• Obama to GOP: 'Stop just hating all the time'
    99 replies, posted
[QUOTE=cqbcat;45550814]I agree with Obama on this. I may not like him as a president, but the Republicans have just been ridin' his ass since day one. They keep on saying he's exceeding his congressional power. Maybe so, but for Christ's sake, he's not fucking Chancellor Palpatine.[/QUOTE] [IMG]http://thebusinessaim.com.ng/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/obama-satan-history-channel.jpeg[/IMG] Satan on history channels documentary about the life of Jesus.
[QUOTE=OvB;45554869]Both parties are only concerned with politics and the next election at this point. The first four years of a presidency are spent trying for reelection, the four years after that are spent trying to get another party member elected. No one in congress or the administration cares at this point and it's all about winning in 2016. American politics is shit. If you think Republicans are the only ones playing politics you're gravely misguided. This is the most polar government in our history. Everyone says they're willing to compromise so long as the compromise is in their favor and when it falls through they run to their respective bias media outlets and cry about how the other party is destroying the country. [/QUOTE] The only time in the past 6 years that Democrats have really stonewalled Republicans was over the ACA, which was Obama's signature law that he wanted pushed through. Democrats are generally willing to compromise with Republicans over pretty much everything else, as evidenced by them shooting down Feinsteins gun control bill to back a Democrat/Republican compromise. The problem is that Republicans move the line so far to the right that Democrats have to put their foot down then they go on Fox News and say "These goddamn Democrats and this goddamn Obama won't let us get anything done!" [video=youtube;cq7m5ffkibE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cq7m5ffkibE[/video] To Boehner, the de facto figurehead of the modern American republican, compromise means getting 98% of what you want. That's not compromise, and Democrats shouldn't be thrown under the bus along with Republicans for daring to ask for more during negotiations. [QUOTE=OvB;45554869]Throw them all out and start over. We need [I]real[/I] change.[/QUOTE] This isn't fair at all to House Democrats, who pretty much just have to sit there and watch Republicans stall everything. If you just want to vote people out and hope the next group is better, a good start would be voting against everyone who signed this resolution.
[QUOTE=Raidyr;45556758]Economic policy, financial policy, firearms policy, environmental policy, health policy (including the ACA). I'm strugging to think of aspects of his Presidency that weren't matched with compromise.[/QUOTE] The ACA has zero republican votes. They compromised with moderate democrats, not republicans. Do you have an example of a specific policy that Obama compromised on with the support of the democrats in congress? [QUOTE]He has stated multiple times that he wants his legacy to be one of bipartisanship.[/QUOTE] I don't give a crap what any politician says, including democrats and republicans. I only care what they do. [QUOTE]The key difference is that Democrats passing "stupid bills that hurt people" is purely an opinion. Whether or not something is unconstitutional certainly is also an opinion but the only one that matters is the Supreme Court, which time and again has shown that Obama hasn't overstepped his bounds and anyone who looks at historical judicial precedent and Obama's actions has to realize that this latest lawsuit isn't going to work. The attitude that "Well the supreme court hasn't decided yet so any lawsuit Republicans bring is perfectly valid" might work for you, but it certainly doesn't work for people who want to see legislators, you know, legislating.[/QUOTE] To say that something might work for one person, but it doesn't work for another is the definition of an opinion. [QUOTE]Until you provide proof that Obama has overstepped the boundaries of the executive in defense of this lawsuit I'm just going to assume for the record that your answer is yes, it's perfectly okay for Republicans to waste time and taxpayer dollars on frivolous lawsuits because riling up voters and waylaying the legislative and executive processes to snub Obama's second term takes precedent over serving the countries needs as lawmakers.[/QUOTE] I'm not a lawyer and haven't done the research necessary to make that claim, but that doesn't change the fact that I'm not going to answer a question founded on an assumption that I'm not yet fully in agreement with. I don't judge congress on how many bills they pass, but on how much they hurt or help the country. From what I can tell the biggest critique of the house republicans is that they haven't done anything while I would point to a large number of things done by Obama that have in fact been negative on the whole. One being his childish desire to ignore problems until he's forced to face them, including, but not limited to: ISIS, the border issues, etc. It's been shown that he knew about these as up and coming issues before the media made a big deal about them, yet he did nothing.
