When he called on the members to cross the aisle, get along, work together, compromise...30 seconds to a minute or two later he was back to I'll veto, veto, veto.
Classic Obama.
Alloak - that infers that Obama has vetoed bills with some regularity. He has only vetoed 2 bills. Reagan vetoed 78 bills. Yet he was perceived as "the great communicator" and a President who compromised.
Can you explain that?
And let me add to this the fact that the Republicans in the House & Senate have stood against Obama since he was elected regardless of policy. Their agenda since Obama was elected was first to make him a one term president, and of course they failed miserably on that. And just about everything else they fought him on was for the sake and not what was good for the American people. Hell, they even shut the government down. What does that say about the GOP?
Alloak's post smacks of Republican hypocrisy given their history of the last 5 or 6 years and the GOP voiding the business of the American people.
I don't get it. They oppose Obama's policies. As Democrats opposed Bush and Reagans'. Are they supposed to just pass what he asks for despite being in opposition to it? Wasn't the last election fought over the election of a Congress that would or would not carry out Obama's agenda? Don't elections have consequences? Why do you assume the business of the people is to do what Obama wants? Much of the country opposes many of his policies. He was not elected dictator. And what opposition party wouldn't strive to make the president a one termer? Do you think the Democrats planned on Bush being re-elected after the 2000 debacle?
If most of the country oppose Obama's agenda please explain how he was elected twice?
Because the electorate elected him not his agenda.
OriginalGoober doesn't mind when a colored fella plays drums in his favorite band, but having one run the country and make decisions for Americans....now that's where he draws the line!
Nasty and uncalled for. Yet typical.
From the King Of Nasty And Uncalled For. If anyone would know, it would be doughron.
Right. I'm SOOOOOOO nasty. Because I disagree with people and challenge their opinions. How awful. How mean. How cruel. Just as bad as saying someone is ok with a colored drummer but not a colored president. Sure. Whatever you say dude.
I didn't make that remark. I have read your condescending remarks on here long enough to know how your superiority complex has you look down on those who disagree with you.
I don't look down ont hose who disagree with me. I have contempt for people who make personal attacks on those they disagree with and make debates personal. I see a lot of that here. If I am ever guilty of that I regret it. Others seem to revel in it. I am sick and tired of people screaming racism with no cause and no evidence and I am not going to let it pass unremarked.
My comments are no worse than the constant harsh attacks on Obama. Spare me your moral superiority B.S., it's very lame. And out of all my thousands of posts, nastiness is far from typical of me. Next.
No. Your comments accusing people of racism are MUCH worse than ANYTHING written about Obama and if you don't think so you need to take a deep look at yourself and cut out the crap already. Nobody appreciates being falsely accused of racism. In this day and age its an extreme insult. So cut the crap. This is nonsense and if you don't stop it I'm not going to converse with you anymore. False accusations of racism have no place in this forum.
From the guy who accuses people of anti-Semitism when they oppose Israeli policy.
accuse people of anti-semtism when they are anti-semetic. Opposing Israel's policies is not anti-semetic. Spewing lies about Israel and opposing Israel's right to exist is anti-semetic. You don't seem to be able to tell the difference.
quote:
My comments are no worse than the constant harsh attacks on Obama. Spare me your moral superiority B.S., it's very lame. And out of all my thousands of posts, nastiness is far from typical of me. Next.No. Your comments accusing people of racism are MUCH worse than ANYTHING written about Obama and if you don't think so you need to take a deep look at yourself and cut out the crap already. Nobody appreciates being falsely accused of racism. In this day and age its an extreme insult. So cut the crap. This is nonsense and if you don't stop it I'm not going to converse with you anymore. False accusations of racism have no place in this forum.
____________________
Who decides whether they are false? I call it like I see it, and some people wreak of it, not only here, but in all forms of media, and in Washington, IMO. I appreciate your opinion on the matter, but the way I see it, bashing someone for doing what he/she believes is right, simply because you don't agree with it, is downright nasty. My comments are no worse, so maybe it's you that needs to take a look in the mirror and cut the crap. It was nasty when liberals did it to Bush and it's nasty when conservatives do it to Obama. And how ironic that a conservative such as yourself now wants to play the PC sensitivity card. What other words, phrases, and topics should be banned from this public forum?
