing, you take what you get.
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Sun, Sep 22, 2013, at 8:23 AM
Let's get this to a level of understanding.... I am not your "Buddy". So don't try that high and mighty talk down to me BS.
miccheck, No use trying to reason with someone who is ailed with tiny p%@#$ syndrome.
-- Posted by good.for.the.gander.good.for.the.goose on Sun, Sep 22, 2013, at 8:43 AM
posted three examples of MAJOR compromises Obama made in his first term. You responded to one with "The compromise if there was any was to get enough Democratic votes..." admitting that Obama did in fact compromise.
A compromise doesn't have to happen the way YOU think it should to be a compromise.
-- Posted by miccheck on Sun, Sep 22, 2013, at 8:33 AM
I answered #1 because that is permanently etched into my memory. Obama did not compromise with the Republicans on Obamacare. Obama, Reed and Pelosi refused input from the other side of the isle. You may call it compromise if you like, on what he did to bring reluctant Democrats on board, Personally I think it bordered on bribery if it did not cross the line to bring those votes he needed on board. He knew there was no way, after refusing any input from Republicans that there would be any Republican votes and that he needed every Democrats vote or it did not pass.
And the voters retaliated by kicking a good number of them out of office at their first opportunity.
#2 and #3, I do not have all of the information at hand and it being Sunday morning I am unwilling to look it up.
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Sun, Sep 22, 2013, at 8:51 AM
"In short, if you want to disagree with the President, do so without making up crazy accusations and you won't be branded as racist."
When the "racist" comments start being thrown around, I look upon it as someone is losing the argument.
What you may call crazy accusations, may not be so crazy as you think. And to call someone a "racist" because they disagree is dumb. You have no idea of the other person and their relationship with people of other races or beliefs. For that matter, you do not even know that they are not black in the case of their disapproval of Obama. There are many blacks out there who are adamantly opposed to him and his policies.
Find another name for those who disagree with you and Common.
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Sun, Sep 22, 2013, at 8:58 AM
miccheck, No use trying to reason with someone who is ailed with tiny p%@#$ syndrome.
-- Posted by bewary on Sun, Sep 22, 2013, at 8:43 AM
Good morning Sock Puppet. I bet I know who's hand you are on this morning.
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Sun, Sep 22, 2013, at 9:00 AM
I have no problem with people disagreeing with the President's policies or decisions. However, when people say crap like "Obama won't compromise," they are so far from reality that I have to chalk their delusion up to racism.
In short, if you want to disagree with the President, do so without making up crazy accusations and you won't be branded as racist.
-- Posted by miccheck on Sun, Sep 22, 2013, at 8:39 AM
Oooops........I should have said 'Obama won't compromise with republicans'. Sorry about that but I thought that was obvious. Perhaps he did compromise with Harry Reid or Nancy Pelosi; no republicans were permitted in those smoke filled back rooms to witness those compromises.
Labor unions and insurance companies had to be offered special deals for their support. If you choose to call that 'compromise'.....I do not. And the purchase of votes from Louisiana and Nebraska senators..........I would call that bribery not compromise.
But at least I understand what you were saying and apologize for being so unlearned about liberal terminology.
-- Posted by Robert* on Sun, Sep 22, 2013, at 9:16 AM
"At least I'm glad you admitted Obama is willing to compromise."
So now Robert agrees that Obama will compromise with his own party.... so therefore he is a 100% bonafide compromiser and willing to negotiate with anybody. A standup guy, a world leader, can negotiate with the best of them hero type and is willing to concede points to get what other points agreed to.... is that what you are saying Me'Lange?
Sounds to me like you work in a boiler room where if you can get the sucker on the other end of the line to just say "yes" once he is hooked in on something like changing your phone service to a different carrier. That is what is called slamming.
Robert, I believe she thinks she has you slammed!
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Sun, Sep 22, 2013, at 9:41 AM
At least I'm glad you admitted Obama is willing to compromise. With that established, let's just take the whole "Obama is bad because he won't compromise" argument off the table, since we both know it's not true.