[QUOTE=Pvt. Martin;45552684]You're wrong. There are independent parties, it's just that those never get elected. It's always been Democrats and Republicans since the first days of America.[/QUOTE] there will probably never be a long-term successful third party in the united states because of the voting system. [video=youtube;s7tWHJfhiyo]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7tWHJfhiyo[/video]
[QUOTE=sgman91;45557120]The ACA has zero republican votes. They compromised with moderate democrats, not republicans.[/QUOTE] Sure but he still compromised when he delayed implementation of the business mandate. Just because Republicans don't like it when he actually does the thing they wanted him to do doesn't mean he didn't do it. [QUOTE=sgman91;45557120]Do you have an example of a specific policy that Obama compromised on with the support of the democrats in congress?[/QUOTE] I listed several, though since Obama didn't go to Democrats about the business mandate delay (that Republicans wanted) I guess you can remove that. [QUOTE=sgman91;45557120]I don't give a crap what any politician says, including democrats and republicans. I only care what they do.[/QUOTE] Fair enough. [QUOTE=sgman91;45557120]To say that something might work for one person, but it doesn't work for another is the definition of an opinion.[/QUOTE] We are talking about whether something is constitutional or not, not what "works for one person but doesn't work for another". [QUOTE=sgman91;45557120]I'm not a lawyer and haven't done the research necessary to make that claim[/QUOTE] Then don't defend Republican's who make that claim if you don't understand it. [QUOTE=sgman91;45557120]I don't judge congress on how many bills they pass, but on how much they hurt or help the country.[/QUOTE] Not passing bills when the country faces problems domestically and internationally is, by definition, hurting the country. I'm not asking them to pass 5 bills a day, I'm asking them not to be useless. Not going to bother replying to the rest of this paragraph as it's just off topic attacks against the President.
[QUOTE=Raidyr;45557235]Sure but he still compromised when he delayed implementation of the business mandate. Just because Republicans don't like it when he actually does the thing they wanted him to do doesn't mean he didn't do it.[/QUOTE] He delayed the mandate because he realized that it would be idiotic to have it in a bad economic climate, not because he wanted to compromise with Republicans. Compromise isn't doing something that both sides agree is good. It's doing something that you disagree with, but are willing to budge on in the interest of doing another thing that you feel is more important. If anything he simply admitted that the democrats were wrong about it. [QUOTE]I listed several, though since Obama didn't go to Democrats about the business mandate delay (that Republicans wanted) I guess you can remove that.[/QUOTE] Vaguely naming an entire area of politics isn't an example. The only specific you gave was the ACA. [QUOTE]We are talking about whether something is constitutional or not, not what "works for one person but doesn't work for another".[/QUOTE] Why did you say it if it isn't what we're talking about? You gave one side of an argument and concluded that it might work for group X, but that it wouldn't work for group Y. [QUOTE]Then don't defend Republican's who make that claim if you don't understand it.[/QUOTE] I think you need to go back and read my posts. Never once did I even mention the Republicans lawsuit. My original response was to critique the idea that Obama actually wants to compromise. [QUOTE]Not passing bills when the country faces problems domestically and internationally is, by definition, hurting the country. I'm not asking them to pass 5 bills a day, I'm asking them not to be useless.[/QUOTE] I'm sure there are plenty of bills that they would love to pass, but those also happen to be the opposite of what Obama and the democrats want to pass.
[QUOTE=BananaFoam;45550984]You clearly have way to much faith in the American people. The party system exists almost solely to allow groups of people to do stupid shit and still get votes essentially on name alone. Most Americans put so little effort into voting that they simply check off "republican" or "democrat" and they are done with it. Americans are too fucking lazy to actually investigate and look at candidates for their personal values and experiences, and the party system exploits this to no end. Don't put that much faith in most Americans. Think of politics as a sport, but a sport with only to teams. Most people side with the team their mom and dad did instead of personally looking for a team they like, because why even make the effort?[/QUOTE] For my first election I went through each candidate and checked them all out and still wound up just voting democrat on everything anyway. Like the party system sucks but let's face it, views tend to align
[QUOTE=sgman91;45557313] I'm sure there are plenty of bills that they would love to pass, but those also happen to be the opposite of what Obama and the democrats want to pass.[/QUOTE] Republicans fighting for bills that Obama disagrees with, Democrats disagree with, and I disagree with would be a perfectly acceptable alternative to frivolous lawsuits that won't go anywhere.