The only one who ever used the word banned is you. You have no evidence to support your assertions that dislike of Obama is based in racism. It is impossible to defend against the accusation on the standards you set up. It's deeply unfair and if you are going to do that (which is your right) I am not going to discuss anything with you anymore. If you want to talk about the issues that matter lets do that.
I will say this one final time and I will never say it again. Millions of Americans dislike Obama. Millions of Americans dislike Obama for reasons having nothing to do with the color of his skin. Some Americans are racist. You have no evidence that a single person on this board dislikes Obama for reasons to do with the color of his skin whether their dislike is rational or not. It's possible we dislike him because we are radical conservatives and he is a liberal. I am not saying its true but it is certainly more likely to be true than your empty assertion that decent people are racists. Calling us racists is a dirty dirty insult. If you can't see that then we are done discussing anything.
When he called on the members to cross the aisle, get along, work together, compromise...30 seconds to a minute or two later he was back to I'll veto, veto, veto.
Classic Obama.
Alloak - that infers that Obama has vetoed bills with some regularity. He has only vetoed 2 bills. Reagan vetoed 78 bills. Yet he was perceived as "the great communicator" and a President who compromised.
Can you explain that?
Important bi-partisan bills were passed and signed under Reagan. When Congress challenged him he vetoed as is his prerogative. Ultimately, Congress compromised with him and he with them. For example he got the tax cuts he wanted but never got the spending cuts he wanted. But things got done under Reagan. Obama would rather attack and destroy than pass things. That may be true of the Republicans now that they are in the majority but it may not. We will see. If they pass bills that a reasonable opposition president should sign and he vetoes them then it is on him. If they pass pie in the sky with no hope of an override, it's on them. Just about every prior president with an opposition Congress fought with them and tried to one up them but ultimately compromised in a meaningful way. That includes Reagan, Bush I, Clinton and Bush II.
Sorry - regardless of what or how you responded to Billy's post, the fact of the matter is Reagan 78 vetoes versus 2 Obama vetoes. That's a significant difference & undeniable.
First of all Obama hashis first two years with an opposition Congress. He will have many more vetoes before he's done so the compraison doesn't make sense. Second of all, Reid prevented virtually any bill Obama opposed from even being voted on negating the need for vetoes. Finally, context matters. You say it's a significant difference and undeniiable. No it's not. How many of those vetoed bills then went back to Congress and were revised and then signed? Don't you think that matters? What matters is what was accomplished not how many bills the president vetoed. What matters is how many significant bills he signed. Reagan signed many bi-partisan bills. He never had a completely Republican Congress at any time.
quote:
quote:
It sure killed them in the mid-terms, didn't it?Senate Democrats received 20 million more votes than Senate Republicans.
That's the way it goes. A minority is now in control of the Senate of the greatest democracy in history.
How will a representation of the minority of the country do the work of the People?
Excellent spin. Love it. A minority party. Haha.
More taxpayers voted Democrat than voted Republican. That's a fact. I take that to mean the majority of the country is less conservative than our representative government indicates. The system is baked. And is getting more baked everyday.
I should say a majority of the people. A land mass can't have a political viewpoint.
We have a federalized system. Campaigns and races would be run differently if we weren't. For example, if we just went by majorities nationally, Republicans would campaign in and run huge get the vote out efforts in New York and California where there are many many Republicans and independents (just nowhere near a majority of the states voters) Instead, they entirely ignore those states no doubt depressing turnout. The way races are run is based on the fact that we have state by state elections.
Also, while you and liberals complain that gerrymandering has helped the GOP it has also helped the Democrats in the reliably blue states. The Democrats in New York have controlled the districts forever. They are geared to ensure that Republicans in NYC are limited to approximately two districts. If it were based on pure voting turnout without regard to district (and Republican voters had reason to think their votes would count) there would be more Republicans elected. The district argument goes both ways.
The mere fact that overall more people voted Democrat nationally than Republican is perfectly meaningless in terms of where the country is at.
Criticism of Clinton paled in comparison to Bush I.
Um, whut? 😮
Sorry, I typed that wrong. It is backwards of course.
Good to know that someone is reading my posts. 😉
accuse people of anti-semtism when they are anti-semetic. Opposing Israel's policies is not anti-semetic. Spewing lies about Israel and opposing Israel's right to exist is anti-semetic. You don't seem to be able to tell the difference.