-- Posted by miccheck on Sun, Sep 22, 2013, at 9:26 AM
Maybe you should have read the rest of the post. And it was definitely written with tongue firmly in cheek. Apparently you have a mind like a steel bear trap. If you and common would get together and write that dictionary it would be simpler to understand what you mean and would reduce the miscommunication. I don't understand the progressive obamaspeak you guys use. My bad!
-- Posted by Robert* on Sun, Sep 22, 2013, at 10:27 AM
The House funded 99% of what Obama wanted, the only thing they didn't fund was Obamacare other then that Obama got everything he wanted. Also, the Republican House Leadership said they did not fund Obamacare simply because it was not ready to fully implement by January 1 2014 and they wanted to extend it for one year so the thing can be fixed many elements of this poorly written law stacked with over 20 thousand plus pages of regulations. The Republicans know it is the law they just want to get with the other side and fix this disaster before it sends our health care system in to complete chaos. You got to remember Obama didn't read it and the Democratic controlled Congress at the time didn't read it they just passed it and Obama signed it.
-- Posted by swampeastmissouri on Sun, Sep 22, 2013, at 10:32 AM
Yes "Swamp", it belongs strictly to them, and they are making concessions to trying to appease this supporter and that supporter. It is quickly getting to the point where it is only directed towards those who opposed it.
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Sun, Sep 22, 2013, at 10:36 AM
Yes it does Wheels, that is why the Republicans need to sit back and let the law go in to effect and the people will find out about this thing come about February and March of 2014 when it starts to get in to their pockets big time including the poor and who does the blame lie on at that time the Democrats.
-- Posted by swampeastmissouri on Sun, Sep 22, 2013, at 11:05 AM
Swamp,
At this point, Obama(doesn't)Care is a lose/lose proposition for the country. If we stand back and allow it to go into effect many people will begin to understand how big a disaster it is within the next year, but once it goes into effect it is almost impossible to rollback. (That is what the Democrats are counting on)
And if the republicans continue to oppose it to the point of not having a continuing resolution, they take the chance that democrats will be successful in branding them as obstructionists and regaining control of the House in 2014. It is a fine line we are walking. This is the reason the original founders of this nation warned us that this form of government would work only with an informed populace.
-- Posted by Robert* on Sun, Sep 22, 2013, at 11:30 AM
If someone hates Obama so much that they are willing promote lies, they are either insane or racist. -- Posted by miccheck on Sun, Sep 22, 2013, at 9:23 AM
If someone loves Obama so much that they are willing to promote his lies they are either insane or can't think for themselves.
===================
Opposing Obamacare because it's a "government take-over of healthcare" : crazy. -- Posted by miccheck on Sun, Sep 22, 2013, at 9:23 AM
All of a sudden - for no apparent reason - unions are decrying the coming removal of their good health care plans.
All of a sudden - for not apparent reason - companies are dumping their employees/spouses/families off their traditional decades old health insurance programs.
All of a sudden - for no apparent reason - companies are cutting their employees hours to part time to avoid providing health care for their insurance. Including many many hospitals.
So miccheck - please tell us why all of this his happening? Why would companies and unions and democrats decry Obamacare? Surely Obamacare has nothing to do with the gov't right?
The very definition of insanity.
-- Posted by not_sorry on Sun, Sep 22, 2013, at 1:05 PM
Now you're saying Obamacare isn't law? What is it miccheck? Think a little snippy comment will get you buy? It's tougher out here on SO than that.
Is Obamacare law?
Who passed it and is enforcing it? Vladimir Putin? He seems to be running things these days.
-- Posted by not_sorry on Sun, Sep 22, 2013, at 1:31 PM
I can not believe you are being serious. You AGREED that Obama compromised. However, you somehow claim that Obama is not willing to compromise.
It seems like you're the one with the new dictionary if someone can compromise but still not be willing to compromise.
-- Posted by miccheck on Sun, Sep 22, 2013, at 1:21 PM
Surely you jest? Do you not understand sarcasm?
