Obama and the Republican Party

[YmirGF]

No one, it's the only thing he knows how to do.

Respectfully, I disagree, esmith. In order to say that one truly knows how to do something there should be quantifiable, predicable results. About the only thing the Narcissist-in-Chief knows how to do is how to market himself. Every time he has taken his message to the public since he has been elected he has utterly failed to sway enough people to enact what he thinks is the right thing to do. Any bozo can sing to the choir. It's a real art to make non-believers swoon, and that is an art-form the feckless one seems to be an outright failure at.

 

[esmith]

I don't much like him either. Though for drastically different reasons. Though you must hate every president since Lincolin.

No, at least in my lifetime FDR, Truman, Eisenhower,JFK(in certain aspects, others no), and H.W. Bush were pretty good Presidents.

 

[tytlyf]

I'm just confused then why you say its campaigning.

When the right refers to 'campaigning,' it's a tag line. Fox and Rush use this to portray Obama as always on the road campaigning when in reality it's what presidents do. The 'campaigning' is just a tricky word to smear the president.

 

[YmirGF]

When the right refers to 'campaigning,' it's a tag line. Fox and Rush use this to portray Obama as always on the road campaigning when in reality it's what presidents do. The 'campaigning' is just a tricky word to smear the president.

But even you must agree that he has never been particularly effective at selling anything other than himself. To boot, he is also the most partisan president in modern history.

 

[tytlyf]

But even you must agree that he has never been particularly effective at selling anything other than himself. To boot, he is also the most partisan president in modern history.

I disagree. That's just more of the smearing they do in the media. The outlets you get your information from intentionally withhold anything positive when it comes to the D side. So most people are in the dark to information and facts because they never see it.

 

[esmith]

I disagree. That's just more of the smearing they do in the media. The outlets you get your information from intentionally withhold anything positive when it comes to the D side. So most people are in the dark to information and facts because they never see it.

I had almost decided that I would not respond to your obvious misinformation about certain news sources again, but I couldn't let this last misinformation from you go unchallenged. So, are the following articles negative or positive in respect to the administration and to Republicans. Or is it just reporting the facts without any bias?
Capitol Hill report warns shutdown could pose risks to national security | Fox News

How about this one?
Romney warns Republicans against forcing government shutdown over ObamaCare | Fox News

Of course I do not expect you to respond since it shows that your blatant misinformation is somewhat skewed to your own opinionated ideas.

 

[tytlyf]

I had almost decided that I would not respond to your obvious misinformation about certain news sources again, but I couldn't let this last misinformation from you go unchallenged. So, are the following articles negative or positive in respect to the administration and to Republicans. Or is it just reporting the facts without any bias?
Capitol Hill report warns shutdown could pose risks to national security | Fox News

How about this one?
Romney warns Republicans against forcing government shutdown over ObamaCare | Fox News

Of course I do not expect you to respond since it shows that your blatant misinformation is somewhat skewed to your own opinionated ideas.

I'm not sure what you're trying to show with your 2 links? The fact that fox attacks republicans or something? Cause if that's what you're trying to say, that would make sense. GOP vs. TP

 

[esmith]

I disagree. That's just more of the smearing they do in the media. The outlets you get your information from intentionally withhold anything positive when it comes to the D side. So most people are in the dark to information and facts because they never see it.

I'm not sure what you're trying to show with your 2 links? The fact that fox attacks republicans or something? Cause if that's what you're trying to say, that would make sense. GOP vs. TP

Off on a different tangent I see. What I was showing was your blatant attempt in your post that

" outlets you get your information from intentionally withhold anything positive when it comes to the D side. So most people are in the dark to information and facts because they never see it.

is misleading and an obvious falsehood.

 

[tytlyf]

Off on a different tangent I see. What I was showing was your blatant attempt in your post that is misleading and an obvious falsehood.

So your point with the links is to show that fox is supporting Democrats?

 

[esmith]

So your point with the links is to show that fox is supporting Democrats?

You know it is very hard to discuss anything with you when all you do is change the subject. So answer this one question. Do the linked articles provide information that is both relevant and unbiased?

 

[dawny0826]

In a recent interview, Obama had this to say: “The problem we have is we have a faction of the Republican Party, in the House of Representatives in particular, that view “compromise” as a dirty word, and anything that is even remotely associated with me, they feel obliged to oppose.”

