Obama's Constitutional Disdain

[Murf76]

Surely you'll agree that more than one of those Democrats had pressure from Republican peers in Congress, right? It wasn't all just moral stands against evil. Wait, that's right. You won't ever concede in even one point in any debate. I'll continue nonetheless.

The pressure to get rid of it was part of a larger picture. And this was back when Republicans wanted nothing to do with the whole issue. Their plan was to stonewall completely. But that didn't work, now did it? You had to admit that reform was needed and that you needed to work with Dems to get something done.

But let's go back...you equate the Baucus group and other valid attempts to be bi-partisan as a minor maraschino cherry...but you have to start somewhere.

Which is what Obama tried to do in the televised event. Start with where you agreed, albeit however small, and build from there. What did Cantor say? He used his prop of the number of pages to say "we want to start over."

Face it, politics these days has NOTHING to do with bipartisanship or compromise. It's whatever side can use the leverage they have to get things done. So don't whine if Dems play by the rules both sides have contributed to.

You do make a good point though that the differences are so fundamental that THERE CANT BE a bridge. And where does that take us? Well that takes us back to whomever has the most power makes the rules.

Crazy, ain't it?

Ugh... you can't "start with where you agreed, albeit however small, and build from there" if the place you start is the SOURCE of the disagreement.

I honestly don't understand why you can't accept that starting with one's own bill is NOT an attempt to compromise. We've been over this again... and again... and again. When you start with your own non-negotiable deal-breakers, you're not going to get any meaningful agreement.


Bottom line. None of this has had a damn thing to do with Republicans. You had a supermajority, but as usual the loony left has over-reached and all but destroyed your "moderates".
If I was a "centrist" Democrat... I'd be pissed off about that right about now.

 

[Vanquish]

I dont understand Republicans that throw Bush under the bus to prove Obama's bad. Why should we trust your thoughts on Obama if you made a mistake with Bush?

(I voted for Bush twice by the way)

 

[Vanquish]

Surely you'll agree that more than one of those Democrats had pressure from Republican peers in Congress, right? It wasn't all just moral stands against evil. Wait, that's right. You won't ever concede in even one point in any debate. I'll continue nonetheless.

The pressure to get rid of it was part of a larger picture. And this was back when Republicans wanted nothing to do with the whole issue. Their plan was to stonewall completely. But that didn't work, now did it? You had to admit that reform was needed and that you needed to work with Dems to get something done.

But let's go back...you equate the Baucus group and other valid attempts to be bi-partisan as a minor maraschino cherry...but you have to start somewhere.

Which is what Obama tried to do in the televised event. Start with where you agreed, albeit however small, and build from there. What did Cantor say? He used his prop of the number of pages to say "we want to start over."

Face it, politics these days has NOTHING to do with bipartisanship or compromise. It's whatever side can use the leverage they have to get things done. So don't whine if Dems play by the rules both sides have contributed to.

You do make a good point though that the differences are so fundamental that THERE CANT BE a bridge. And where does that take us? Well that takes us back to whomever has the most power makes the rules.

Crazy, ain't it?

Ugh... you can't "start with where you agreed, albeit however small, and build from there" if the place you start is the SOURCE of the disagreement.

I honestly don't understand why you can't accept that starting with one's own bill is NOT an attempt to compromise. We've been over this again... and again... and again. When you start with your own non-negotiable deal-breakers, you're not going to get any meaningful agreement.


Bottom line. None of this has had a damn thing to do with Republicans. You had a supermajority, but as usual the loony left has over-reached and all but destroyed your "moderates".
If I was a "centrist" Democrat... I'd be pissed off about that right about now.

No you don't understand, apparently. The two sides will NEVER be able to align on their core principles. That's why there are two different parties...and HUGE gaps in the ideology.

So...understanding that Republicans want small government...and Dems want bigger government...you start with points of commonality...and build on that. It doesn't take a genius to see that. It really doesn't.

 

[Murf76]

No you don't understand, apparently. The two sides will NEVER be able to align on their core principles. That's why there are two different parties...and HUGE gaps in the ideology.

So...understanding that Republicans want small government...and Dems want bigger government...you start with points of commonality...and build on that. It doesn't take a genius to see that. It really doesn't.

That's what the U.S. Constitution is for.... to be the referee in the game. The depredations upon our contract with government that have already occurred are the problem.

Ben Franklin once said...."I am apprehensive, therefore - perhaps too apprehensive - that the Government of these States may in future times end in a monarchy. But this catastrophe, I think, may be long delayed, if in our proposed system we do not sow the seeds of contention, faction, and tumult, by making our posts of honor places of profit."

There were only 17 enumerated powers, none of which authorized use of the public treasury for social welfare. Social welfare programs are a method by which citizens may "vote themselves largesse from the public treasury". They become a commodity in the hands of politicians. Just like pork, they can use it to BUY votes. And with position, comes power.. and MONEY.

Look at Barack and Michelle Obama. Does YOUR wife wear five-hundred-dollar sneakers to the soup kitchen? How do these people get rich on public service???

Now, you're right that it's not a party problem. All these mother fuckers end up rolling in dough. But you're wrong that there's no method for resolving differences. We just have to get the referee back onto the field.

 

[Vanquish]

Of course the Constitution sets the rules, but we're not talking process here for the most part, we're talking ideological negotiation.

You said the two sides are so fundamentally different as to not be able to use Obama's current plan as a starting point. I don't agree with that, but we'll proceed from that premise.

There are core principles and then there are CORE principles. The Constitution only sets broad strokes but still allows broad philosophical differences. There's no mechanism in the Constitution for making people agree. Yes, there's a process for coming to agreement in an ordered fashion, but not for mystically bridging philosophical gaps.

Of our two methods (starting over or starting from commonality) I don't see one as being better than the other. You're right that the underlying issues should, ideally, be worked out...but if the gap is as large as you say...both sides have to get out of it what they can and move forward. That's compromise.

 

[Sinatra]

The Scope of the Thread Title is not broad enough. It should read: Obama's Disdain For Everyone Else.

It's always all about him on every issue.

___

I read this and laughed - but then thought about it, and frankly - I'm not laughing now.

Sadly, you're right...