[talaniman]

I would agree that Obama is very divisive and is weak in building consensus and reaching across the aisle.

He built enough consensus to win re-election and the guys across the aisle lost a few seats in the house and senate. That ain't too shabby after 4 years of constant attacks from across the aisle. You guys rather throw rocks and holler than meet in the middle.

Be like Jan Brewer in Arizona, embrace the change and lets get on with it.

Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer Backs Medicaid Expansion | FDL Action

"Saying 'no' to this plan would not save these federal dollars from being spent or direct them to deficit reduction.

No, Arizona's tax dollars would simply be passed to another state – generating jobs and providing health care for citizens in California, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico or any other expansion state.

Remember: Arizona citizens have voted TWICE to expand Medicaid coverage.

With this move, we will secure a federal revenue stream to cover the costs of the uninsured who already show up in our doctor's offices and emergency rooms."

The election was two months ago, stop hollering and throwing rocks.

[dontknownuthin]

[QUOTE=talaniman;3370606]He built enough consensus to win re-election and the guys across the aisle lost a few seats in the house and senate. That ain't too shabby after 4 years of constant attacks from across the aisle. You guys rather throw rocks and holler than meet in the middle.

I guess I disagree with this new Democratic attitude that once an election is over, we are no longer to criticize our leadership. What's most concerning about it is that in the last century, the Democrats took leadership in protecting freedom of the press and assembly, and really took the lead in making demonstrations and civil disobedience prominent political tools because they considered it to be their absolute duty to speak out against elected officials who were not respecting the will of the people.

Today, the Democrats want to silence all who disagree with them - quash demonstrations, stop conversations with friends who offer an alternative view, change the channel rather than listening to the opposition and learning what they have to say.

I've even seen bumper stickers and protests downtown Chicago to "take FOX off the air". Among all the liberal media, there is only one decidedly conservative national television station, and the intolerance of the Democratic party has reached such a fevered pitch that they are now pushing for censorship of any view that disagrees with their own. Here, too, you argue that the Republicans should now just shut up and fall in line with Obama's agenda. Funny, I don't remember the Democrats doing that when Reagan was in office. There was certainly plenty that the Democrats found to complain and argue about, and they were right to do so given that they disagreed with the administration. It is our DUTY to express our viewpoints in a democracy and turning a blind eye when we think the country is on absolutely the wrong course is almost treasonist in my opinion.

As for the election being proof of building consensus - not at all. No more so than Reagan's re-election proved that he had the full "concensus" of the democrats. He was actually pretty hated by the left and his success at the polls only gave him the opportunity to get to work building consensus. Elections are about getting supporters to the polls - on the job, the thing is to get the guy who disagrees to come to the table and compromise, which starts with the willingness to meet them part way.

The consensus I am talking about is the ability represented by presidents like Clinton, to use a Democrat example, who worked very hard to build bridges with his opponents. He earned a lot of respect from Republican leadership on political issues, though he unfortunately lost much of their respect with his personal antics. Congress has been in gridlock for some time, and Obama's the leader. Instead of leading, he's complaining. I don't remember any past president speaking as he does.

Obama continues to characterize Republicans as hating this group or that. They love this word "hate" but they own it and exclusively use it. Republicans are trying not to spend a nickel today so that we can turn it into a dime tomorrow. We do not believe that reducing the number and wealth of the rich will do anything whatsoever to reduce who is poor. In fact, our last line of safety for the most vulnerable are charitable institutions - largely funded, started, organized and run by rich philanthropists. While the democrats are crabbing about rich people not caring about the poor, the rich people are out helping the poor.

[talaniman]

Aw, you conservative can dish it out, but can't take it huh? I get it, talk about a guy for 4 years no let up, and he can't say anything back. Gotcha. Its more liberal TV than right wing TV.

I actually hope you guys keep talking crazy, and doing crazy things and blaming others for the conflicts and crisis's you have created. While you are at it, explain how this president won states with republican governors, and republican state legislatures ruling, and all kinds of tricks at traps that failed miserably?

No doubt you will come up with more schemes for the next election, since you have no coalition to rally with, and don't seem to be doing anything to get one, so all we have to do to break the gridlock is just have a vote in the house where already some republicans are breaking ranks with the just say no crowd. Hey we might get some good things done. Nobody has stopped you guys from crossing the aisle, except YOU GUYS!

I think you guys are jealous because this guy has survived everything you have thrown at him. And afraid he is ready to fight back.

[dontknownuthin]

You're misunderstanding my point entirely. Of course Obama can make his point - he should. He spends very little time meeting with Congress or working at building consensus, and he is very partisan in his public remarks. More successful presidents spent most of their time working with law makers and focused on building bridges, not vilifying the other side. Many democrats are also dissatisfied with him, so this is not just a Republican view. He got the job, but it was far form a landslide. Nearly half the country voted for Romney, who wasn't a particularly strong candidate. It was not a ringing endorsement.

[paraclete]

Half the country always votes for the other guy, the results come down to a one or two percent and depending upon where that happens you get a result. Maybe not the result you want but a result. This majority rules sucks, you know that, I know that, and consensus, what's that but a leftist agenda

[talaniman]

The modern day congress is not a place for consensus or bridge building. And if your point is the president didn't win by enough and elections don't have consequences then I have to reject that notion. That may soften the blow for your own shortcoming but don't try to nullify the results which indicate possibly that some of you guys crossed over to our side, or stayed at home.