[QUOTE=Raidyr;45557445]Republicans fighting for bills that Obama disagrees with, Democrats disagree with, and I disagree with would be a perfectly acceptable alternative to frivolous lawsuits that won't go anywhere.[/QUOTE] They can do more than one thing at once.
fuck it reelect nixon
[QUOTE]"I've only got a couple of years left. Come on, let's get some work done. Then you can be mad at the next president."[/QUOTE] You've done jackshit for 6 years. Just because you have two more years does not mean you get a free pass on whatever you want. Worthless president. And the lot of you constantly defending him, blaming anyone who disagrees with his ideas/the way he is running (ruining) this country, racist. [editline]1st August 2014[/editline] But you know what, you're going to go down in the history books. The first African American president. Not a bad thing! It's progress. You'll be going down as one of the worst, if not the worst, presidents this country has ever had.
[QUOTE=theseltsamone;45558341]fuck it reelect nixon[/QUOTE] The ironic thing is if Watergate hadn't've happened he would have gone down as a pretty great President. And maybe he'd've done something about those damned hippies.
[QUOTE=sgman91;45557483]They can do more than one thing at once.[/QUOTE] they also choose not to. these past sessions of congress have been the least active and least productive in history. and don't give bullshit about how a republican house bill would fail in the senate; the way you get bills passed and things done is through compromise, and we all know that they haven't even TRIED reasonable, two-sided compromises on important legislation. if you find that last point contentious, give me one recent example of a time the Republican party offered a two-sided compromise on any legislation they tried to forward. i'll also go ahead and define two-sided: legislation where both parties get a decent portion of what they want at a reasonable ratio.
[QUOTE=joes33431;45559939]they also choose not to. these past sessions of congress have been the least active and least productive in history. and don't give bullshit about how a republican house bill would fail in the senate; the way you get bills passed and things done is through compromise, and we all know that they haven't even TRIED reasonable, two-sided compromises on important legislation. if you find that last point contentious, give me one recent example of a time the Republican party offered a two-sided compromise on any legislation they tried to forward. i'll also go ahead and define two-sided: legislation where both parties get a decent portion of what they want at a reasonable ratio.[/QUOTE] Interesting that when the Republicans pass things in the house that proceed to fail (or not even get voted on as Harry Reid usually likes to do) in the Senate it's the Republican's stubbornness to blame, but when the Democrats pass things in the Senate that proceed to fail in the house it's also the Republican's stubbornness to blame.
[QUOTE=Shinycow;45559794]You'll be going down as one of the worst, if not the worst, presidents this country has ever had.[/QUOTE] I honestly don't know how people can say this with a straight face.
[QUOTE=Banned?;45560349]I honestly don't know how people can say this with a straight face.[/QUOTE] People who don't know basic American history.
[QUOTE=sgman91;45560120]Interesting that when the Republicans pass things in the house that proceed to fail (or not even get voted on as Harry Reid usually likes to do) in the Senate it's the Republican's stubbornness to blame, but when the Democrats pass things in the Senate that proceed to fail in the house it's also the Republican's stubbornness to blame.[/QUOTE] yes? because this is the actual situation? because the republican party is unwilling to compromise on [I]any[/I] legislation, theirs or someone else's, and therefore stalling the entire process? because the republican party would [I]never[/I] pass a democratic bill unless it was 100% in line with their party platform? because people continue to elect tea partiers into office whose entire campaign platform is avoiding compromise? can you maybe prove that the GOP has been attempting to realistically compromise on legislation instead of attempting to point out hypocrisy, since attempting to use that to discredit an argument is [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque"]a logical fallacy[/URL]? nevermind the fact that the hypocrisy you try to point out is weak at best, considering that the only thing the republican house has done for the past four years is attempt to repeal the ACA and cry about a laundry list of things that the president has done. they haven't forwarded any meaningful legislation. they haven't done anything for democrats [I]to[/I] compromise on; the few things that they [I]have[/I] tried to do have been extreme and all-or-nothing (e.g. repealing the ACA, poison pill amendments), and when democrats naturally reject these things, the republican party lays back and cries about how the democrats 'aren't willing to compromise' on legislation that was inherently no-compromise to begin with.