You have accused people of anti-semitism when they oppose Israel's policies.
"Spewing lies about Israel and opposing Israel's right to exist is anti-semetic."
The above statement is histrionic and not backed up any examples. Check your debate there Law Boy.
The mere fact that overall more people voted Democrat nationally than Republican is perfectly meaningless in terms of where the country is at.
It isn't meaningless when you are debating what the majority of Americans want.
Also, while you and liberals complain that gerrymandering has helped the GOP it has also helped the Democrats in the reliably blue states. The Democrats in New York have controlled the districts forever. They are geared to ensure that Republicans in NYC are limited to approximately two districts. If it were based on pure voting turnout without regard to district (and Republican voters had reason to think their votes would count) there would be more Republicans elected. The district argument goes both ways.
So that makes it right? Gaming the electoral system is good if both parties do it? That's your solution? Just game the system more and it will all even out?
The only one who ever used the word banned is you. You have no evidence to support your assertions that dislike of Obama is based in racism.
So what? And the bashers have no evidence to support their criticisms of Obama, but that seems to be ok with you. It's my opinion that some of the bashing is based on race. It is my opinion that some people who bash him have a problem with a black person in charge making decisions. If that's too much for you to handle reading, then I don't know what to tell you.
It is impossible to defend against the accusation on the standards you set up. It's deeply unfair and if you are going to do that (which is your right) I am not going to discuss anything with you anymore. If you want to talk about the issues that matter lets do that.
It's not impossible at all. He could simply deny it, which he hasn't done. And I know you don't agree, but it's no more unfair then the baseless bashing and criticism of every single word and action.
I will say this one final time and I will never say it again. Millions of Americans dislike Obama. Millions of Americans dislike Obama for reasons having nothing to do with the color of his skin. Some Americans are racist. You have no evidence that a single person on this board dislikes Obama for reasons to do with the color of his skin whether their dislike is rational or not. It's possible we dislike him because we are radical conservatives and he is a liberal. I am not saying its true but it is certainly more likely to be true than your empty assertion that decent people are racists. Calling us racists is a dirty dirty insult. If you can't see that then we are done discussing anything.
First of all, who is "us"? And how do you know everyone is decent? Because they come on this website? My comment in this thread was about OriginalGoober who never mentions anything political about him, just vicious attacks, which is just as dirty as anything I've said. But I will show some humility, unlike any conservative on this site ever has....I will apologize for singling out a specific person. I can admit that it was wrong, so I apologize to OriginalGoober.
But I will never apologize for the assertion that I believe race plays a role in some conservatives' hatred towards him. I certainly have a right to say that, and there's plenty of proof in my own circle of people in my life to know for a fact that race is a factor in their hatred. Again, if that's too much for you to handle, then I suggest you stop reading, watching TV, going on the internet, watching movies.....heck just stay inside.
Spewing lies about Israel and opposing Israel's right to exist is anti-semetic. You don't seem to be able to tell the difference.
I love this. Spreading lies about Israel is anti-semetic. You imply that if someone spreads a lie about the country of Israel, it means they dislike Jews on some level. But when conservative media insisted Obama is Muslim, a Kenyan citizen, trying to Islamatize the U.S., never took responsibility for Benghazi, and has blood on his hands......that's not anti-semetic. It's just political discussion. Yeah right. Wake up bro. Like I said, I shouldn't have singled out OriginalGoober (more humility unlike any right-wing conservative), but many conservatives hate him because of his race....not all, but many.....in my opinion. You should be able to see that, and allow me the opportunity to state it here on this site without admonishing me.
[Edited on 1/23/2015 by BoytonBrother]
The only one who ever used the word banned is you. You have no evidence to support your assertions that dislike of Obama is based in racism.
So what? And the bashers have no evidence to support their criticisms of Obama, but that seems to be ok with you. It's my opinion that some of the bashing is based on race. It is my opinion that some people who bash him have a problem with a black person in charge making decisions. If that's too much for you to handle reading, then I don't know what to tell you.
It is impossible to defend against the accusation on the standards you set up. It's deeply unfair and if you are going to do that (which is your right) I am not going to discuss anything with you anymore. If you want to talk about the issues that matter lets do that.
