Disposing of Another Reason To Vote Obama.

[Qball]

No that is not what your OP said. You made the argument that Obama shouldn't be re-elected because he isn't bi-partisan enough.

That leads to the implication that Romney is better in that regard. Thus you're arguing that Romney is better suited to be bi-partisan.

To be bi-partisan requires compromise, reaching across the aisle, working with the Democrats, crafting moderate, centrist policies, etc.

Tell us why Romney is better suited to do that. Tell us why Romney will do what amounts to the last thing that conservatives want him to do, i.e.,

give way towards the Democrats.

Well, I don't know that Obama isn't bipartisan enough. I mean, he'd love more than anything for Republicans to capitulate and give in so he can show how open to compromise he is. That's exactly what he, and all Democrats really, want to believe about themselves.

The problem isn't so much that Obama isn't bipartisan enough, it's that he doesn't really know what that means and he tends to lie about wanting it.

Bipartisanship, to Obama, means "Republicans contradict their principles, agitate their base, risk their re-election efforts, and create discord within their own party all to help me make good on my campaign promises".

It all fits with the rest of his pie-in-the-sky rhetoric. Someone who spent ten minutes in Washington before becoming President likely would have strange ideas about what constitutes bipartisanship and "obstructionism". To Obama, Republicans driving a hard bargain is obstructionism, because he thinks only bad people would play hard ball with him over his wonderful ideas. And this is the "adult-in-the-room".

 

[ConservaDerrps]

No that is not what your OP said. You made the argument that Obama shouldn't be re-elected because he isn't bi-partisan enough.

That leads to the implication that Romney is better in that regard. Thus you're arguing that Romney is better suited to be bi-partisan.

To be bi-partisan requires compromise, reaching across the aisle, working with the Democrats, crafting moderate, centrist policies, etc.

Tell us why Romney is better suited to do that. Tell us why Romney will do what amounts to the last thing that conservatives want him to do, i.e.,

give way towards the Democrats.

Well, I don't know that Obama isn't bipartisan enough. I mean, he'd love more than anything for Republicans to capitulate and give in so he can show how open to compromise he is. That's exactly what he, and all Democrats really, want to believe about themselves.

The problem isn't so much that Obama isn't bipartisan enough, it's that he doesn't really know what that means and he tends to lie about wanting it.

Bipartisanship, to Obama, means "Republicans contradict their principles, agitate their base, risk their re-election efforts, and create discord within their own party all to help me make good on my campaign promises".

It all fits with the rest of his pie-in-the-sky rhetoric. Someone who spent ten minutes in Washington before becoming President likely would have strange ideas about what constitutes bipartisanship and "obstructionism". To Obama, Republicans driving a hard bargain is obstructionism, because he thinks only bad people would play hard ball with him over his wonderful ideas. And this is the "adult-in-the-world".

When your stated, on the record primary goal is making sure the President fails, that is obstructionism, un-patriotic, and really just shitty legislation. Only one side said that. Want to guess which one?

So what's a Conservative definition of compromise then?

 

[Truthmatters]

when you reach out and have your outreached hand spit on you still reached out.


your party said right from the get go


your biggest priority was to make him a one termer.

I believe you missed this:

2. How did he begin? “President Obama listened to Republican gripes about his stimulus package during a meeting with congressional leaders Friday morning - but he also left no doubt about who's in charge of these negotiations. "I won," Obama noted matter-of-factly, according to sources familiar with the conversation.” Obama to GOP: 'I won' - Jonathan Martin and Carol E. Lee - POLITICO.com

a. “But when the conversation got down to other specifics, it was clear that some of the Republican ideas were clearly non-starters with the new president – “Ibid.

where in the rules does it say the guy who the people picked to run the country has to do the bidding of the party holding the house?

 

[Samson]

when you reach out and have your outreached hand spit on you still reached out.


your party said right from the get go


your biggest priority was to make him a one termer.

