Is McCain supposed to get a say because he was first runner-up, or what?
If you listened to Meet the Press...
enlightenedbum on
The idea that your vote is a moral statement about you or who you vote for is some backwards ass libertarian nonsense. Your vote is about society. Vote to protect the vulnerable.
I believe Obama did, at some point, tell Republicans something to the effect of "I won, and so I get to do things I want to do." Because, you know, he won. That's sort of how elected contests work. Is McCain supposed to get a say because he was first runner-up, or what?
Wasn't that also in regards to the stimulus bill, to something specific that the Republicans wanted changed, AFTER several concessions were already made to the Republicans - who STILL did not vote for it?
I could be wrong on that.
Tomanta on
0
Powerpuppiesdrinking coffee in themountain cabinRegistered Userregular
The first post is just OP's opinion, right? Because it doesn't look like a partial rundown...
What gave it away, the Obama is a socialist meme?
What? You mean that isn't just cold hard objective fact? I'm shocked.
Obs. What do you make of Obama winning traditionally red states in the general election? Certainly he has bipartisan appeal.
He campaigned on bipartisanship, and that's why he won the red states.
Though, he has not kept that up in good faith. Christ, didn't he even tell the Republicans once "I believe I won, therefore I trump you." on some stimulus bill shit? This is not what we expected at all.
How has he not kept it up in good faith? Please explain.
As far as the I trump you comment, the first half of the statement was "on some of these issues we’re just going to have ideological differences." Bipartisanship does not mean that you agree with all of your opponent's points, it means you don't automatically reject them because they come from your opponent. And I don't think Obama has done that. I would be interested to hear anything you have to say about a case in which Obama did not seem to make a good faith effort to solve the problem the best way he knew how.
I believe Obama did, at some point, tell Republicans something to the effect of "I won, and so I get to do things I want to do." Because, you know, he won. That's sort of how elected contests work. Is McCain supposed to get a say because he was first runner-up, or what?
Yea but he was being a bit of a douche about it. Stuff like that isn't going to really win over any Republicans.
I believe Obama did, at some point, tell Republicans something to the effect of "I won, and so I get to do things I want to do." Because, you know, he won. That's sort of how elected contests work. Is McCain supposed to get a say because he was first runner-up, or what?
Yea but he was being a bit of a douche about it. Stuff like that isn't going to really win over any Republicans.
Except Arlen Specter, apparently.
enlightenedbum on
The idea that your vote is a moral statement about you or who you vote for is some backwards ass libertarian nonsense. Your vote is about society. Vote to protect the vulnerable.
I believe Obama did, at some point, tell Republicans something to the effect of "I won, and so I get to do things I want to do." Because, you know, he won. That's sort of how elected contests work. Is McCain supposed to get a say because he was first runner-up, or what?
Yea but he was being a bit of a douche about it. Stuff like that isn't going to really win over any Republicans.
Except Arlen Specter, apparently.
A dude who switched parties just to hold his seat. He's a conservative Democrat.
I believe Obama did, at some point, tell Republicans something to the effect of "I won, and so I get to do things I want to do." Because, you know, he won. That's sort of how elected contests work. Is McCain supposed to get a say because he was first runner-up, or what?
Wasn't that also in regards to the stimulus bill, to something specific that the Republicans wanted changed, AFTER several concessions were already made to the Republicans - who STILL did not vote for it?
I believe Obama did, at some point, tell Republicans something to the effect of "I won, and so I get to do things I want to do." Because, you know, he won. That's sort of how elected contests work. Is McCain supposed to get a say because he was first runner-up, or what?
Yea but he was being a bit of a douche about it. Stuff like that isn't going to really win over any Republicans.