It's not impossible at all. He could simply deny it, which he hasn't done. And I know you don't agree, but it's no more unfair then the baseless bashing and criticism of every single word and action.
I will say this one final time and I will never say it again. Millions of Americans dislike Obama. Millions of Americans dislike Obama for reasons having nothing to do with the color of his skin. Some Americans are racist. You have no evidence that a single person on this board dislikes Obama for reasons to do with the color of his skin whether their dislike is rational or not. It's possible we dislike him because we are radical conservatives and he is a liberal. I am not saying its true but it is certainly more likely to be true than your empty assertion that decent people are racists. Calling us racists is a dirty dirty insult. If you can't see that then we are done discussing anything.
First of all, who is "us"? And how do you know everyone is decent? Because they come on this website? My comment in this thread was about OriginalGoober who never mentions anything political about him, just vicious attacks, which is just as dirty as anything I've said. But I will show some humility, unlike any conservative on this site ever has....I will apologize for singling out a specific person. I can admit that it was wrong, so I apologize to OriginalGoober.
But I will never apologize for the assertion that I believe race plays a role in some conservatives' hatred towards him. I certainly have a right to say that, and there's plenty of proof in my own circle of people in my life to know for a fact that race is a factor in their hatred. Again, if that's too much for you to handle, then I suggest you stop reading, watching TV, going on the internet, watching movies.....heck just stay inside.
Your belief that there is NO valid reason to oppose Obama or be harshly critical of him beggars belief.
Spewing lies about Israel and opposing Israel's right to exist is anti-semetic. You don't seem to be able to tell the difference.
I love this. Spreading lies about Israel is anti-semetic. You imply that if someone spreads a lie about the country of Israel, it means they dislike Jews on some level. But when conservative media insisted Obama is Muslim, a Kenyan citizen, trying to Islamatize the U.S., never took responsibility for Benghazi, and has blood on his hands......that's not anti-semetic. It's just political discussion. Yeah right. Wake up bro. Like I said, I shouldn't have singled out OriginalGoober (more humility unlike any right-wing conservative), but many conservatives hate him because of his race....not all, but many.....in my opinion. You should be able to see that, and allow me the opportunity to state it here on this site without admonishing me.
[Edited on 1/23/2015 by BoytonBrother]
Do you see what you do? Do you see how you mixup crazt stuff with legitimate criticism? Saying he is a Muslim (provably false) and trying to Islamisize the United States is not the same as saying he is responsible for the events of Benghazi or even that he has blood on his hands (that's a harsh statement but arguably true just as saying Bush has blood on his hands for Iraq is at least in the realm of legitimate debate and we heard and hear that plenty) So you equate any criticism with Obama's performance with these over the top crazy attacks. Meanwhile Democrat Robert Menendez says the White House statements sound like Iranian talking points. NBC says it sounds like Obama described a world he wants to live in other than the real one we actually live in. Are they racists?
NBC says it sounds like Obama described a world he wants to live in other than the real one we actually live in.
NBC said that? Who on NBC?
Do you expect Oil to stay under $70/bbl indefinitely?
Yes, as long as OPEC tries to undermine shale oil production in the US.
Now that it's low, it's Obama's doing. You can bet when it goes back up it will be due to circumstances beyond his control.
The right blamed him when prices were high. Now that they are low, he has nothing to do with it. OK, got it.
He opposed the very things that brought prices down. He claimed we can't drill our way to lower prices. Now that increased supply has led to lower prices he claims credit. It's not his fault that prices were high. It is certainly not his doing that prices are low. He was not blamed for prices being high. He was criticized for not embracing policies that would lower them.
Gas prices are down in spite of Obama. Home power bills are up, and that's all his doing. Jacking up our power bills is one campaign promise he kept. How does this help the middle class and the poor?
He promised to jack up home utility bills?
The stock market is up so all that wealth is trickling down. Don't you feel it?
Dang, BillyB. You must have masochistic tendencies.
NBC says it sounds like Obama described a world he wants to live in other than the real one we actually live in.
NBC said that? Who on NBC?
Do you actually believe I make this stuff up?
NBC says it sounds like Obama described a world he wants to live in other than the real one we actually live in.
NBC said that? Who on NBC?