I believe you missed this:

2. How did he begin? “President Obama listened to Republican gripes about his stimulus package during a meeting with congressional leaders Friday morning - but he also left no doubt about who's in charge of these negotiations. "I won," Obama noted matter-of-factly, according to sources familiar with the conversation.” Obama to GOP: 'I won' - Jonathan Martin and Carol E. Lee - POLITICO.com

a. “But when the conversation got down to other specifics, it was clear that some of the Republican ideas were clearly non-starters with the new president – “Ibid.

where in the rules does it say the guy who the people picked to run the country has to do the bidding of the party holding the house?

The president’s veto can be overriden by Congress.

 

[daveman]

Well no, but don't stop looking like a moron, its in your nature.

Uh huh. If I was a fellow Obamabot, we'd be BFFs.

Only in your wet dreams sally

Uh huh. Sure.

 

[daveman]

No that is not what your OP said. You made the argument that Obama shouldn't be re-elected because he isn't bi-partisan enough.

That leads to the implication that Romney is better in that regard. Thus you're arguing that Romney is better suited to be bi-partisan.

To be bi-partisan requires compromise, reaching across the aisle, working with the Democrats, crafting moderate, centrist policies, etc.

Tell us why Romney is better suited to do that. Tell us why Romney will do what amounts to the last thing that conservatives want him to do, i.e.,

give way towards the Democrats.

Well, I don't know that Obama isn't bipartisan enough. I mean, he'd love more than anything for Republicans to capitulate and give in so he can show how open to compromise he is. That's exactly what he, and all Democrats really, want to believe about themselves.

The problem isn't so much that Obama isn't bipartisan enough, it's that he doesn't really know what that means and he tends to lie about wanting it.

Bipartisanship, to Obama, means "Republicans contradict their principles, agitate their base, risk their re-election efforts, and create discord within their own party all to help me make good on my campaign promises".

It all fits with the rest of his pie-in-the-sky rhetoric. Someone who spent ten minutes in Washington before becoming President likely would have strange ideas about what constitutes bipartisanship and "obstructionism". To Obama, Republicans driving a hard bargain is obstructionism, because he thinks only bad people would play hard ball with him over his wonderful ideas. And this is the "adult-in-the-room".

Obama is entitled to other people going against their principles to support his agenda.

He won, remember?

 

[daveman]

When your stated, on the record primary goal is making sure the President fails, that is obstructionism, un-patriotic, and really just shitty legislation. Only one side said that. Want to guess which one?

So what's a Conservative definition of compromise then?

When you believe the President's policies are damaging the nation,you have an obligation to prevent as many of those policies being enacted as possible.

Once again for the leftist-impaired: The GOP has no obligation to rubber-stamp Obama's agenda.

One day, you may actually comprehend that -- but I'm not holding my breath.

 

[daveman]

when you reach out and have your outreached hand spit on you still reached out.


your party said right from the get go


your biggest priority was to make him a one termer.

I believe you missed this:

2. How did he begin? “President Obama listened to Republican gripes about his stimulus package during a meeting with congressional leaders Friday morning - but he also left no doubt about who's in charge of these negotiations. "I won," Obama noted matter-of-factly, according to sources familiar with the conversation.” Obama to GOP: 'I won' - Jonathan Martin and Carol E. Lee - POLITICO.com

a. “But when the conversation got down to other specifics, it was clear that some of the Republican ideas were clearly non-starters with the new president – “Ibid.

where in the rules does it say the guy who the people picked to run the country has to do the bidding of the party holding the house?

Where in the rules does it say the party holding the house has to do the bidding of the the guy whom the people picked to run the country?

 

[Too Tall]

No that is not what your OP said. You made the argument that Obama shouldn't be re-elected because he isn't bi-partisan enough.

That leads to the implication that Romney is better in that regard. Thus you're arguing that Romney is better suited to be bi-partisan.

To be bi-partisan requires compromise, reaching across the aisle, working with the Democrats, crafting moderate, centrist policies, etc.