The only thing that wins over Republicans is capitulation to them, everything else is partisan attacks to them.
anyway instead of continuing that troll-licious line of debate Obs would you mind answering some of the questions I ask here (r anyone, really, feel free to help me understand the argument put forth by Obs)
Partisan Politics- Let's face it, Obama has not been very bipartisan, and with Specter switching parties and tilting even more power toward the Dems I would be very surprised if Obama even gave a shit about what Republicans will have to say from now on, though it's reasonable to believe he was only pretending to in the past. The dude is many things, but a uniter is not one of them. Consider the fact that we had more bipartisanship in George Bush's first year than all of Obama's 100 days. I fear what crazy shit the Dems will pass now without the Republicans having an influence. Of all his shortcomings, this is the one that hurts the most.
Why do you put so much of a onus on the president of the Executive branch to be 'bipartisan' when, ultimately, how fucking bipartisan can someone in the position of supreme executive be? That's like ... not what the Executive branch is about. And I mean, even then, he was more bipartisan than most other presidents because he chose appointees from outside Democrat party lines, either newcomers or people that are moderates (and he tried to bring Republicans in, but they LOL'd at him).
What does Specter have to do with Obama? What does Congress have to do with Obama? What about the Republican minority stonewalling absolutely everything with reckless and impotent indignation?
How does this qualify as his shortcoming, if it is a shortcoming? How is it the one that hurts him the most? Also, can you cite the 'more bipartisanship' in George Bush's first year (did you mean George W. Bush, btw?), making sure to differentiate it from some kind of bipartisanship in the Legislative branch (though I don't know how you measure this, anyway)?
You're complaining about his administration's transparency about a paragraph after you've complained about him revealing stuff that the government has done?
Or are you upset that Obama has stifled the development of super-awesome invisibility shit like he promised to and omg socialist fascismrhaagjajjahajggrrakl;h
Back on actual track so this isn't an "LOL SOCIALISM LOL" thread, Obama's accomplished some significant things that have gone mostly unreported. Some pretty significant shifts involving environmental policy in particular, things that are boring to read about ("competent individual given important post nobody cares about") but can have very significant ramifications over time.
Most of what plays out in the news isn't so critical. The torture debate isn't unimportant, but three years from now the subsecretary and department head positions are going to seem very important and whether or not Gonzalez is slapped on the wrist will be less so.
Mostly 100 days as expected: Some dissapointments (transparency), lots of opposition from the R's to everything, and many small but important improvements that fly under the radar.
I believe Obama did, at some point, tell Republicans something to the effect of "I won, and so I get to do things I want to do." Because, you know, he won. That's sort of how elected contests work. Is McCain supposed to get a say because he was first runner-up, or what?
Yea but he was being a bit of a douche about it. Stuff like that isn't going to really win over any Republicans.
Except Arlen Specter, apparently.
A dude who switched parties just to hold his seat. He's a conservative Democrat.
Have you seen his voting record? If he's a conservative Democrat, the left wing stretches a ridiculous ways in this country.
EDIT: Which of course, is the real point. You know why the President doesn't agree with the Republicans? Because no one agrees with the Republicans.
enlightenedbum on
The idea that your vote is a moral statement about you or who you vote for is some backwards ass libertarian nonsense. Your vote is about society. Vote to protect the vulnerable.
0
Powerpuppiesdrinking coffee in themountain cabinRegistered Userregular
I believe Obama did, at some point, tell Republicans something to the effect of "I won, and so I get to do things I want to do." Because, you know, he won. That's sort of how elected contests work. Is McCain supposed to get a say because he was first runner-up, or what?
Yea but he was being a bit of a douche about it. Stuff like that isn't going to really win over any Republicans.
I really don't think that qualifies as "being a douche about it." Even if it did, I thought you said he wasn't being bipartisan. Do you think this qualifies as being partisan?
I believe Obama did, at some point, tell Republicans something to the effect of "I won, and so I get to do things I want to do." Because, you know, he won. That's sort of how elected contests work. Is McCain supposed to get a say because he was first runner-up, or what?
Yea but he was being a bit of a douche about it. Stuff like that isn't going to really win over any Republicans.
