You sound like those that mentioned that about Bush and 9/11.Quote:
Create a crisis so he can exploit it .
|
You sound like those that mentioned that about Bush and 9/11.Quote:
Create a crisis so he can exploit it .
Hello again, tom:
I don't know where you get that he IS going to negotiate Obamacare. The medical device tax is now OFF the table. You HAD that small victory at one time, but you overplayed your hand, and you walk away with NOTHING.
Excon
But if you read my comment you'd see it wasn't about the medical device tax (although clearly that is a mistake that both sides see needs fixing )... it was about the changes they are suddenly willing to negotiate to appease the union bosses. The truth is that Obamacare is not settled law as you claim. It changes frequently with every executive exemption ,delay etc. And now the Dems are again putting provision on the table after they said that it wasn't up for negotiations.
It was you guys taking futile votes to repeal ACA that kept you from negotiating the budget and the debt ceiling, so now here we are at the last minute with the government shut down and three days to avert ANOTHER credit downgrade, and the added billions that go with it.
Tell me another one about the fiscally responsible conservatives. They last negotiation cost us billions and Newt's big flop cost us billions, so what's this one going to cost?
The House has put out a budget every year while the Senate diddled around so spare us your whining.
Tparty wish lists don't qualify as legitimate budgets. Just like 43 votes to repeal Obama Care count as legitimate legislation. Its like running in a circle claiming the sky has fallen. You can vote on that too, and win in the TParty ruled house.
The only laughable items in the budget debates is the ridiculous wish lists from the White House that even the Senate laughed off, and the Senate's own refusal to pass one for years so again, spare us the whining.Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
Meanwhile, former Clinton official, Obama CIA director and SecDef gets it.
Well Mr. President, what about it?Quote:
Panetta rebukes Obama’s handling of shutdown
By Ruth Marcus, Published: October 14
Leon Panetta served in Washington with nine presidents, starting with Lyndon Johnson. He has been a member of Congress, Office of Management and Budget director, White House chief of staff, director of the Central Intelligence Agency and secretary of defense — the last two under President Obama. He is a man who knows Washington and knows how to choose his words. So Panetta’s implicit rebuke of the president’s hands-off approach to the budget crisis at a breakfast Monday was striking.
Indeed, implicit may be an understatement. Asked repeatedly whether he was being correctly understood as critical of President Obama, Panetta was careful to assert that “I don’t want to put it all on the president” and that there is “enough blame to go around.” But he did not spare Obama.
“We govern either by leadership or crisis. . . . If leadership is not there, then we govern by crisis,” Panetta said at the start of the session, sponsored by The Wall Street Journal. “Clearly, this town has been governing by crisis after crisis after crisis.”
Which raised the obvious question: What does this say about the president’s leadership?
Several observations ensued. “This town has gotten a lot meaner in the last few years.” Relationships have deteriorated. Redistricting into safe seats hasn’t helped. Neither has the explosion of money in campaigns, or the elimination of earmarks. (Negotiating one Clinton budget, Panetta recalled, “I think I sold about six bridges to get there.”)
Then, to Obama. “This president — he’s extremely bright, he’s extremely able, he’s somebody who I think certainly understands the issues, asks the right questions, and I think has the right instincts about what needs to be done for the country.”
Next came the “but” — without a name but with a clear message. “You have to engage in the process. This is a town where it’s not enough to feel you have the right answers. You’ve got to roll up your sleeves and you’ve got to really engage in the process . . . that’s what governing is all about.”
Now your mad because he told you guys to kiss his ****** A$$? 5 years of trash talk will bring that out. Even your secret slush money fund is telling you to shut the hell up.
The only ones supporting you are YOU! But of course that's all you count any way, so rant on!
Interesting, Leon Panetta says it's a failure of leadership in the White House and you go off on that indecipherable tangent? You need more fiber.Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
I don't agree with Panetta, and in light of this
Fitch puts US credit rating on negative watch - Yahoo Finance
I guess you shoot the hostages, and pay the price. Heritage foundation said vote no on the new house proposal, and Bonehead delays vote. A rerun of 2011, so I guess all he has left is a vote on the senate bill.
GOP disarray: On-again, off-again House vote on shutdown plan - CNN.com
When this happened in 2011, President Clinton said he would not hesitate to raise the debt limit himself by executive order or use the 14th amendment to do so, many law professors say Obama would be in the right and public opinion would overwhelmingly be on his side so I wish he would grow a pair and do it. Why is Obama just standing by and letting this happen? It is really damaging the economy, making the U.S. Look like fools to the rest of the world and making him look like a weak, ineffective leader.
Earl it's politics. If he can make the Republicans look bad enough they might get a considerably reduce majority in the next election and electors might specifically censure tea party candidates
That's what happens when the electorate sends bomb throwers to govern with no experience in world finances. It's no secret the only purpose of the TParty is to bring down the government, and the people are just collateral damage.
What a minute! They lost the last election didn't they?
Now that Obama has won a second term, what does the tea party have to gain by giving him a hard time? They are so stupid, they don't even realize that they're stupid.
Because it would be a blatant violation of Article 1 sec 8 clause 3 which states that [The Congress shall have Power ]To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;Quote:
When this happened in 2011, President Clinton said he would not hesitate to raise the debt limit himself by executive order or use the 14th amendment to do so, many law professors say Obama would be in the right and public opinion would overwhelmingly be on his side so I wish he would grow a pair and do it. Why is Obama just standing by and letting this happen? It is really damaging the economy, making the U.S. Look like fools to the rest of the world and making him look like a weak, ineffective leader.
The 14th does not give the President the power or authority to make that call . If he attempts to do so ,the House of Reps should immediately move and vote on articles of impeachment .
Impeachment is a laugh. It would require a two thirds majority and the Reps have 46, not even half. More importantly, impeaching the president for saving the economy from a crisis that they started would be political suicide, although their approval rating can't get much lower.
Didn't hurt Clinton. Didn't get him out of office either.
Hmmm, maybe we get an Obama in office after Hillary. History may repeat itself. But 16 years of progressive female butt kicking might be to much for the loony's on the right but a fitting punishment for loony behavior.
Of course they are stupid, they are red neck stupid, and no is only used when you oppose something, no one says no to them. It is childish behaviour, I'll take my bat and ball and go home stuff, what we call a dummy spit.Quote:
Originally Posted by earl237
But you know the irony there are actually people here who think it is alright for them to behave this way because it is con-stit-u-tion-al, that's a big word they think they know the meaning of, and here is another one, dem-oc-rac-y. They don't know the meaning of that one and I wonder if they have heard of government for the people
Maybe between all your ranting you can look up some things. Like that we are a republic not a democracy. And while your at it since this president has been in office for 5 years name just 1 thing that he has supported that actually worked. Just 1 thing that didn't fail ?Quote:
Originally Posted by paraclete
Hi dad yes it has been explained to me on more than one occasion when democracy is lacking that, after all, it is a republic, not a democracy. Why then does this republic go to such great pains to tout its form of democracy all over the world? Is it being hypocritical?Quote:
Originally Posted by cdad
The people elected this "president" twice, the second time by an increased majority, so they must have thought he had something going for him, even if it was he was just a little more acceptable than the other fellow, who by the way rejected 48% of the electorate.
His rescue of the auto industry was apparently some sort of success, maybe the ACA will work eventually, it takes time and a willingness to make it work, but all he has had in the last three years is negative politics and obstructionism so it is no wonder there isn't a lot to show, excepting an economic recovery that happened despite the job creators and the negativity
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 06:59 AM. |