Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Wed 6 Jul, 2011 09:30 am
@edgarblythe,
Quote:
. How else explain not taking advantage of a solid Dem majority to push through some great legislation.


Well, part of the issue is that the Dems - including Obama - complained for years that the Republicans 'rammed through' legislation that was very partisan, whenever they got a chance. And he specifically campaigned on not doing that - on working together with the other side.

It was a noble idea, but I don't think he really understood just how assholish the Republicans are nowadays. That was his biggest mistake, to me; the idea that compromises could be found through discussion, not force.

Cycloptichorn
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Wed 6 Jul, 2011 11:48 am
@Cycloptichorn,
He needs some of that LBJ muscle between his ears.
0 Replies
 
RABEL222
 
  1  
Reply Wed 6 Jul, 2011 01:56 pm
@edgarblythe,
I sure cant disagree. We havent had a democratic president since carter.
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Wed 6 Jul, 2011 04:24 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
If I ever doubted you were a Democratic hack, this post of yours has set me entirely straight.

Cycloptichorn
 
  2  
Reply Wed 6 Jul, 2011 05:01 pm
@Finn dAbuzz,
Finn dAbuzz wrote:

If I ever doubted you were a Democratic hack, this post of yours has set me entirely straight.


I don't know what you mean by 'hack,' but I stand by what I wrote. And I think that anyone who has been paying attention to both what Obama said as a candidate, and the behavior of the Republican party over the last 3 years, would agree with me.

Cycloptichorn
georgeob1
 
  0  
Reply Fri 8 Jul, 2011 08:17 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Cycloptichorn wrote:

Well, part of the issue is that the Dems - including Obama - complained for years that the Republicans 'rammed through' legislation that was very partisan, whenever they got a chance. And he specifically campaigned on not doing that - on working together with the other side.

It was a noble idea, but I don't think he really understood just how assholish the Republicans are nowadays. That was his biggest mistake, to me; the idea that compromises could be found through discussion, not force.

Cycloptichorn


I think you need to read more American history. There's very little different about contemporary politics compared to what went on 50 or 100 or 200 years ago. Read a little about Republican reactions to the legislation FDR "rammed through" when he took office.

You are peddling theeories that don't comport with the facts.

Moreover I believe the weight of the evidence suggests more that Obama is much better at and more inclined to vague campaign rhetoric than he is at or to the actual work of governing. More of that "leading from behind" stuff as his staffer described it.
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  2  
Reply Fri 8 Jul, 2011 10:15 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Republicans 'rammed through' legislation that was very partisan, whenever they got a chance. And he specifically campaigned on not doing that - on working together with the other side.

It was a noble idea, but I don't think he really understood just how assholish the Republicans are nowadays.

Perhaps, before campaigning on this theme, he should have spent less time demonizing the Clintons and more time talking to them. They could have told him exactly what to expect from the Republicans. This is not rocket science.

I would also observe that this is part of a pattern. Obama is failing to understand a lot of things that should be quite easy for a man of his intelligence to understand. After decades in the reverend Wright's church, he didn't understand that the man was a fruitcake. After eight years of Bush and eight years of Clinton, he didn't understand that the climate between the parties was going to be far from genteel. After the financial crisis, he failed to understand that standard macroeconomics 101 points to an economic policy that's robustly left-wing rather than centrist. Summing up, Obama is continuing a pattern of repressing reality so he can feel good about the people he wants to hang out with.
Finn dAbuzz
 
  3  
Reply Fri 8 Jul, 2011 11:05 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
What I mean is that you are an unwavering Demcoratic partisan as opposed to someone whose ideology is largely shared by Democratic politicians.

Only a true partisan regurgitates nonsense like "Members of my party are too honorable to compete with the members of the other party."

Finn dAbuzz
 
  2  
Reply Fri 8 Jul, 2011 11:30 pm
@Thomas,
Thomas wrote:


I would also observe that this is part of a pattern. Obama is failing to understand a lot of things that should be quite easy for a man of his intelligence to understand. After decades in the reverend Wright's church, he didn't understand that the man was a fruitcake. After eight years of Bush and eight years of Clinton, he didn't understand that the climate between the parties was going to be far from genteel. After the financial crisis, he failed to understand that standard macroeconomics 101 points to an economic policy that's robustly left-wing rather than centrist. Summing up, Obama is continuing a pattern of repressing reality so he can feel good about the people he wants to hang out with.


Rather you have chosen to impose a pattern that is more to your liking on the actions of a man with whom you are enamoured, even if he has disappointed you.

At least you don't seem to have bought the baloney that Obama, in attending Wright's church for twenty years, never happened to be there when he gave one of his racist and inflammatory sermons...not once. Instead you chalk it up to...what?

Naievity?

Cognitive failure?

A remarkable ability to see what is not there or remain blind to what is, because of a pathological desire to like people?

It couldn't possibly be that Obama attended Wright's church because Wright's sermons resonated with him.

It couldn't possibly be that he attended Wright's church so that he could establish some measure of political credibility within the community he sought to organize.