Win over the people who are currently defining themselves in opposition to him?
They get the respect due their positions which, if they're going to make such an effort to be complete dickbags, is pretty much a chance to vote for or against. You negotiate with reasonable people, not bawling children.
I believe Obama did, at some point, tell Republicans something to the effect of "I won, and so I get to do things I want to do." Because, you know, he won. That's sort of how elected contests work. Is McCain supposed to get a say because he was first runner-up, or what?
Yea but he was being a bit of a douche about it. Stuff like that isn't going to really win over any Republicans.
Except Arlen Specter, apparently.
A dude who switched parties just to hold his seat. He's a conservative Democrat.
But he was a Republican for 43 years...so the original point stands.
I believe Obama did, at some point, tell Republicans something to the effect of "I won, and so I get to do things I want to do." Because, you know, he won. That's sort of how elected contests work. Is McCain supposed to get a say because he was first runner-up, or what?
Yea but he was being a bit of a douche about it. Stuff like that isn't going to really win over any Republicans.
Except Arlen Specter, apparently.
A dude who switched parties just to hold his seat. He's a conservative Democrat.
He is now!
Matrijs on
0
KageraImitating the worst people. Since 2004Registered Userregular
edited April 2009
Here's stuff Obama did in 100 days I liked:
Helped me discover that Shepard Smith is pretty cool:
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
edited April 2009
Obs, can you please make the OP a bit more... accurate? Stuff like the memos (which had to happen under FOIA) and the budget (which is good) should not be where they are. Also, the socialist heading as a bit... dumb.
The first post is just OP's opinion, right? Because it doesn't look like a partial rundown...
What gave it away, the Obama is a socialist meme?
What? You mean that isn't just cold hard objective fact? I'm shocked.
Obs. What do you make of Obama winning traditionally red states in the general election? Certainly he has bipartisan appeal.
He campaigned on bipartisanship, and that's why he won the red states.
Though, he has not kept that up in good faith. Christ, didn't he even tell the Republicans once "I believe I won, therefore I trump you." on some stimulus bill shit? This is not what we expected at all.
If I extend my hand, and then go "SIKE!" I am an asshole.
If I extend my hand, you look at it, and turn away, or even SPIT on my hand, I am not the asshole.
It's worth pointing out that his comment about trumping Republicans, or whatever it was, came after numerous attempts at bipartisanship on his part and zero on the part of the Republicans.
Hell, he's been bipartisan even after the republicans have been insane about it. On the budget and the stimulus he consulted with republicans, and produced a bill which had elements they wanted in it. They threw a stink and he added more stuff they wanted to it. They continued to be screaming babies saying that the only way to be bipartisan was to do exactly as they said, and he decided to go ahead with his bill, leaving in the elements the democrats didn't want even though the repiblicans said they would never vote for the bill.
Honestly I think it has been an exceptional first 100 days. Characterized by strong leadership, excellent diplomacy abroad, and as positive a response to the economy as possible in these circumstances. His embarrassments have been tiny and insignificant (tax evasion, OK, its bad. But what it really exposes is the absurdity of the US tax system. Every person earning more than $500K probably does it, these guys just didn't check their dodginess well enough)
The republicans have covered themselves with shame and absurdity, hosting ridiculous events and refusing to provide even a modicum of responsible opposition.
tbloxham on
"That is cool" - Abraham Lincoln
0
Casually HardcoreOnce an Asshole. Trying to be better.Registered Userregular
It's worth pointing out that his comment about trumping Republicans, or whatever it was, came after numerous attempts at bipartisanship on his part and zero on the part of the Republicans.
Socialism doesn't mean anything anymore. Socialism is actually polling much better than it used to, I imagine largely thanks to Republicans associating the term with an incredibly popular president.
Socialism doesn't mean anything anymore. Socialism is actually polling much better than it used to, I imagine largely thanks to Republicans associating the term with an incredibly popular president.