Do you actually believe I make this stuff up?
NBC didn't say it. One foreign correspondent who works for NBC said it. There is a big difference there.
NBC says it sounds like Obama described a world he wants to live in other than the real one we actually live in.
NBC said that? Who on NBC?
Do you actually believe I make this stuff up?
NBC didn't say it. One foreign correspondent who works for NBC said it. There is a big difference there.
Oh.
NBC says it sounds like Obama described a world he wants to live in other than the real one we actually live in.
NBC said that? Who on NBC?
Do you actually believe I make this stuff up?
NBC didn't say it. One foreign correspondent who works for NBC said it. There is a big difference there.
Oh.
He said it on the air after the SOTU address. Such distinctions of course only apply to NBC. If a single individual on Fox News says something the entire network is held responsible. Because it is conservative.
NBC says it sounds like Obama described a world he wants to live in other than the real one we actually live in.
NBC said that? Who on NBC?
Do you actually believe I make this stuff up?
NBC didn't say it. One foreign correspondent who works for NBC said it. There is a big difference there.
Oh.
He said it on the air after the SOTU address. Such distinctions of course only apply to NBC. If a single individual on Fox News says something the entire network is held responsible. Because it is conservative.
Really? Generally, if I say something about Fox News, I mention the person who said whatever I was commenting about. However, as I very seldom watch Fox News, I very seldom ever comment on it. But that's OK, Dough, make generalizations about me because you have shown to be so receptive to generalizations about you. Hypocrite.
He said it on the air after the SOTU address. Such distinctions of course only apply to NBC. If a single individual on Fox News says something the entire network is held responsible. Because it is conservative.
And again you elevate the discussion.
Well they said it so I can too.
C'mon man. Be an adult. You knew your statement was disingenuous when you wrote it.
He said it on the air after the SOTU address. Such distinctions of course only apply to NBC. If a single individual on Fox News says something the entire network is held responsible. Because it is conservative.
And again you elevate the discussion.
Well they said it so I can too.
C'mon man. Be an adult. You knew your statement was disingenuous when you wrote it.
You sure you didn't quote the wrong poster by accident?
You gotta give Obama credit though. I had no idea everything was so awesome! The economy is roaring and the world is at peace, so turn the page!
It takes quite an astute man to point out what nobody else has noticed.
One thing is for certain, the country is in much better condition then the incredibly horrible mess it was in when he took office!!!!!
Their agenda since Obama was elected was first to make him a one term president, and of course they failed miserably on that.
Whereas Democrats have always striven to make Republicans two-term Presidents?
Never ever saw anyone from either party come out the day after an election to state that their main goal was to make the newly elected President a one term President. Of course it is each parties goal to make the other party one term after they have won. Just pretty dumb to come out and publicly state it which gave their opposition all they needed to prove all of the obstruction that has occurred between then and now. It backfired though and helped get Obama elected a second time. The Republicans made their intentions far too obvious and have doubled down ever since and that is why their approval rating is at an embarrassingly low of under 10% while Obamas is at right around 50% and slowly rising. The boogyman hasn't been as bad as Republicans promised he would be. Has he been the best President ever??? No, but considering where he started and what he was handed over he has done a pretty decent job in this Independent's view.
Here's an Obama gem from the speech...."We can't put families at risk by taking away their health insurance."
Hello! He already forgot about the millions of cancellations despite people being told they can keep their plans if they like them?
And you ignore the many millions more who have affordable health insurance due to ACA but nice try.
So nobody lost their plan? Is that what you're saying?
I didn't lose mine eeyore. nor did I lose my doctor.
It is almost impossible to find PPO coverage for a small business now (at least in NY) and it is impossible for an individual or family to purchase such a plan. Don't know if it is the way the law is written or underwriting decisions by the insurers but the small business person is being punished. And I think it is cause small businesses can't pay for their employees health plans to the same extent large businesses can
IMO all medical insurance should be unkinked from employment. Give everyone their payroll deductions back and let people go and purchase insurance on their own forcing the greedy insurance companies to compete for each and every customer. That IMO is the only chance of bringing down prices. That and getting the medical industry and what they charge for services and drugs under control because right now they are way out of control.
NBC says it sounds like Obama described a world he wants to live in other than the real one we actually live in.