[QUOTE=Jamsponge;45551729]I think a young President like Obama really helped demonstrate what 6 years in the world's most stressful job does to you. It was clear enough with Lincoln, but seeing it all in full colour just makes it even more obvious. [img]http://i.imgur.com/cqHTjTv.jpg[/img] [img]http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2013/01/18/article-2264316-17021E92000005DC-286_634x380.jpg[/img][/QUOTE] [i]This kills the president.[/i]
[QUOTE=Pvt. Martin;45552808]Aye, either it's coup and turn America into not America, or take our time and actually try to THINK of a good idea for reform, rather than basing it off other Ideologies like most do, or just stating "I WANT CHANGE".[/QUOTE] You keep writing " I want change " with all-capital letters, throwing in random misspellings and Z's. I'm assuming this is a tactless (and juvenile) attempt to argue that anybody who believes that the United States political system is deeply flawed only thinks so because they don't understand it? If I've misread this situation, then whoopsiedaisy, be on your way, but you're humming a familiar tune. I'm no political science major, but the interactions and composition of the US government have been one of my primary areas of interest for ten years or more now, and I have taken a few college courses on it to boot. I'm not sure what your personal criteria for considering somebody to be qualified enough to speak on a subject and share their opinions without you mocking and patronizing them for their viewpoints are, but I feel pretty comfortable in saying that I have a good grasp of our political system. Even if I didn't, however, you don't have to be a professor of political of science to recognize that there is a problem with our system, and you don't have to have a solution in your back pocket in order to voice your concern over it. You're right in one thing: there are no easy solutions for the problems we face. Massive governmental overhaul is nearly impossible to implement without massive administrative issues during the transitional period. Schools, health services (as bad as they are), military, police, fire stations, trash services, DMV's, and every other major and minor government service that we rely on for our every day lives would be thrown into chaotic states. It'd be a rough time, and it would last for years. BUT, that doesn't mean we don't need change. Perhaps not the sweeping all-at-once change that we probably deserve, but change. Our political system is designed from the ground up to accomplish very little (seriously, it was originally designed to be slow, convoluted, and easily bogged down, designed as it was by people who were terrified of too much power for their recent run-ins with the British crown). The world we live in today can't handle that anymore. We've grown too much, and things are changing more quickly. Our government can't meet our needs any longer, and we need to find more ways to modernize and streamline its processes. How do we do that? That's the million dollar question, right? I'm not sure, sadly. If I were, I'd probably be doing it for a living, so I guess all I can do in the meantime is try to convince people that there is at least a NEED for a solution, even if we don't yet have one. That's what I feel, anyway! Hopefully I can share my opinion without being patronized for it.
[QUOTE=Jamsponge;45551729] [img]http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2013/01/18/article-2264316-17021E92000005DC-286_634x380.jpg[/img][/QUOTE] Looks like someone just boosted the contrast/levels. Of course you're going to see more wrinkles when you do that
The biggest indicator, which isn't shown much there, is how his hair has gone from deep black to nearing white. It does that for every president. The job is so stressful it literally sucks the years out of you.
[QUOTE=lazyguy;45559894]The ironic thing is if Watergate hadn't've happened he would have gone down as a pretty great President. And maybe he'd've done something about those damned hippies.[/QUOTE] Dunno, he sabotaged the peace talks in Vietnam to get elected too.
[QUOTE=Dalndox;45563453]The biggest indicator, which isn't shown much there, is how his hair has gone from deep black to nearing white. It does that for every president. The job is so stressful it literally sucks the years out of you.[/QUOTE] except the average age of a president is also around the same time people go through those aging symptoms normally.