You know, that's a pretty good argument I haven't really thought about. Gods know USA could use some socialism to clean up the mess it's created for itself.
Socialism doesn't mean anything anymore. Socialism is actually polling much better than it used to, I imagine largely thanks to Republicans associating the term with an incredibly popular president.
You know, that's a pretty good argument I haven't really thought about. Gods know USA could use some socialism to clean up the mess it's created for itself.
Polling is a funny thing. Bernanke has seen a significant boost in his approval ratings because he is now part of the Obama administration instead of the Bush administration.
I'm just impressed that the term Socialism has so rapidly been reduced to meaningless. Raising taxes is Socialism, environmental protections are Socialism, health care is Socialism, negotiations with Iran are Socialism, releasing torture memos is Socialism, cutting the rax rate for 95% of tax payers is Socialism, etc. etc.
The word no longer has any meaning, the term has been reduced to one of parody, intentional or otherwise.
The thing that I really admire Obama for doing is not shutting the Republicans out of the national debate. Unlike the previous president, Obama really is going out of his way to make sure he listens to all sides of the argument and try to understand a single situation in a wide variety of different ways. Yes, he has his own opinions, and in the end he has the mandate to do as he see fits but in the process of listening to all sides of the argument you can see subtle changes in the nuances of Obama's policy.
Republicans are, at least publicly, automatically rejecting everything Obama since there's no real political benefit to playing nice. If Obama is successful, incumbant Republicans will be able to take credit and it will bolster their campaigns. If Obama is a failure, incumbant Republicans can claim that they tried to fight him but just couldn't pull it out. By agreeing with Obama all they do is alienate their base.
You're complaining about his administration's transparency about a paragraph after you've complained about him revealing stuff that the government has done?
Or are you upset that Obama has stifled the development of super-awesome invisibility shit like he promised to and omg socialist fascismrhaagjajjahajggrrakl;h
He is upset because what was revealed was bad for republicans. I also don't understand how Czars don't answer to anyone. They are government employees like everyone else in the executive and they answer to the president. If they do a bad job/fuck up they also answer to the wrath of public opinion. And to compare that to "The Soviet" is just mindbogglingly stupid.
You're complaining about his administration's transparency about a paragraph after you've complained about him revealing stuff that the government has done?
Or are you upset that Obama has stifled the development of super-awesome invisibility shit like he promised to and omg socialist fascismrhaagjajjahajggrrakl;h
He is upset because what was revealed was bad for republicans. I also don't understand how Czars don't answer to anyone. They are government employees like everyone else in the executive and they answer to the president. If they do a bad job/fuck up they also answer to the wrath of public opinion. And to compare that to "The Soviet" is just mindbogglingly stupid.
But by disagreeing with him all they do is shrink their base.
There won't be Senate elections for over a year. The Republican base, the people that call Obama a socialist and attend "tea" parties, are paying more attention and want public opposition to Obama. There's plenty of time for them to appeal to the moderates starting in March next year, if it's necessary.
Posts
If you listened to Meet the Press...
This continues to be the funniest damn thing I've seen in ages.
Wasn't that also in regards to the stimulus bill, to something specific that the Republicans wanted changed, AFTER several concessions were already made to the Republicans - who STILL did not vote for it?
I could be wrong on that.
How has he not kept it up in good faith? Please explain.
As far as the I trump you comment, the first half of the statement was "on some of these issues we’re just going to have ideological differences." Bipartisanship does not mean that you agree with all of your opponent's points, it means you don't automatically reject them because they come from your opponent. And I don't think Obama has done that. I would be interested to hear anything you have to say about a case in which Obama did not seem to make a good faith effort to solve the problem the best way he knew how.
Yea but he was being a bit of a douche about it. Stuff like that isn't going to really win over any Republicans.
Except Arlen Specter, apparently.