Tell us why Romney is better suited to do that. Tell us why Romney will do what amounts to the last thing that conservatives want him to do, i.e.,

give way towards the Democrats.

Well, I don't know that Obama isn't bipartisan enough. I mean, he'd love more than anything for Republicans to capitulate and give in so he can show how open to compromise he is. That's exactly what he, and all Democrats really, want to believe about themselves.

The problem isn't so much that Obama isn't bipartisan enough, it's that he doesn't really know what that means and he tends to lie about wanting it.

Bipartisanship, to Obama, means "Republicans contradict their principles, agitate their base, risk their re-election efforts, and create discord within their own party all to help me make good on my campaign promises".

It all fits with the rest of his pie-in-the-sky rhetoric. Someone who spent ten minutes in Washington before becoming President likely would have strange ideas about what constitutes bipartisanship and "obstructionism". To Obama, Republicans driving a hard bargain is obstructionism, because he thinks only bad people would play hard ball with him over his wonderful ideas. And this is the "adult-in-the-world".

When your stated, on the record primary goal is making sure the President fails, that is obstructionism, un-patriotic, and really just shitty legislation. Only one side said that. Want to guess which one?

So what's a Conservative definition of compromise then?

My definition of compromise is using the legislative branch the way it is designed to be used. The House passes a bill, the Senate debates and amends the bill, passes the bill and then sends it to a conference committee composed of Repubs and Dems to work out the differences. That is called compromise. They then vote on the bill and send it to the President for signature or veto.

The way it works now is, the House passes a bill.......................................

In the past the President and members of his staff would make a lot of phone calls to members of both parties to make a case for or against part or all of the bill. This President is too busy campaigning or playing golf to be bothered with any that.

 

[Qball]

When your stated, on the record primary goal is making sure the President fails, that is obstructionism, un-patriotic, and really just shitty legislation. Only one side said that. Want to guess which one?

So what's a Conservative definition of compromise then?

I'm assuming you're referring to Mitch McConnell. Before I offer up a half-hearted explanation (because I really don't care), let me ask you this: would that bother you in the least if a Democrat had said that about Bush? You don't have to answer, just think to yourself. My guess is, you probably wouldn't bat an eye, and you'd cheer them on for putting it to those awful Republicans.

But, let me just say there's no such thing as "obstructionism" in an inherently fractious body like Congress. If they think their ideas are better for the country, they have to attain power to implement them, which means getting the other guy out of office.

But really? Republicans don't owe Obama a thing, except maybe a foot in the ass. He's not their guy, he's scored all kinds of political points off of making them look bad, and he's consistently deceived the nation into thinking his intentions are honest and pure and everyone can have cheap health-care and a job and low taxes (except for those stinking rich people) if they would stop being so mean. Of course, he doesn't want anybody to note that over 30 Democrats actually voted against Obamacare as well, Republicans offered several amendments to the ACA bill which were all summarily vetoed by Democrats, and the Democrat-controlled Senate didn't cast one single vote for Obama's budget. But yet, it's Republican obstructionism you're worried about?

It's funny because Democrats under stood this at the turn of the century when Bush was elected. Dissent was the highest form of patriotism. They floated and indulged in every esoteric "Bush is a corrupt war-criminal destroyer of worlds" theory they could, which is part of the reason Obama cat-walked to victory in 2008.

The only reason that comment bothers you so much is because it's working.

 

[daveman]

When your stated, on the record primary goal is making sure the President fails, that is obstructionism, un-patriotic, and really just shitty legislation. Only one side said that. Want to guess which one?

So what's a Conservative definition of compromise then?

I'm assuming you're referring to Mitch McConnell. Before I offer up a half-hearted explanation (because I really don't care), let me ask you this: would that bother you in the least if a Democrat had said that about Bush? You don't have to answer, just think to yourself. My guess is, you probably wouldn't bat an eye, and you'd cheer them on for putting it to those awful Republicans.