[QUOTE=Pvt. Martin;45550930]After all the shit they pulled the past six years? Hell no. I'm flabbergasted at the thought that you think that Americans would even think "DURR LET'S VOTE STUPID REPUBLICANS INTO OFFIZ" After the shit they've been pulling. C'mon dude, Americans are not fucking idiots willing to vote for uncle white old idiot that cares for anything not colored and shit. Republicans have made the Govt. Shut down, they've stamped on the floor, they've made terrible remarks. The only reason anyone would vote for them, is if they're people who actively are against Liberals. And independent parties will NEVER get into the White House. [editline]31st July 2014[/editline] The ONLY way Republicans can even get considered when voting time comes, is to dump out every single moron spouting slandering gibberish, clean themselves up, and find people who can calmly represent Republican views as maturely as possible, and not with a single hint of "FUK YOU DARKIE"[/QUOTE] You are severely overestimating the political knowledge of the average US citizen.
[QUOTE=joes33431;45561525]because the republican party is unwilling to compromise on [I]any[/I] legislation, theirs or someone else's, and therefore stalling the entire process? because the republican party would [I]never[/I] pass a democratic bill unless it was 100% in line with their party platform?[/QUOTE] Well, the Republicans in the House have currently passed at least 31 Democrat authored bills, but it's too bad that those same bills are sitting in the senate as Harry Reid denies them access to an actual vote. Along with those 31 Democrat authored bills are 164 Republican sponsored bills waiting for the senate as well. ([URL]http://thehill.com/homenews/house/200228-house-dems-to-senate-dems-pass-our-bills[/URL]) "Mr. Reid of Nevada, the majority leader, on Thursday dismissed all proposed Republican amendments to the unemployment extension, even those drafted by Republicans who had handed Democrats a victory on Tuesday by voting to take up the bill. 'We get nowhere with dueling amendments,' Mr. Reid declared. A Republican effort to try to reopen the amendment process failed on a party-line vote, 42 to 54, setting up a showdown next week that is likely to end in the bill’s demise, Democrats conceded." ([url]http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/10/us/politics/reids-uncompromising-power-play-in-senate-rankles-republicans.html?ref=us&_r=1[/url]) There's just a single example of the democrats love of compromise and discussion in the senate. [QUOTE]because people continue to elect tea partiers into office whose entire campaign platform is avoiding compromise?[/QUOTE] Really? I always thought their campaign platform was to shrink government and cut taxes. Show me a democratic bill that includes either of these that the tea partiers wouldn't even negotiate on. [QUOTE]nevermind the fact that the hypocrisy you try to point out is weak at best, considering that the only thing the republican house has done for the past four years is attempt to repeal the ACA and cry about a laundry list of things that the president has done. they haven't forwarded any meaningful legislation. they haven't done anything for democrats [I]to[/I] compromise on; the few things that they [I]have[/I] tried to do have been extreme and all-or-nothing (e.g. repealing the ACA, poison pill amendments), and when democrats naturally reject these things, the republican party lays back and cries about how the democrats 'aren't willing to compromise' on legislation that was inherently no-compromise to begin with.[/QUOTE] Didn't know 164 bills counted as nothing. (not including those that were voted on in the senate) In my book not even allowing discussion on a bill (like the senate does regularly) is must worse than not compromising. There's a difference between what actually happens and what the main stream media covers.
One hundred and sixty four bills practically IS nothing. This congress has accomplished less than any other congressional term since the 1940's.