NBC said that? Who on NBC?
Do you actually believe I make this stuff up?
NBC didn't say it. One foreign correspondent who works for NBC said it. There is a big difference there.
Oh.
He said it on the air after the SOTU address. Such distinctions of course only apply to NBC. If a single individual on Fox News says something the entire network is held responsible. Because it is conservative.
Really? Generally, if I say something about Fox News, I mention the person who said whatever I was commenting about. However, as I very seldom watch Fox News, I very seldom ever comment on it. But that's OK, Dough, make generalizations about me because you have shown to be so receptive to generalizations about you. Hypocrite.
I wasn't referring to you. You know full well that tons of people here refer to "Fox News" like it's some monlolithic entity.
He said it on the air after the SOTU address. Such distinctions of course only apply to NBC. If a single individual on Fox News says something the entire network is held responsible. Because it is conservative.
And again you elevate the discussion.
Well they said it so I can too.
C'mon man. Be an adult. You knew your statement was disingenuous when you wrote it.
Are you actually for real? I made a simple point that there was bi-partisan criticism of Obama and even on NBC news which is normally quite favorable to him. Everyone knows it. Are you seriously trying to spin out of this? My God.
You gotta give Obama credit though. I had no idea everything was so awesome! The economy is roaring and the world is at peace, so turn the page!
It takes quite an astute man to point out what nobody else has noticed.
One thing is for certain, the country is in much better condition then the incredibly horrible mess it was in when he took office!!!!!
Incredibly, we may repeat the same mistake before you know it. I've already heard one very prominent Hawaiian-born politician talking up getting more people into homes they probably can't afford.
Unreal.
The only one who ever used the word banned is you. You have no evidence to support your assertions that dislike of Obama is based in racism.
So what? And the bashers have no evidence to support their criticisms of Obama, but that seems to be ok with you. It's my opinion that some of the bashing is based on race. It is my opinion that some people who bash him have a problem with a black person in charge making decisions. If that's too much for you to handle reading, then I don't know what to tell you.
It is impossible to defend against the accusation on the standards you set up. It's deeply unfair and if you are going to do that (which is your right) I am not going to discuss anything with you anymore. If you want to talk about the issues that matter lets do that.
It's not impossible at all. He could simply deny it, which he hasn't done. And I know you don't agree, but it's no more unfair then the baseless bashing and criticism of every single word and action.
I will say this one final time and I will never say it again. Millions of Americans dislike Obama. Millions of Americans dislike Obama for reasons having nothing to do with the color of his skin. Some Americans are racist. You have no evidence that a single person on this board dislikes Obama for reasons to do with the color of his skin whether their dislike is rational or not. It's possible we dislike him because we are radical conservatives and he is a liberal. I am not saying its true but it is certainly more likely to be true than your empty assertion that decent people are racists. Calling us racists is a dirty dirty insult. If you can't see that then we are done discussing anything.
First of all, who is "us"? And how do you know everyone is decent? Because they come on this website? My comment in this thread was about OriginalGoober who never mentions anything political about him, just vicious attacks, which is just as dirty as anything I've said. But I will show some humility, unlike any conservative on this site ever has....I will apologize for singling out a specific person. I can admit that it was wrong, so I apologize to OriginalGoober.
But I will never apologize for the assertion that I believe race plays a role in some conservatives' hatred towards him. I certainly have a right to say that, and there's plenty of proof in my own circle of people in my life to know for a fact that race is a factor in their hatred. Again, if that's too much for you to handle, then I suggest you stop reading, watching TV, going on the internet, watching movies.....heck just stay inside.
Hey Boyton i accept your apology. Things can get heated around here but my criticisms of Pres. Obama have zero to do with the color of his skin. He is a terrible leader and unfortunately it took over 4 years to figure that out for myself (yes I am admitting I did not vote for Romney). Now we have the disaster called Obamacare which passed in 2010 but "You can keep your doctor" bs was revealed in 2014 and it was too late to do anything about the mistake in the white house. I have concluded he is the worst President in my adulthood (I'm 45) and this is even before he wanted to tax my 529 savings plans to give people who havent saved a penny my money to reward them for being irresponsible while I have sacraficed and have done without to contribute. Thank God Congress told him to keep his socalist hands away from this money.