But, let me just say there's no such thing as "obstructionism" in an inherently fractious body like Congress. If they think their ideas are better for the country, they have to attain power to implement them, which means getting the other guy out of office.

But really? Republicans don't owe Obama a thing, except maybe a foot in the ass. He's not their guy, he's scored all kinds of political points off of making them look bad, and he's consistently deceived the nation into thinking his intentions are honest and pure and everyone can have cheap health-care and a job and low taxes (except for those stinking rich people) if they would stop being so mean. Of course, he doesn't want anybody to note that over 30 Democrats actually voted against Obamacare as well, Republicans offered several amendments to the ACA bill which were all summarily vetoed by Democrats, and the Democrat-controlled Senate didn't cast one single vote for Obama's budget. But yet, it's Republican obstructionism you're worried about?

It's funny because Democrats under stood this at the turn of the century when Bush was elected. Dissent was the highest form of patriotism. They floated and indulged in every esoteric "Bush is a corrupt war-criminal destroyer of worlds" theory they could, which is part of the reason Obama cat-walked to victory in 2008.

The only reason that comment bothers you so much is because it's working.

Dissent used to be the highest form of patriotism.

Now, it's treason.

And when the GOP takes the White House, it'll be patriotism once again.

Guaranteed.

 

[NYcarbineer]

No that is not what your OP said. You made the argument that Obama shouldn't be re-elected because he isn't bi-partisan enough.

That leads to the implication that Romney is better in that regard. Thus you're arguing that Romney is better suited to be bi-partisan.

To be bi-partisan requires compromise, reaching across the aisle, working with the Democrats, crafting moderate, centrist policies, etc.

Tell us why Romney is better suited to do that. Tell us why Romney will do what amounts to the last thing that conservatives want him to do, i.e.,

give way towards the Democrats.

Well, I don't know that Obama isn't bipartisan enough. I mean, he'd love more than anything for Republicans to capitulate and give in so he can show how open to compromise he is. That's exactly what he, and all Democrats really, want to believe about themselves.

The problem isn't so much that Obama isn't bipartisan enough, it's that he doesn't really know what that means and he tends to lie about wanting it.

Bipartisanship, to Obama, means "Republicans contradict their principles, agitate their base, risk their re-election efforts, and create discord within their own party all to help me make good on my campaign promises".

It all fits with the rest of his pie-in-the-sky rhetoric. Someone who spent ten minutes in Washington before becoming President likely would have strange ideas about what constitutes bipartisanship and "obstructionism". To Obama, Republicans driving a hard bargain is obstructionism, because he thinks only bad people would play hard ball with him over his wonderful ideas. And this is the "adult-in-the-room".

Can you prove any of that?

 

[rightwinger]

When your stated, on the record primary goal is making sure the President fails, that is obstructionism, un-patriotic, and really just shitty legislation. Only one side said that. Want to guess which one?

So what's a Conservative definition of compromise then?

When you believe the President's policies are damaging the nation,you have an obligation to prevent as many of those policies being enacted as possible.

Once again for the leftist-impaired: The GOP has no obligation to rubber-stamp Obama's agenda.

One day, you may actually comprehend that -- but I'm not holding my breath.

And that's the problem with Republicans. They oppose EVERY single policy proposed by Obama. Left, Right, Center......they still oppose. Even policies they had once authored, when it comes time to vote and it has Obamas name on it....they oppose

There is no other way to describe it but obstructionism

 

[Neotrotsky]

no other way

saving the country from the radical leftist policies of Papa Obama and the Democrats

 

[PoliticalChic]

At this point in time

why would anyone want to vote for this loser

Because they're losers?

 

[Moonglow]

At this point in time

why would anyone want to vote for this loser

Because they're losers?

Sorry, but repubs were losers the last time, so wlecome to the losers club

 

[PoliticalChic]

when you reach out and have your outreached hand spit on you still reached out.


your party said right from the get go


your biggest priority was to make him a one termer.