You did, apparently, buy his baloney that he was seeking to bring a new form of governing to Washington, one that eschewed partisanship, demagoguery, and just plain nastiness.

There are numerous examples of partisan, demagogic and just plain nasty Obama, but where are the examples of an initial good faith effort that had to be abandoned because the Republican Ogres just wouldn't let him be a nice guy?

H2O MAN
 
  -3  
Reply Sat 9 Jul, 2011 07:18 am
@Finn dAbuzz,
Finn dAbuzz wrote:

If I ever doubted you were a Democratic hack, this post of yours has set me entirely straight.




Cyclotroll is a liberal hack with leanings toward the Communist party.
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  3  
Reply Sat 9 Jul, 2011 07:28 am
@Finn dAbuzz,
Finn dAbuzz wrote:
Rather you have chosen to impose a pattern that is more to your liking on the actions of a man with whom you are enamoured, even if he has disappointed you.

Rather you have chosen to ascribe a motivation more to your liking to a correspondent you dislike, even though you sense elements of agreement with him on this particular point. Not to worry, Finn, I won't tell anybody.
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  2  
Reply Sat 9 Jul, 2011 08:11 am
It may be up to the Democrats in Congress to lead the president, these days.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  2  
Reply Sat 9 Jul, 2011 09:38 am
@Finn dAbuzz,
Finn dAbuzz wrote:

What I mean is that you are an unwavering Demcoratic partisan as opposed to someone whose ideology is largely shared by Democratic politicians.


Bullshit, but I don't expect anything other than the shallowest of analysis from you.

Quote:
Only a true partisan regurgitates nonsense like "Members of my party are too honorable to compete with the members of the other party."


Well, good thing I didn't say that. Go back and re-read what I wrote. If you even care.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  0  
Reply Sat 9 Jul, 2011 09:44 am
@Thomas,
Thomas wrote:

[I would also observe that this is part of a pattern. Obama is failing to understand a lot of things that should be quite easy for a man of his intelligence to understand. After decades in the reverend Wright's church, he didn't understand that the man was a fruitcake. After eight years of Bush and eight years of Clinton, he didn't understand that the climate between the parties was going to be far from genteel. After the financial crisis, he failed to understand that standard macroeconomics 101 points to an economic policy that's robustly left-wing rather than centrist. Summing up, Obama is continuing a pattern of repressing reality so he can feel good about the people he wants to hang out with.

An interesting, if contrived and unlikely, theory. Virtually the same assumptions culd lead one to conclude he is merely an ambitious faker who is extraordiarily willing to mimic those around him in a quest for personal advancement.

You also make the implicit and incorrect assumption that hard ball pollitics is the exclusive historical domain of Republicans. The readily available facts of our history contradict your assumption.

The Obamacare legislation was also "rammed through" with virtually no Republican support. It appears to me that your ability to discriminate prejudice from logic has been a casualty of your political conversion.
Thomas
 
  2  
Reply Sat 9 Jul, 2011 09:55 am
@georgeob1,
georgeob1 wrote:
It appears to me that your ability to discriminate prejudice from logic has been a casualty of your political conversion.

What political conversion? I have been an Obama-skeptic ever since he announced his candidacy. Check the earlier pages of Sozobe's "Obama 2008?" thread if you don't believe me.
joefromchicago
 
  2  
Reply Sat 9 Jul, 2011 09:56 am
@Thomas,
Thomas wrote:
Summing up, Obama is continuing a pattern of repressing reality so he can feel good about the people he wants to hang out with.

Nicely put.
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  4  
Reply Sat 9 Jul, 2011 09:58 am
@georgeob1,
georgeob1 wrote:
The Obamacare legislation was also "rammed through" with virtually no Republican support.

You know how I know you weren't paying attention to the health care debate?
georgeob1
 
  0  
Reply Sat 9 Jul, 2011 10:20 am
@joefromchicago,
A couple of Senators does not constitute a bi partisan bill.
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  -1  
Reply Sat 9 Jul, 2011 10:22 am
@Thomas,
Thomas wrote:

georgeob1 wrote:
It appears to me that your ability to discriminate prejudice from logic has been a casualty of your political conversion.

What political conversion? I have been an Obama-skeptic ever since he announced his candidacy. Check the earlier pages of Sozobe's "Obama 2008?" thread if you don't believe me.

Your very contrived "analysis" above does not suggest any skepticism. On the contrary a rather slavish inclination to rationalize.
Thomas
 
  2  
Reply Sat 9 Jul, 2011 10:35 am
@georgeob1,
georgeob1 wrote:
Your very contrived "analysis" above does not suggest any skepticism. On the contrary a rather slavish inclination to rationalize.

Well, I'm glad you got this off your chest. Are you feeling better now?
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND - Discussion by Foxfyre
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
Fellow Bostonians: How many of us wished we had an assault weapon last night? - Question by maxdancona
What should be first on the agenda of the winner in November? - Discussion by Frank Apisa
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
  1. Forums
  2. » The President is Missing
  3. » Page 26
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.48 seconds on 12/21/2024 at 06:26:56
▲ ▼