Seeing some posts on this forum, if they are any representation at all, it is clear that what Obama is saying is true. Agree or disagree?

I'm unsure.

I would imagine there are politicians who oppose Obama for reasons that aren't entirely logical or practical. But, then, who the hell is he to EXPECT Republicans to compromise with that which they don't feel is best for the country?

 

[tytlyf]

You know it is very hard to discuss anything with you when all you do is change the subject. So answer this one question. Do the linked articles provide information that is both relevant and unbiased?

This is what I said and you said it was misleading.

outlets you get your information from intentionally withhold anything positive when it comes to the D side. So most people are in the dark to information and facts because they never see it.

Then you post the 2 links which show Romney and Capitol Hill warn not to shut down the gov't.
You should have posted links showing what I said. "They don't show anything positive concerning the D side."

As far as the articles presenting information that is both relevant and unbiased, I'd say yes. Although one of the articles is from the Associated Press.

This is why fox is running these articles, they are targeting the Teaparty. I'll say it over and over until 2014 and 2016, the GOP(fox) will demonize TeaParty members more and more closer to the elections. They've already started (cruz on fox news sunday) today.

 

[Falvlun]

I'm unsure.

I would imagine there are politicians who oppose Obama for reasons that aren't entirely logical or practical. But, then, who the hell is he to EXPECT Republicans to compromise with that which they don't feel is best for the country?

Republicans and democrats have always had to compromise, despite disagreeing on the best course for this country. If they don't, then government shuts down, and we get credit downgrades.

 

[dawny0826]

Republicans and democrats have always had to compromise, despite disagreeing on the best course for this country. If they don't, then government shuts down, and we get credit downgrades.

I realize this, but, I don't have to be of the opinion that it's acceptable for EITHER party to compromise.

As a Libertarian, I don't value government in the same way that many of you do.

 

[Sha'irullah]

This is quite obvious. The language being used by Republicans is evident of how they feel. Threatening to take the government down with them and going on about kamikaze political attacks.

The Democratic party often has bad ideas while the Republicans have no ideas at all. They wish to be chosen and yet have nothing to offer if chosen.
They are solely dedicated to bigotry and the removal of the Democratic president we have now.
There is no other mission statement for them and the sheer though of agreeing with a Democrat even once just angers the GOP.

Never in my life have I seen a collective body of grown mature men act like a 1st grade classroom

 

[Falvlun]

I realize this, but, I don't have to be of the opinion that it's acceptable for EITHER party to compromise.

But, then, as Libertarian, I don't value government in the same way that many of you do.

I think that's a rather naive, myopic outlook.

It's the sort of outlook that seems to stem from the belief that all the current government does is provide welfare or collect taxes or make burdensome laws or regulations. Things that you might think we can do without, or are unnecessary, or that you don't think should be the responsibility of the government. (Or else, the belief that government's only legitimate function is defense, as if the rest of the world didn't exist, as if economies ran themselves, as if people and businesses will always behave rationally and equitably.)

But the fact is that we do need a government. The world is a lot more complex than just welfare or warfare. And we need a government that works.

The recent financial meltdown should have made this so very apparent. The outcome of our gridlocked Congress was that we managed to get our credit downgraded. Our current economic recovery has also been slowed due to the financial and business world's distrust of our government-- the fact that no clear plan, that they can count on to continue for any length of time, is able to be agreed upon.

The fact is that Americans largely fall into two political camps. And while it would be great (if you were a conservative) to only ever have conservative laws pass, that is not reality. Reality dictates that half of voters fall on the other side of the aisle, which means that compromise is necessary. Insistence upon only one party's line means you are disenfranchising 50% of Americans. And ultimately, by not doing your job and making government come to a screeching halt, you are disenfranchising 100% of them.

It would certainly help if we could get more than a two-party system robustly going-- I think we should even force such a thing by making the two current parties split, to make 4 total, and neither can retain the old names-- but even then, compromise will be necessary.

Advocating a toddler-esque form of government in which it is "my way or nothing" is unrealistic, and ultimately a very dangerous game to play.

 

[dawny0826]

I think that's a rather naive, myopic outlook.

It's the sort of outlook that seems to think that government's only function is things like providing welfare or collecting taxes or making burdensome laws or regulations. Things that you might think we can do without, or are unnecessary, or that you don't think should be the responsibility of the government. .

Whose views are you commenting on? Clearly, not mine, as I have not shared my outlook as to how I believe our government should function.