I believe you missed this:

2. How did he begin? “President Obama listened to Republican gripes about his stimulus package during a meeting with congressional leaders Friday morning - but he also left no doubt about who's in charge of these negotiations. "I won," Obama noted matter-of-factly, according to sources familiar with the conversation.” Obama to GOP: 'I won' - Jonathan Martin and Carol E. Lee - POLITICO.com

a. “But when the conversation got down to other specifics, it was clear that some of the Republican ideas were clearly non-starters with the new president – “Ibid.

where in the rules does it say the guy who the people picked to run the country has to do the bidding of the party holding the house?

Glad you asked that....

a. Note his promise of bipartisanship, 'reaching across the aisle,' in the Op.

b. The rules to which you refer are known as the Constitution.
The first article in same refers to the Congress.

Logic dictates, it seems, that the people don't pick 'a guy to run the country.'

c. Folks who believe as you seem to, in an 'Imperial Presidency,' have been mislead by
the FDR administration which manipulated a crisis and a war to instill that belief.


The people will ameliorate the mistake in November via the anodyne known as an election.


Don't you agree?

 

[PoliticalChic]

No that is not what your OP said. You made the argument that Obama shouldn't be re-elected because he isn't bi-partisan enough.

That leads to the implication that Romney is better in that regard. Thus you're arguing that Romney is better suited to be bi-partisan.

To be bi-partisan requires compromise, reaching across the aisle, working with the Democrats, crafting moderate, centrist policies, etc.

Tell us why Romney is better suited to do that. Tell us why Romney will do what amounts to the last thing that conservatives want him to do, i.e.,

give way towards the Democrats.

Well, I don't know that Obama isn't bipartisan enough. I mean, he'd love more than anything for Republicans to capitulate and give in so he can show how open to compromise he is. That's exactly what he, and all Democrats really, want to believe about themselves.

The problem isn't so much that Obama isn't bipartisan enough, it's that he doesn't really know what that means and he tends to lie about wanting it.

Bipartisanship, to Obama, means "Republicans contradict their principles, agitate their base, risk their re-election efforts, and create discord within their own party all to help me make good on my campaign promises".

It all fits with the rest of his pie-in-the-sky rhetoric. Someone who spent ten minutes in Washington before becoming President likely would have strange ideas about what constitutes bipartisanship and "obstructionism". To Obama, Republicans driving a hard bargain is obstructionism, because he thinks only bad people would play hard ball with him over his wonderful ideas. And this is the "adult-in-the-room".

Can you prove any of that?

Oh....btw....

...remember this:

"Quote: Originally Posted by NYcarbineer
If someone proves to me that a person in MA with an EBT card with $100 worth of food stamp benefit on it can go to an ATM and get $100 cash,

then I will admit I am wrong.
Still waiting for you to keep this promise......



.....waiting......."


Any plans to keep this promise?

 

[Samson]

At this point in time

why would anyone want to vote for this loser

Because they're losers?

Sorry, but repubs were losers the last time, so wlecome to the losers club

The last election was in 2010.



Dems lost 63 seats in the HoR

Dems lost 6 seats in the Senate........




Shit, it's like shooting fish in a barrel........

 

[daveman]

When your stated, on the record primary goal is making sure the President fails, that is obstructionism, un-patriotic, and really just shitty legislation. Only one side said that. Want to guess which one?

So what's a Conservative definition of compromise then?

When you believe the President's policies are damaging the nation,you have an obligation to prevent as many of those policies being enacted as possible.

Once again for the leftist-impaired: The GOP has no obligation to rubber-stamp Obama's agenda.

One day, you may actually comprehend that -- but I'm not holding my breath.

And that's the problem with Republicans. They oppose EVERY single policy proposed by Obama. Left, Right, Center......they still oppose. Even policies they had once authored, when it comes time to vote and it has Obamas name on it....they oppose

There is no other way to describe it but obstructionism

Tissue?