We don't have to have a ringing endorsement, and before Obama, Bush didn't have one either. That didn't stop you guys from blowing a surplus did it? Not just Bush, YOU guys. That's what the gridlock is about, hollering and building no bridges, and schools and creating jobs that actually support families and rejecting a solid jobs bill that would have grown the economy. And then say the policy failed because it was no good when it never gets enacted.

Give me a break, you cannot obstruct and blame someone else for your inaction. You can't holler foul and call it a plan, and you sure can't holler broke, and funnel the money to the top, and refuse to even trickle any down. You can't sit on your butt and throw rocks and say we are lazy because the jobs not finished.

This majority rules sucks, you know that, I know that, and consensus, what's that but a leftist agenda

I guess you prefer a ruling class. Or was that sarcasm

[paraclete]

Well Tal I'm not sure you are talking to me but a lot of it is sarcasm and no government I elected blew a surplus, it was those stupid fabianists who hold on to power because of double dealing. I did not vote for them, I hate the little red fox and what she stands for. There is a big difference between our Liberals and your Republicans, they are far, far, far to the right of where we stand, and our equivalent is a white haired man in big hat with a mouth to match, but our Labor fain being centre left but are closet communist and there is only one thing further to the left and it is a tree hunging green, they are not theequivalent of your Democrats.

The reason our situation hasn't melted down is we get to talk to each other and sometimes a solution emerges. There is a lot of theatre here in government, but no one is going to go to the brink to prove a point

[NeedKarma]

The modern day congress is not a place for consensus or bridge building.

No truer, honest words were ever spoken. It matters not who is in power, your country is divided in a bad way.

[paraclete]

Where I come from we call it a polarised electorate

[tomder55]

The modern day congress is not a place for consensus or bridge building.

As if that is something new... semper eadem. But it depends on what you mean by congress. The House of Reps was designed to be the house of the people and reflects the majority more often than not. Then Senate was designed as the deliberative body where consensus is forged.

[excon]

Hello:

The war on Republicans...

Bwa, ha ha ha ha... Bwe, he he he he..

I'm going to write that commie, Marxist, guy, who has an unabiding HATRED for white people, a nasty letter... Going to tell him to be NICE to you poor misunderstood right wingers...

Bwa, ha heeee...

excon

[paraclete]

As if that is something new .... semper eadem. But it depends on what you mean by congress. The House of Reps was designed to be the house of the people and reflects the majority more often than not. Then Senate was designed as the deliberative body where concensus is forged.

I think you got the design a little wrong there Tom, it is apparent your Congress expects its' decisions will be upheld. What you have is a design for a stalemate because both houses want to dictate outcomes. I very much doubt that consensus is on the agenda

[talaniman]

It's the republican house caucus that's divided. The TParty has them running scared to even cross the aisle on anything. The last two house bills that passed were mainly from democrats. I suspect this will be the way the debt ceiling will be raised too. Repubs hold the house, but there are enough reasonable democrats and republicans to form a coalition against the loony right wing to get things done.

[tomder55]

Here is the fact... The Senate is called the Connecticut Compromise.. it was an afterthought . The ideal for the founders was for the 'people's house ' to make the bulk of the calls. That is why Article 1 ,the biggest article of the constitution specifically enumerated the powers designd for congress. Specifically ,it is no mistake that they gave the House the power to originate all spending .

[tomder55]

Its the republican house caucus thats divided. The TParty has them running scared to even cross the aisle on anything. The last two house bills that passed were mainly from democrats. I suspect this will be the way the debt ceiling will be raised too.

When was the last time you saw the Dems "cross the aisle"? You guys crack me up . Whenever there is talk of consensus ,it means conservatives have to give something up . We saw the Dems in a 'take no prisoners ' mode the 1st 2 years of Emperor Zero's reign ,as they rammed one bill after the other . You belly ache against the TP... you created them ,because the TP is a movement that began was a reaction to Dem excesses.

[talaniman]

And the last election was a push back against republicans trying deliver the lower class to the capitalists god for sacrifice.

Poetic justice that 47% was what the Mittster ended up getting.

[excon]

Hello again, tom:

you created them ,because the TP is a movement that began was a reaction to Dem excesses.

It's true. And, they'll be destroyed by their OWN excesses. The Democrats will retake the House in '14. Hillary will kick a$$ in '16.

Excon

[talaniman]

We can't have extremism running the country, no one wants that, not even republicans, dino's or rino's.

[tomder55]

Don't worry... one of Emperor Zero's EOs today was :
Direct the Attorney General to review categories of individuals prohibited from having a gun to make sure dangerous people are not slipping through the cracks.

I wonder if they will include Big sis's list of domestic terrorist threats... like Tea Party folks .

By the way that would be the same AG who is responsible for the gun running 'Fast and Furious' fiasco.

[NeedKarma]

Don't worry... one of Emperor Zero's EOs today was :
Direct the Attorney General to review categories of individuals prohibited from having a gun to make sure dangerous people are not slipping through the cracks.

Wait a minute, weren't you the one wanting to make sure mentally unstable people didn't have access to guns?