-- Posted by Robert* on Sun, Sep 22, 2013, at 2:48 PM
I can not believe you are being serious. You AGREED that Obama compromised. However, you somehow claim that Obama is not willing to compromise.
It seems like you're the one with the new dictionary if someone can compromise but still not be willing to compromise.
-- Posted by miccheck on Sun, Sep 22, 2013, at 1:21 PM
Robert,
I told you, you were being "slammed"!
The above statement proves it. You agreed Obana compromised with the Democrats. She says you agreed period he compromises with everyone!
She tried putting me into that same position, when it was obvious we did not agree on the entire context of the issue. I have dealt with that kind before. Got to have it their way.... there is no other way!!
Never, never ever give a yes to a phone solicitor even if they say the sky is blue.
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Sun, Sep 22, 2013, at 3:06 PM
-- Posted by miccheck on Sun, Sep 22, 2013, at 4:53 PM
You either are too dense to understand what I was saying, or you don't want to understand.
Robert agreed Obam compromised with the Democrats. You say take it off the table, we agree Obama compromises as if he does so with all parties and he does not.
Example: "I can not believe you are being serious. You AGREED that Obama compromised." An all encompassing statement.
Why would anyone want to issue a statement of agreement on one area of an issue if you have to so carefully qualify what you agree with and then try to defend it after the fact, because the party of the first part twists your words.
On what you are.... I heard you the first time.
I know full well how slamming works. They get you on the phone, they get you to say yes to something unrelated and you find you have a new phone company. I have read the warnings about phone solicitors.
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Sun, Sep 22, 2013, at 5:42 PM
And you may refer to my statement that says that being forced to do something is not the same thing as compromising.
And in less than 3 years it will be a mute issue as he will be a lame duck.... if he isn't already one. And just a little more than three years we will be rid of him, except being forced to feed and fan him for the rest of his life.
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Sun, Sep 22, 2013, at 6:57 PM
Mic seems to take a lot of pleasure out of calling me a liar. I can deal with her little word games. But that still does not change the fact that by refusing to negotiate with Congress Obama is in fact refusing to compromise.
-- Posted by Robert* on Sun, Sep 22, 2013, at 7:07 PM
"Republican can ride but in the back". That was enough for me.
-- Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Sun, Sep 22, 2013, at 8:18 PM
Groucho,
Things are quite tame on here in the overall. I was on a chat room several years ago where I disagreed with some jerk from England and I thought he was going to make a special trip over to kick my behind. He totally freaked out.
But you are correct, there are a couple of threads on here that have accomplished little. I also have a problem with saying what I think, when it could probably be better off left unsaid. Just have a problem with letting my silence stand for agreement I guess. ;-)
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Sun, Sep 22, 2013, at 10:46 PM
Groucho,
We have one party on here that gets up early, goes to bed early, and is never wrong about anything. We had a poster exactly like that awhile back that disappeared without a trace overnight.
Now I am not one that would normally believe in reincarnation, but the past few days have kind of kindled a belief in it after all.
As Popeye always said I yam what I yam, or something like that.
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Sun, Sep 22, 2013, at 11:48 PM
Yep, I think we are on the same page.
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Mon, Sep 23, 2013, at 4:58 PM
"Republican can ride but in the back". That was enough for me.
-- Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Sun, Sep 22, 2013, at 8:18 PM
Actually you need to understand the history of that sentiment. Bill Clinton while remembering all those church burnings in Arkansas confessed that when the civil rights act passed he was glad because he always wanted to sit in the back of the bus. It gave him a better view of the women's movement. This was when it was revealed that his wife was named after Sir Hillary that had been born after her.
Republicans should be proud to sit in the back of the bus. :)
-- Posted by Old John on Tue, Sep 24, 2013, at 12:20 AM
Menu
http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/obama-boehner-debt-obamacare/2013/09/20/id/5269...
For the 1st time in his presidential career, obama has acted in a partisan manner and refuses to work and compromise with congress. Or was it the second time........?
Replies (61)