A dude who switched parties just to hold his seat. He's a conservative Democrat.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0109/17862.html
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
The only thing that wins over Republicans is capitulation to them, everything else is partisan attacks to them.
Or are you upset that Obama has stifled the development of super-awesome invisibility shit like he promised to and omg socialist fascismrhaagjajjahajggrrakl;h
Most of what plays out in the news isn't so critical. The torture debate isn't unimportant, but three years from now the subsecretary and department head positions are going to seem very important and whether or not Gonzalez is slapped on the wrist will be less so.
Mostly 100 days as expected: Some dissapointments (transparency), lots of opposition from the R's to everything, and many small but important improvements that fly under the radar.
Have you seen his voting record? If he's a conservative Democrat, the left wing stretches a ridiculous ways in this country.
EDIT: Which of course, is the real point. You know why the President doesn't agree with the Republicans? Because no one agrees with the Republicans.
I really don't think that qualifies as "being a douche about it." Even if it did, I thought you said he wasn't being bipartisan. Do you think this qualifies as being partisan?
They get the respect due their positions which, if they're going to make such an effort to be complete dickbags, is pretty much a chance to vote for or against. You negotiate with reasonable people, not bawling children.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
But he was a Republican for 43 years...so the original point stands.
He is now!
Helped me discover that Shepard Smith is pretty cool:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OjCzfGm0njM
He caused Conservapundits to go SHITBALLS insane so that even normal people can see it:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oumQl8neO6w
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xbutVhnKu8A
Ahaha, that's perfect.
"Its supposed to taste like a shit taco"
If I extend my hand, you look at it, and turn away, or even SPIT on my hand, I am not the asshole.
He wasn't just gloating.
https://twitter.com/Hooraydiation
Honestly I think it has been an exceptional first 100 days. Characterized by strong leadership, excellent diplomacy abroad, and as positive a response to the economy as possible in these circumstances. His embarrassments have been tiny and insignificant (tax evasion, OK, its bad. But what it really exposes is the absurdity of the US tax system. Every person earning more than $500K probably does it, these guys just didn't check their dodginess well enough)
The republicans have covered themselves with shame and absurdity, hosting ridiculous events and refusing to provide even a modicum of responsible opposition.
or something.
Socialism doesn't mean anything anymore. Socialism is actually polling much better than it used to, I imagine largely thanks to Republicans associating the term with an incredibly popular president.
You know, that's a pretty good argument I haven't really thought about. Gods know USA could use some socialism to clean up the mess it's created for itself.
Polling is a funny thing. Bernanke has seen a significant boost in his approval ratings because he is now part of the Obama administration instead of the Bush administration.
I'm just impressed that the term Socialism has so rapidly been reduced to meaningless. Raising taxes is Socialism, environmental protections are Socialism, health care is Socialism, negotiations with Iran are Socialism, releasing torture memos is Socialism, cutting the rax rate for 95% of tax payers is Socialism, etc. etc.
The word no longer has any meaning, the term has been reduced to one of parody, intentional or otherwise.
Republicans are, at least publicly, automatically rejecting everything Obama since there's no real political benefit to playing nice. If Obama is successful, incumbant Republicans will be able to take credit and it will bolster their campaigns. If Obama is a failure, incumbant Republicans can claim that they tried to fight him but just couldn't pull it out. By agreeing with Obama all they do is alienate their base.
He is upset because what was revealed was bad for republicans. I also don't understand how Czars don't answer to anyone. They are government employees like everyone else in the executive and they answer to the president. If they do a bad job/fuck up they also answer to the wrath of public opinion. And to compare that to "The Soviet" is just mindbogglingly stupid.
Steam 3DS: 1160-9885-2554
https://twitter.com/Hooraydiation
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
There won't be Senate elections for over a year. The Republican base, the people that call Obama a socialist and attend "tea" parties, are paying more attention and want public opposition to Obama. There's plenty of time for them to appeal to the moderates starting in March next year, if it's necessary.