[QUOTE=confinedUser;45550752][IMG]http://newsbcpcol.stb.s-msn.com/amnews/i/75/99765379fb3b5ee5abfa7bcdb2c2/_h353_w628_m6_otrue_lfalse.jpg[/IMG][/QUOTE] [img]http://i.ytimg.com/vi/DHgLj2rY7QE/hqdefault.jpg[/img]
[QUOTE=Pvt. Martin;45551137]Besides I'd rather think that Americans are more better than "STUPID IDIOTS THAT'LL VOTE FER ANYTHING, MAAAAN I HOPE SOME SHIT HAPPENS SO WE CAN DUMP THIS STUPID POLITICAL SYSTEM FER SOMETHING ELSE. I DUNNO, JUST ANYTHING NOT THE CURRENT ONE"[/QUOTE] You didn't see what happened to Australia. "Oh no a short bout of infighting! Let's just vote the other group and[I] [URL="http://thesauce.co/achievements-of-the-abbott-government/#"]hope it works out[/URL][/I]"
[QUOTE=smurfy;45551538]I think a lot of Americans would agree that the US desperately needs massive political reform. Ideally there should be a constitutional convention tasked with figuring out how to create a political system that won't produce deadlocked governments for half a decade at a time[/QUOTE] it'd be unconstitutional because that's literally how our system is designed. despite being slow to change, the US political system is one of the most historically stable in world history. trends move slowly and there is little extreme change in power, there is effectively always a check and countercheck to every party in power by multiple sides of the state. historically opposing parties control the house and senate, and then each is accountable to the judicial branch and the executive branch is dependent upon both. people don't think our system works because it's not producing the outcomes they desire within the timespan that they desire which is becoming an ever increasing problem in a world that is undergoing massive globalization. (some) americans (the left) are beginning to become more and more educated and desire more european systems which has not happened in any significant form until recently. historically the role of the USSR created a massive wave of american jingoism that kept most of the US to the right, but with their fall we've been seeing a growth in liberal sentiment for a long time. and liberals are young. and the young are impatient. and honestly, the idea that our government is "deadlocked" is bullshit. we've been on a trend for the past half century to fewer and fewer bills being passed, the reason being is that it's been demonstrated that it's more politically effective to focus on several major all encompassing bills - look at 2002, with the passing of BCRA. only 4% of bills that year were enacted. There's currently 9000~ bills on the floor for 2013/2014. it's on track for a 5% pass rate. which, guess what, is has been the average for several decades now. it's not about volume, it's about rates.
[QUOTE=Shinycow;45559794]You've done jackshit for 6 years. Just because you have two more years does not mean you get a free pass on whatever you want. Worthless president. And the lot of you constantly defending him, blaming anyone who disagrees with his ideas/the way he is running (ruining) this country, racist. [editline]1st August 2014[/editline] But you know what, you're going to go down in the history books. The first African American president. Not a bad thing! It's progress. You'll be going down as one of the worst, if not the worst, presidents this country has ever had.[/QUOTE] One of the worst? [I]The[/I] worst? Who are you to talk, because those are the words of someone who never studied American history beyond high school grade level, or didn't give a shit in college. Let me tell you about some of the worst American presidents in history: Andrew Jackson, incredibly racist against Native Americans, spurned them for not forming similar governments, and yet when some of them actually did and showed promise as an independent nation, he snubbed it, and committed a genocide against Native Americans, forcing them west in an event called the Trail of Tears. His office was filled with criminals. No, I mean literal criminals. Several of the people employed were employed not because they actually qualified but because they supported him, and the result was an administration full of morons who were absolutely unqualified to do what they did. Ulysses S. Grant had no idea what he was doing and was elected pretty much entirely due to his military service. He promptly fucked it up and let people he thought were good riddle his administration with corruption. Andrew Johnson became the United States president after the assassination of President Lincoln. During his presidency, in one of the most sensitive periods of American history, he pushed his backwards ass views, hurting the newly freed people. He also resisted Congress attempts to actually get the ball rolling on the whole equality thing and showed favor to the south re-electing it's old and confederate leaders, and the black codes that came with that. He had to be overruled by Congress constantly due to his vetoes and ultimately ended up lowering the power of Presidency as a whole for some time. He delivered a series of speeches in which he couldn't help but respond by harassing hecklers, in behavior unbecoming of the [I]President.[/I] Eventually he became the first United States President to be impeached. So, all that said, you really want to tell me that Obama is potentially the [I]worst[/I] president, or even close to it? [Url=http://whatthefuckhasobamadonesofar.com/]That he's done nothing?[/url] You so sure about that?
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.