But the fact is that we do need a government. The world is a lot more complex than just welfare. And we need a government that works.

And where have I stated that I disagree that we need government. Why do you presume that my issues with our government revolve exclusively around social welfare issues?

The recent financial meltdown should have made this so very apparent. The outcome of our gridlocked Congress was that we managed to get our credit downgraded. Our current economic recovery has also been slowed due to the financial world's distrust of our government-- the fact that no clear plan, that they can count on to continue for any length of time, is able to be agreed upon.

I refuse and will continue to refuse to accept that any political party, any AMERICAN, is required to compromise that which they feel is BEST for our nation. Compromise does not necessarily yield benefit and we've been headed for a financial meltdown for a very long time now. You can't continue to SPEND money and simultaneously pull the nation out of debt. It's impossible.

I will always favor a more radical approach to fixing our nation's problems and that requires uncomfortable change that America rejects.

So, we'll continue to play with unacceptable government leaders who will continue to take us to hell in a handbasket. We choose this, though.

The fact is that Americans largely fall into two political camps. And while it would be great (if you were a conservative) to only ever have conservative laws pass, that is not reality. .

I've been around longer than you have and know damn well what reality looks like.

I won't compromise and expect those politicans that I support to stand firm. I have compromised in the past and can't do it anymore.

I will not accept the mentality that I have to compromise and accept that which I find to be ineffective. Why would I expect our politicians to do the same?

Reality dictates that half of voters fall on the other side of the aisle, which means that compromise is necessary. Insistence upon only one party's line means you are disenfranchising 50% of Americans. And ultimately, by not doing your job and making government come to a screeching halt, you are disenfranchising 100% of them.

I'm not part of this half/half percentage. I won't support Democrats or Republicans, because I don't agree that either are good for our country. I'm not selling out. Are you?

It would certainly help if we could get more than a two-party system robustly going-- I think we should even force such a thing by making the two current parties split, to make 4 total, and neither can retain the old names-- but even then, compromise will be necessary.

It's unacceptable to expect compromise when such compromise strongly conflicts with principles. I do not agree with you.

Advocating a toddler-esque form of government in which it is "my way or nothing" is unrealistic and ultimately, a very dangerous game to play.

What am I advocating? Since you presume to know precisely what I advocate, please enlighten me.

 

[Falvlun]

Whose views are you commenting on? Clearly, not mine, as I have not shared my outlook as to how I believe our government should function.

That's why I said "seem to". I have heard the sentiment that "we don't need government" expressed before, and it's usually accompanied by a rather small view on what the government actually does.

And where have I stated that I disagree that we need government. Why do you presume that my issues with our government revolve exclusively around social welfare issues?

I don't think that my post indicated that.

You stated that "you do not value government in the same way that many of you do". You also indicated that it is acceptable that neither party compromise, which necessarily results in stalemated, unworking government. Thus, I think it reasonable to assume that you don't value a working government, or the things that government does.

I refuse and will continue to refuse to accept that any political party, any AMERICAN, is required to compromise that which they feel is BEST for our nation. Compromise does not necessarily yield benefit and we've been headed for a financial meltdown for a very long time now. You can't continue to SPEND money and simultaneously pull the nation out of debt. It's impossible.

Actually, yes, it is pretty much basic economics that spending money can indeed ultimately lower debt. I mean, have you ever heard of investment? You often need to spend money in order to make money.

I will always favor a more radical approach to fixing our nation's problems and that requires uncomfortable change that America rejects.

So, we'll continue to play with unacceptable government leaders who will continue to take us to hell in a handbasket. We choose this, though.



I've been around longer than you have and know damn well what reality looks like.

I won't compromise and expect those politicans that I support to stand firm. I have compromised in the past and can't do it anymore.

I will not accept the mentality that I have to compromise and accept that which I find to be ineffective. Why would I expect our politicians to do the same?

I'm not part of this half/half percentage. I won't support Democrats or Republicans, because I don't agree that either are good for our country. I'm not selling out. Are you?

It's unacceptable to expect compromise when such compromise strongly conflicts with principles. I do not agree with you.

I do not consider compromise to be selling out, but to be a political, indeed a human, necessity. I cannot imagine any other world, unless we were all borgs who wanted the same exact thing.

What am I advocating? Since you presume to know precisely what I advocate, please enlighten me.

You are advocating that our politicians should refuse to compromise, despite the real dangers and ultimate ineffectual nature of such a position.

 

[dawny0826]

That's why I said "seem to". I have heard the sentiment that "we don't need government" expressed before, and it's usually accompanied by a rather small view on what the government actually does.

You said this:

I think that's a rather naive, myopic outlook.

And I had not shared an outlook.

I don't think that my post indicated that.

I think it did. But, I won't linger on this any further.

You stated that "you do not value government in the same way that many of you do". You also indicated that it is acceptable that neither party compromise, which necessarily results in stalemated, unworking government. Thus, I think it reasonable to assume that you don't value a working government, or the things that government does.

I do not place the same emphasis on government that many of my fellow Americans do. I think it's a tragedy that we, as a people, rely so heavily on elected officials to solve our problems. We've created a system of dependency that I do take issue with. So do many other LIbertarians. I'm not alone in my viewpoint.

We certainly need government and I'm not saying that there should never be compromise when officials are comfortable with compromise. I reject the notion that there should be an expectation for compromise if proposed law is deemed unacceptable to politicians.

I'm okay with things not happening, if the laws that are being discussed are flawed.

Actually, yes, it is pretty much basic economics that spending money can indeed ultimately lower debt. I mean, have you ever heard of investment? You often need to spend money in order to make money. .

No, I've never heard of investment. I suppose we're both inaccurate. You're right, investment does promote growth. But, excessive spending without investment does not. There has to be balance.

I do not consider compromise to be selling out, but to be a political, indeed a human, necessity. I cannot imagine any other world, unless we were all borgs who wanted the same exact thing.

Sometimes, it's best to reject that which is wrong. Sometimes, it's necessary to say yes or no, even when it makes things harder.

We have very different mindsets and that's okay.

You are advocating that our politicians should refuse to compromise, despite the real dangers and ultimate ineffectual nature of such a position.

I am absolutely advocating that our politicians forego compromise, when compromise isn't what's in the best interest of this nation. Does this mean that compromise can't be mutually agreeable? Of course, not. I'm talking about compromise as an expectation.

I think that it's okay to not compromise. I don't support politicians to go to work for the sake of selling out - to make things flow easier. I want for the people that I support to represent me to the best of their ability. And that should involve rejecting that which is bull.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

I think that's a rather naive, myopic outlook.

It's the sort of outlook that seems to stem from the belief that all the current government does is provide welfare or collect taxes or make burdensome laws or regulations. Things that you might think we can do without, or are unnecessary, or that you don't think should be the responsibility of the government. (Or else, the belief that government's only legitimate function is defense, as if the rest of the world didn't exist, as if economies ran themselves, as if people and businesses will always behave rationally and equitably.)

But the fact is that we do need a government. The world is a lot more complex than just welfare or warfare. And we need a government that works.

The recent financial meltdown should have made this so very apparent. The outcome of our gridlocked Congress was that we managed to get our credit downgraded. Our current economic recovery has also been slowed due to the financial and business world's distrust of our government-- the fact that no clear plan, that they can count on to continue for any length of time, is able to be agreed upon.

The fact is that Americans largely fall into two political camps. And while it would be great (if you were a conservative) to only ever have conservative laws pass, that is not reality. Reality dictates that half of voters fall on the other side of the aisle, which means that compromise is necessary. Insistence upon only one party's line means you are disenfranchising 50% of Americans. And ultimately, by not doing your job and making government come to a screeching halt, you are disenfranchising 100% of them.

It would certainly help if we could get more than a two-party system robustly going-- I think we should even force such a thing by making the two current parties split, to make 4 total, and neither can retain the old names-- but even then, compromise will be necessary.

Advocating a toddler-esque form of government in which it is "my way or nothing" is unrealistic, and ultimately a very dangerous game to play.

I agree. some of this makes me think of Sandy relief. We have a terrible situation in CO. and I believe four representatives that voted against the Sandy Relief funding recently wrote a letter to the federal government asking for assistance.

Colorado House Republicans Unanimously Support Flood Relief, Unanimously Opposed Sandy Aid | ThinkProgress

Colorado Republican Reps. Mike Coffman, Cory Gardner, Doug Lamborn, and Scott Tipton joined their delegation in asking the president to send emergency funds to help their constituents combat and recover from the more than 14 inches of rain that have flooded Colorado this month.

:sad: