|
|
On September 06 2012 16:07 dvorakftw wrote:Show nested quote +On September 06 2012 13:36 Defacer wrote:On September 06 2012 13:34 sunprince wrote:On September 06 2012 09:46 Defacer wrote:On September 06 2012 08:55 sunprince wrote:On September 06 2012 08:43 HowitZer wrote:On September 06 2012 07:28 natrus wrote:On September 06 2012 07:01 Troxle wrote:
Should insurance companies be allowed to deny people coverage? Yes, they are a BUSINESS not a RIGHT. If a company covers you, they are providin' you with money. Insurance is a low risk high profit business, they don't want to go into high risk because then profit decreases. Insurance isn't out to save lives and protect the world, they are doin' what EVERY BUSINESS should do and that means increasin' profits.
This is why I support Nation Healthcare. To me, health is a right and poor people shouldn't have to die because they cant afford insurance (which is way high in America) or an expensive operation. And yes we raise taxes to pay for it. You have a right to manage your health like you have a right to manage your speech. Only when either does not infringe upon the rights of others. You do not have a right to manage your health in a way that hurts others, whether by carrying around infectious diseases instead of getting treated or by skimping on health insurance and leaving taxpayers to foot the bill when something happens. Out of curiosity, where are you on the healthcare debate? Tax payers where already paying for other people's health care (ex. medicaid and emergency services) before the ACA. Do you feel it is better that everyone be forced to pay into system to extend and improve their own care, or do you think that tax payers should still pay for things like medicaid, but the benefits should be capped (ex. voucher system). Generally speaking, my stance on health care is pragmatic. Though as libertarian-leaning I'd prefer to let the free market sort it out, the health care system is one of those cases where there's far too many (expensive) exernalities unless managed by some sort of government system. Since the Congressional Budget Office and related government agencies all project that a single payer system would be cheapest, I'd prefer that over the abomination we currently have under the Medicare/Medicaid entitlement programs (which costs us 23% of our budget and gives us very little in return). We could easily implement a system modelled after the VHA, which outperforms all other sectors of American health care (especially Medicare). Thanks for taking the time to respond, it's nice to get a different, thoughtful perspective. Don't you mean it's nice to hear someone just say what you agree with?
No. I respect the rationale and thought that he put into arriving at his position.
|
On September 06 2012 16:05 Defacer wrote:Show nested quote +On September 06 2012 15:57 MinusPlus wrote:Perspective has an interesting way of twisting things, xDaunt. Considering how you read that article, I think it's more of that "irrational hatred" thing you mentioned back at some forgotten point way back in the thread, but don't quote me on that. Even with just the bits you highlighted -- WITHOUT considering context, I mean, -- we clearly read different things there. Vindicare summed up my feelings as well: While you read the article and look at Obama like an egotistical unilateralist, I look at him as doing what is necessary to bypass the otherwise gridlocked Congress that can't get anything done these days at all. At the cost of some of his own political standing. ...Also, I'm pretty sure that Paul Ryan is more than a little uneasy with having to ride along with that guy. I think that Obama's greatest error was overestimating Boehner's ability to convince the Tea Party Republican's to concede to a compromise.
Two years complete control not enough for Obama? And is it a good plan to make a deal and then come back and demand hundreds of billions more in taxes?
|
On September 06 2012 14:56 xDaunt wrote:Let's have a look at the real President Obama: Show nested quote + An explosive mix of dysfunction, miscommunication, and misunderstandings inside and outside the White House led to the collapse of a historic spending and debt deal that President Obama and House Speaker John Boehner were on the verge of reaching last summer, according to revelations in author Bob Woodward's latest book.
The book, "The Price of Politics," on sale Sept. 11, 2012, shows how close the president and the House speaker were to defying Washington odds and establishing a spending framework that included both new revenues and major changes to long-sacred entitlement programs. For those who don't know, Woodward is one of the most respected journalists in Washington -- in no small part for being one of the guys to bust Nixon in Watergate. Show nested quote + While questions persist about whether any grand bargain reached by the principals could have actually passed in the Tea Party-dominated Congress, Woodward issues a harsh judgment on White House and congressional leaders for failing to act boldly at a moment of crisis. Particular blame falls on the president.
"It was increasingly clear that no one was running Washington. That was trouble for everyone, but especially for Obama," Woodward writes. Ouch. Show nested quote +With the president taking charge, though, Obama found that he had little history with members of Congress to draw on. His administration's early decision to forego bipartisanship for the sake of speed around the stimulus bill was encapsulated by his then-chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel: "We have the votes. F--- 'em," he's quoted in the book as saying. Yep. Exactly what republicans have been complaining about for years. Obama talks compromise but never actually does it. Before this part, you can read some excerpts concerning the debt talks from 2011. It seems that even Biden was unhappy with how Obama was handling the negotiations. It should also be noted that Boehner had problems with his caucus, which we already knew (for the record, I think Boehner is a clown). Show nested quote +Obama's relationship with Democrats wasn't always much better. Woodward recounts an episode early in his presidency when then-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid were hammering out final details of the stimulus bill.
Obama phoned in to deliver a "high-minded message," he writes. Obama went on so long that Pelosi "reached over and pressed the mute button on her phone," so they could continue to work without the president hearing that they weren't paying attention. I find this more hilarious than anything else. However, it does corroborate reports that Obama is incredibly egotistical. Moving on.... Show nested quote +As debt negotiations progressed, Democrats complained of being out of the loop, not knowing where the White House stood on major points. Rep. Chris Van Hollen, D-Md., the ranking Democrat on the House Budget Committee, is described as having a "growing feeling of incredulity" as negotiations meandered.
"The administration didn't seem to have a strategy. It was unbelievable. There didn't seem to be any core principles," Woodward writes in describing Van Hollen's thinking.
Larry Summers, a top economic adviser to Obama who also served as Treasury Secretary under President Clinton, identified a key distinction that he said impacted budget and spending talks.
"Obama doesn't really have the joy of the game. Clinton basically loved negotiating with a bunch of pols, about anything," Summers said. "Whereas, Obama, he really didn't like these guys."
Summers said that Obama's "excessive pragmatism" was a problem. "I don't think anybody has a sense of his deep feelings about things." Summers said. "I don't think anybody has a sense of his deep feelings about people. I don't think people have a sense of his deep feelings around the public philosophy."
Obama and his top aides were at times dismissive of the tea party freshmen in Congress who made the debt limit into a major fight. He told Woodward he had "some sympathy" for Boehner, since "he just can't control the forces in his caucus now."
"You see how crazy these people are. I understand him," the president said.
Boehner was equally harsh in his judgment of the flaws inside the White House.
"The president was trying to get there. But there was nobody steering the ship underneath him," Boehner told Woodward. "They never had their act together. The president, I think, was ill-served by his team. Nobody in charge, no process. I just don't know how the place works. To this day, I can't tell you how the place works. There's no process for making a decision in this White House. There's nobody in charge." This is rather interesting. Of all of Obama's flaws, lack of direction doesn't immediately come to mind. However, when you think about it, he has taken a back seat on a lot of issues, including Libya, the stimulus package, and even Obamacare to a degree. None of this speaks well for his capacity to be a lead dog. As for Summers's comment about Obama not liking the opposition.... Show nested quote + One important moment in the negotiations came when the president scheduled a major address on the nation's long-term debt crisis. A White House staffer thought to invite House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan, R-Wis., along with the other two House Republicans who had served on the Simpson-Bowles debt commission.
The president delivered a blistering address, taking apart the Ryan budget plan as "changing the basic social compact in America." Ryan left the speech "genuinely ripped," Woodward writes, feeling that Obama was engaged in "game-on demagoguery" rather than trying to work with the new Republican majority.
"I can't believe you poisoned the well like that," Ryan told Obama economic adviser Gene Sperling on his way out of the speech.
The president told Woodward that he wasn't aware that Ryan was in the audience, and he called inviting him there "a mistake."
If he had known, Obama told Woodard, "I might have modified some of it so that we would leave more negotiations open, because I do think that they felt like we were trying to embarrass him… We made a mistake." Quite frankly, that particular speech shouldn't have been made regardless of whether Ryan was intentionally invited or not. Demagoguing the opposition like that doesn't foster cooperation. This has been an ongoing problem with Obama and one of the key reasons why it is his fault that he has been unable secure compromises with republicans. Here's the best part.... Show nested quote + Woodward portrays a president who remained a supreme believer in his own powers of persuasion, even as he faltered in efforts to coax congressional leaders in both parties toward compromise. Boehner told Woodward that at one point, when Boehner voiced concern about passing the deal they were working out, the president reached out and touched his forearm.
"John, I've got great confidence in my ability to sway the American people," Boehner quotes the president as having told him.
But after the breakthrough agreement fell apart, Boehner's "Plan B" would ultimately exclude the president from most of the key negotiations. The president was "voted off the island," in Woodward's phrase, even by members of his own party, as congressional leaders patched together an eleventh hour framework to avoid default.
Frustration over the lack of clear White House planning was voiced to Obama's face at one point, with a Democratic congressional staffer taking the extraordinary step of confronting the president in the Oval Office.
With the nation facing the very real possibility of defaulting on its debt for the first time in its history, David Krone, the chief of staff to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, told the president directly that he couldn't simply reject the only option left to Congress.
"It is really disheartening that you, that this White House did not have a Plan B," Krone said, according to Woodward. This is absolutely hilarious. Can you imagine a staffer marching up to Obama and basically telling him that he's so incompetent and such a failed leader that he was going to be cut out of the process? Unbelievable. Anyway, you can bet your ass that Clinton is fully aware of Obama's deficits as a leader (and there have been numerous reports of Clinton saying as such to others). I'm sure that there's a part of him that is disgusted that he has to carry Obama's water. You can read the rest here: http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/bob-woodward-book-debt-deal-collapse-led-pure/story?id=17104635
Nice info! Man can't lead his own team and his own party, let alone a country. It's like he condescends to inform others about his plans and remains mute when he has none. Bumble around enough and even your Congressional support is gonna get tired.
|
On September 06 2012 14:56 xDaunt wrote:Let's have a look at the real President Obama: Show nested quote + An explosive mix of dysfunction, miscommunication, and misunderstandings inside and outside the White House led to the collapse of a historic spending and debt deal that President Obama and House Speaker John Boehner were on the verge of reaching last summer, according to revelations in author Bob Woodward's latest book.
The book, "The Price of Politics," on sale Sept. 11, 2012, shows how close the president and the House speaker were to defying Washington odds and establishing a spending framework that included both new revenues and major changes to long-sacred entitlement programs. For those who don't know, Woodward is one of the most respected journalists in Washington -- in no small part for being one of the guys to bust Nixon in Watergate. Show nested quote + While questions persist about whether any grand bargain reached by the principals could have actually passed in the Tea Party-dominated Congress, Woodward issues a harsh judgment on White House and congressional leaders for failing to act boldly at a moment of crisis. Particular blame falls on the president.
"It was increasingly clear that no one was running Washington. That was trouble for everyone, but especially for Obama," Woodward writes. Ouch. Show nested quote +With the president taking charge, though, Obama found that he had little history with members of Congress to draw on. His administration's early decision to forego bipartisanship for the sake of speed around the stimulus bill was encapsulated by his then-chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel: "We have the votes. F--- 'em," he's quoted in the book as saying. Yep. Exactly what republicans have been complaining about for years. Obama talks compromise but never actually does it. Before this part, you can read some excerpts concerning the debt talks from 2011. It seems that even Biden was unhappy with how Obama was handling the negotiations. It should also be noted that Boehner had problems with his caucus, which we already knew (for the record, I think Boehner is a clown). Show nested quote +Obama's relationship with Democrats wasn't always much better. Woodward recounts an episode early in his presidency when then-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid were hammering out final details of the stimulus bill.
Obama phoned in to deliver a "high-minded message," he writes. Obama went on so long that Pelosi "reached over and pressed the mute button on her phone," so they could continue to work without the president hearing that they weren't paying attention. I find this more hilarious than anything else. However, it does corroborate reports that Obama is incredibly egotistical. Moving on.... Show nested quote +As debt negotiations progressed, Democrats complained of being out of the loop, not knowing where the White House stood on major points. Rep. Chris Van Hollen, D-Md., the ranking Democrat on the House Budget Committee, is described as having a "growing feeling of incredulity" as negotiations meandered.
"The administration didn't seem to have a strategy. It was unbelievable. There didn't seem to be any core principles," Woodward writes in describing Van Hollen's thinking.
Larry Summers, a top economic adviser to Obama who also served as Treasury Secretary under President Clinton, identified a key distinction that he said impacted budget and spending talks.
"Obama doesn't really have the joy of the game. Clinton basically loved negotiating with a bunch of pols, about anything," Summers said. "Whereas, Obama, he really didn't like these guys."
Summers said that Obama's "excessive pragmatism" was a problem. "I don't think anybody has a sense of his deep feelings about things." Summers said. "I don't think anybody has a sense of his deep feelings about people. I don't think people have a sense of his deep feelings around the public philosophy."
Obama and his top aides were at times dismissive of the tea party freshmen in Congress who made the debt limit into a major fight. He told Woodward he had "some sympathy" for Boehner, since "he just can't control the forces in his caucus now."
"You see how crazy these people are. I understand him," the president said.
Boehner was equally harsh in his judgment of the flaws inside the White House.
"The president was trying to get there. But there was nobody steering the ship underneath him," Boehner told Woodward. "They never had their act together. The president, I think, was ill-served by his team. Nobody in charge, no process. I just don't know how the place works. To this day, I can't tell you how the place works. There's no process for making a decision in this White House. There's nobody in charge." This is rather interesting. Of all of Obama's flaws, lack of direction doesn't immediately come to mind. However, when you think about it, he has taken a back seat on a lot of issues, including Libya, the stimulus package, and even Obamacare to a degree. None of this speaks well for his capacity to be a lead dog. As for Summers's comment about Obama not liking the opposition.... Show nested quote + One important moment in the negotiations came when the president scheduled a major address on the nation's long-term debt crisis. A White House staffer thought to invite House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan, R-Wis., along with the other two House Republicans who had served on the Simpson-Bowles debt commission.
The president delivered a blistering address, taking apart the Ryan budget plan as "changing the basic social compact in America." Ryan left the speech "genuinely ripped," Woodward writes, feeling that Obama was engaged in "game-on demagoguery" rather than trying to work with the new Republican majority.
"I can't believe you poisoned the well like that," Ryan told Obama economic adviser Gene Sperling on his way out of the speech.
The president told Woodward that he wasn't aware that Ryan was in the audience, and he called inviting him there "a mistake."
If he had known, Obama told Woodard, "I might have modified some of it so that we would leave more negotiations open, because I do think that they felt like we were trying to embarrass him… We made a mistake." Quite frankly, that particular speech shouldn't have been made regardless of whether Ryan was intentionally invited or not. Demagoguing the opposition like that doesn't foster cooperation. This has been an ongoing problem with Obama and one of the key reasons why it is his fault that he has been unable secure compromises with republicans. Here's the best part.... Show nested quote + Woodward portrays a president who remained a supreme believer in his own powers of persuasion, even as he faltered in efforts to coax congressional leaders in both parties toward compromise. Boehner told Woodward that at one point, when Boehner voiced concern about passing the deal they were working out, the president reached out and touched his forearm.
"John, I've got great confidence in my ability to sway the American people," Boehner quotes the president as having told him.
But after the breakthrough agreement fell apart, Boehner's "Plan B" would ultimately exclude the president from most of the key negotiations. The president was "voted off the island," in Woodward's phrase, even by members of his own party, as congressional leaders patched together an eleventh hour framework to avoid default.
Frustration over the lack of clear White House planning was voiced to Obama's face at one point, with a Democratic congressional staffer taking the extraordinary step of confronting the president in the Oval Office.
With the nation facing the very real possibility of defaulting on its debt for the first time in its history, David Krone, the chief of staff to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, told the president directly that he couldn't simply reject the only option left to Congress.
"It is really disheartening that you, that this White House did not have a Plan B," Krone said, according to Woodward. This is absolutely hilarious. Can you imagine a staffer marching up to Obama and basically telling him that he's so incompetent and such a failed leader that he was going to be cut out of the process? Unbelievable. Anyway, you can bet your ass that Clinton is fully aware of Obama's deficits as a leader (and there have been numerous reports of Clinton saying as such to others). I'm sure that there's a part of him that is disgusted that he has to carry Obama's water. You can read the rest here: http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/bob-woodward-book-debt-deal-collapse-led-pure/story?id=17104635
Nice info! Man can't lead his own team and his own party, let alone a country. It's like he condescends to inform others about his plans and remains mute when he has none. Bumble around enough and even your Congressional support is gonna get tired.
I don't think the whole Republican War on Women thing is going to pan out in the end. It's just deception founded on so little meaningful stuff. Some woman over here can't get her health insurer to cover contraception, a congressman over there is a wacko ... blow it into something its not? Please! Women are smarter than to think contraception is the core fight in this election, and what lies between their legs is the primary reason to vote one way or another. Democrats double down on this like nobody's business but I don't see much coming of it beyond the echo chamber of assent from within the party.
|
On September 06 2012 16:35 dvorakftw wrote:Show nested quote +On September 06 2012 16:05 Defacer wrote:On September 06 2012 15:57 MinusPlus wrote:Perspective has an interesting way of twisting things, xDaunt. Considering how you read that article, I think it's more of that "irrational hatred" thing you mentioned back at some forgotten point way back in the thread, but don't quote me on that. Even with just the bits you highlighted -- WITHOUT considering context, I mean, -- we clearly read different things there. Vindicare summed up my feelings as well: While you read the article and look at Obama like an egotistical unilateralist, I look at him as doing what is necessary to bypass the otherwise gridlocked Congress that can't get anything done these days at all. At the cost of some of his own political standing. ...Also, I'm pretty sure that Paul Ryan is more than a little uneasy with having to ride along with that guy. I think that Obama's greatest error was overestimating Boehner's ability to convince the Tea Party Republican's to concede to a compromise. Two years complete control not enough for Obama? And is it a good plan to make a deal and then come back and demand hundreds of billions more in taxes?
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/12/111th-senate-breaks-one-filibuster-record.php
Over the last two years, Dems broke more filibusters than any Senate in recorded history. In fact the only other Senate that comes close was the last Senate, right after the GOP lost its controlling majority on the Hill.
Perhaps because their majority was so large, Democrats actually had to take fewer steps to break filibusters this Senate than in 2007-2008. In the 111th, Harry Reid filed 136 cloture petitions, down three from the 110th. And according to Senate record keeper, Dems held fewer votes to invoke cloture this Congress than last — 91 compared to 112.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/01/gop-filibuster-record-rep_n_480722.html
The filibuster – tool of obstruction in the U.S. Senate – is alternately blamed and praised for wilting President Barack Obama's ambitious agenda. Some even say it's made the nation ungovernable.
Maybe, maybe not. Obama's term still has three years to run.
More certain, however: Opposition Republicans are using the delaying tactic at a record-setting pace.
That's from 2010, they've since broken that record.
When the GOP is breaking the record for most fillibusters in Senate history, it's no wonder that "Two years of complete control" isn't enough
|
just watched the clinton speech. nicely done, he definitely touched on the topics that most resonate with the public, furthermore he did this without denigrating the republicans too much but rather highlight obama's achievements. good stuff
|
Obama is not that great of a speaker (without a teleprompter) and he stutters quite a lot to be honest. People think he's a good speaker because ANYONE is a good speaker in comparison to George W Bush.
|
An interesting opinion piece by Thomas Geoghegan on Politico:
Thursday in Charlotte, when President Barack Obama looks into the teleprompter, he will no doubt see more opportunity for our children, fairness to the middle class, a brighter future for America — and the gridlock gods will laugh. The House is already lost, in the grip of the GOP. Gerrymandering has seen to that. Any second term is now likely to be derailed. Thanks to redistricting, he must know the fix is in.
Yet no one wants to hear a president whine. He has to help us shake off the sense of paralysis. Give us back a sense there can be government by the people. Instead of fairness to the middle class, here’s what I’d like to hear — something that will set the numbest patriot heart afire — a speech with actions that match its words.
“As we head into November, how many citizens will be on the sidelines, bystanders in this election? I mean all of you who live outside the 10 battleground states, where people are saturated with robocalls and attack ads. But tonight, that’s going to change.
“Because tonight, Vice President Joe Biden and I pledge to instruct all our electors to the Electoral College — in all states that cast their votes for us — to cast them for whomever wins the popular vote nationally. If the vice president and I win the national popular vote, they, of course, will vote for us. If it is Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan, I will direct them to vote for that ticket — even in states the vice president and I have won.
“I ask Mr. Romney to do the same — make the pledge to turn this election back to the people.
“But whether or not he follows, I intend to lead. There will be no more hanging chads or court cases in Ohio or Florida — or the ignominy of having a president who came in second. No matter where you live, you will have a real vote in this election.”
Wait: Let’s stop the tape. Is this really the right time to shut down the Electoral College? To be sure, it would be worse than a scandal if in 2012 the “winner” came in second in the popular vote. With the tea party on one side, Occupy Wall Street on the other, this time you could possibly see mobs in the streets. Let’s say a closing prayer at each convention that nothing like this happens.
But if it doesn’t happen, then maybe the Electoral College is a good thing. Think of it as an unintended check on Citizens United. At least Obama and Biden don’t have to go up against super PACs in 50 states. Only in the 10 that matter. Perhaps enough cash can come in from the other 40 to make a race of it in the 10. If only those 10 are in play, how much money can it take? Even in America, there can be too much of too much, too many commercial interruptions of “The Colbert Report” and ”Wheel of Fortune.” If we can hem in all the super PACs, they may blow each other up.
Yet, for the health of our democracy, the Electoral College is a bigger disaster than ever. In the 10 battleground states, voters keep their phones off the hook while in the other 40, they never ring. Consider that most voters in those 40 will also be on the sidelines of the House elections, which, thanks to gerrymandering, are rigged.
It’s true, unlike super PACs, gerrymandering is an old-time political game. Because it is so old, it’s hard to see how much computers have raised the level of the game. It’s not our Founders’ gerrymandering — now, there is an app for it. There are also more ways to rig as we divide up a growing population — 100 or 300 million in the old game of musical chairs with the same 435 seats.
Just as we could cancel out the presidential election in 40 states, we could cancel the elections in up to 400 congressional districts. One reason that up to 30 seats may actually be in play this year is that California and Iowa have abolished gerrymandering. But let’s start back up the tape again. Here’s what else Obama could say.
“But we need to do more to bring government back to the people and re-consecrate this republic. First, the gerrymandering has to stop. This is the first election since the redrawing of the districts after the census of 2010, and both parties have used state-of-the-art software to fix the elections to Congress in your state. But the Congress — the House — does not belong to the political parties. It belongs to you.
“Tonight, I promise that if elected, I will instruct the attorney general to review every state redistricting that uses political criteria — the voting history or party registration of people in that state. In each case where political criteria is being used, I will instruct him to seek legal relief under any available theory to require the kind of nonpolitical redistricting now only in California and Iowa.
“Such political redistricting is unconstitutional, I am advised, under Article I of the Constitution — which allows states to draw district lines in a neutral manner but gives them no specific authority to control the outcome through gerrymandering. Any power under Article I of the Constitution not specifically delegated to the states is reserved to Congress and the people. The attorney general may sue to strike down any state law which includes an act of gerrymandering that infringes on Washington’s sovereign powers.
“Finally, the Senate must be responsive to the people, too. The expanded use of the filibuster when no floor debate is occurring has paralyzed our county — not just in my presidency but for 30 years. This new type of filibuster, where no one talks, was unknown to the Founders and this country for 200 years. I support the filibuster — but the old-fashioned version, where a senator who blocks an action has the floor to explain why.
“I have no authority over how the Senate conducts its business. But the vice president is also president of the Senate. He has advised me that, without changing the right to conduct the traditional filibuster that is part of this country’s tradition, he will not permit under Senate Rule 22 any silent filibuster — when no senator is actually willing to debate.
“With these three actions, we aim to turn the country back to you. The hysterical campaigning in just two or three states, the gerrymandering, the use of filibusters by senators who will not stand up and explain themselves — all that has led to a gridlock that has paralyzed our country, even as we face challenges in a global economy such as we have never faced before.
“The only way to address these challenges is to call on each of you to take direction of this country. I will do my part. You must do yours — and vote. I ask for your vote tonight. But most of all, I ask you to take a new responsibility for this country.
“By renewing our country, we have a way to renew ourselves. Why not set our hearts afire, with that patriotic idealism that only democracy brings out?”
Except for setting our hearts on fire, each action in this “speech” would be in the president’s sole control. Is it too much change to believe in for a next Obama term?
While i don't agree with all of what he's saying, and I know there's no way in hell we'd see this or any President ever say anything like this I do like the overall sentiment.
Source
|
Canada11261 Posts
On September 06 2012 17:09 ppshchik wrote:
Obama is not that great of a speaker (without a teleprompter) and he stutters quite a lot to be honest. People think he's a good speaker because ANYONE is a good speaker in comparison to George W Bush.
He's also not very good speaker without a microphone because no-one can hear him in the large crowds and the audio pick up on the cameras are terrible :S
Why are we so hung up on teleprompters? Doesn't Romney use one as well for certain speeches? Not all great oraters are adlibbers. He can give a fine speech to a live audience that translates well for tv. Not sure why you would deny that.
|
On September 06 2012 16:35 dvorakftw wrote:Show nested quote +On September 06 2012 16:05 Defacer wrote:On September 06 2012 15:57 MinusPlus wrote:Perspective has an interesting way of twisting things, xDaunt. Considering how you read that article, I think it's more of that "irrational hatred" thing you mentioned back at some forgotten point way back in the thread, but don't quote me on that. Even with just the bits you highlighted -- WITHOUT considering context, I mean, -- we clearly read different things there. Vindicare summed up my feelings as well: While you read the article and look at Obama like an egotistical unilateralist, I look at him as doing what is necessary to bypass the otherwise gridlocked Congress that can't get anything done these days at all. At the cost of some of his own political standing. ...Also, I'm pretty sure that Paul Ryan is more than a little uneasy with having to ride along with that guy. I think that Obama's greatest error was overestimating Boehner's ability to convince the Tea Party Republican's to concede to a compromise. Two years complete control not enough for Obama? And is it a good plan to make a deal and then come back and demand hundreds of billions more in taxes?
There was never a supermajority. This a claim that Romney makes on the campaign trail that has been disproven a long time ago.
The balance at the start of the Congress was 257 - 178, which is a Democratic share of only 59 percent, not 67.
In the Senate, his super-majority lasted seven weeks. The Democrats only had a filibuster-proof majority (including two independents) from the time that Al Franken was finally seated (July 7, 2009) until the point that Teddy Kennedy passed away (August 25, 2009).
|
On September 06 2012 17:09 ppshchik wrote:
Obama is not that great of a speaker (without a teleprompter) and he stutters quite a lot to be honest. People think he's a good speaker because ANYONE is a good speaker in comparison to George W Bush.
Obama is an excellent speaker, better than Romney.
Romney is a better live debater.
|
On September 06 2012 14:44 aksfjh wrote:
After sitting on it for a few hours, there is one thing I really liked in Clinton's speech. He pointed out the explicit, number one goal of the Republican party as stated by the Senate minority leader, to make Obama a 1 term President. The primary goal has never been the deficit, the economy, or even taxes. In fact, their real goal was to make each of those seem even worse than they actually are. I wish Republicans would get nailed harder on that.
Republicans will talk about 8+% unemployment the last three years, but let me tell you it's not so bad.
Republicans will talk about trillion dollar deficits the last four years, but let me tell you it's not so bad.
And if you do think it's bad let me tell you it's all Bush's fault.
|
On September 06 2012 15:27 farvacola wrote:
Excellent cherry picking with that Woodward article, xDaunt. The man is clearly critical of everyone involved, but one would never know that reading your expertly trimmed quotations. Interesting bit nonetheless, I had heard that Cantor disliked Boehner, but not to the degree described.
Cherry-pick : adj. Magic words that make all ugly facts disappear.
|
On September 06 2012 17:17 Defacer wrote:Show nested quote +On September 06 2012 16:35 dvorakftw wrote:On September 06 2012 16:05 Defacer wrote:On September 06 2012 15:57 MinusPlus wrote:Perspective has an interesting way of twisting things, xDaunt. Considering how you read that article, I think it's more of that "irrational hatred" thing you mentioned back at some forgotten point way back in the thread, but don't quote me on that. Even with just the bits you highlighted -- WITHOUT considering context, I mean, -- we clearly read different things there. Vindicare summed up my feelings as well: While you read the article and look at Obama like an egotistical unilateralist, I look at him as doing what is necessary to bypass the otherwise gridlocked Congress that can't get anything done these days at all. At the cost of some of his own political standing. ...Also, I'm pretty sure that Paul Ryan is more than a little uneasy with having to ride along with that guy. I think that Obama's greatest error was overestimating Boehner's ability to convince the Tea Party Republican's to concede to a compromise. Two years complete control not enough for Obama? And is it a good plan to make a deal and then come back and demand hundreds of billions more in taxes? There was never a supermajority. This a claim that Romney makes on the campaign trail that has been disproven a long time ago. The balance at the start of the Congress was 257 - 178, which is a Democratic share of only 59 percent, not 67. In the Senate, his super-majority lasted seven weeks. The Democrats only had a filibuster-proof majority (including two independents) from the time that Al Franken was finally seated (July 7, 2009) until the point that Teddy Kennedy passed away (August 25, 2009).
Democrats needed 2/3rds of the House to overturn a veto in case Obama vetoed his own bill?
And you're doing a terrible job at politics if you can't get Snowe and Collins to go along with you.
|
On September 06 2012 16:48 Danglars wrote:
I don't think the whole Republican War on Women thing is going to pan out in the end. It's just deception founded on so little meaningful stuff. Some woman over here can't get her health insurer to cover contraception, a congressman over there is a wacko ... blow it into something its not? Please! Women are smarter than to think contraception is the core fight in this election, and what lies between their legs is the primary reason to vote one way or another. Democrats double down on this like nobody's business but I don't see much coming of it beyond the echo chamber of assent from within the party.
You start with "It's all lies, just silly words from stupid individuals", but then continue on to suggest that women are smarter than to think that what (or whom) is between their legs is the primary reason to vote one way or another.
The party's official platform is decidedly (at a minimum!) anti-women's rights, anti-gay marriage, casually xenophobic, and pro-censorship, even going as far as attempting to enforce "family-friendly" values on the internet, and willing to amend the Constitution to push that agenda. So, if you're female, gay, an immigrant, or, say, don't subscribe to the philosophy of moral absolutism, among many other things, you should just vote for them anyway because none of those things are things that matter? That's fucking insane, that's what that is. (Source)
Even on here, it's been said before that if the GOP would leave off the social conservatism then a lot more people would find their party a lot more appealing. The fact is, all of those things are a big deal, especially when you're dealing with people at a federal level who want to impose restrictions for things affecting you on a personal level.
(Just to get it out of the way, let's just agree that this post is only criticizing the GOP, and promoting no alternative. Regardless, I won't even feign surprise when someone "counters" by saying how evil Obama is and how the democrats literally steal and eat babies.)
|
On September 06 2012 12:48 dvorakftw wrote:Show nested quote +On September 06 2012 12:35 JinDesu wrote:
I have insurance, and it still wasn't terribly fun waiting about 2 hours for someone to relocate my shoulder. Hours is better than months.
Yeah, I just really, really want to reiterate in this thread that Conservatives should never, ever use Canada as an argument against single-payer. Most Canadians are incredibly satisfied with the awesome healthcare we have. It has it's problems (although none I've ever exerienced personally), but it would be political suicide for any party to even talk about getting rid of it/modifying it. Even allowing private clinics is a major, major controversy that pissed a lot of people off and is still unresolved.
And we have pretty good outcomes for a cheap price, too.
But yeah, please dont quote my country as an argument against public healthcare, because it very, very, very much is an argument for it.
|
OP, please include all candidates with ballot status in at least one state.
|
Wow. That is a pathetic response. Clinton basically called out Romney's campaign for lying and they can't even bring themselves to address it.
I think it's pretty funny that they're still trying to co-opt Clinton as a 'model President'. He spent 50 minutes making it pretty fucking clear he has more respect for Obama's policies and leadership than Romney's.
|
On September 06 2012 19:10 smokeyhoodoo wrote:
OP, please include all candidates with ballot status in at least one state.
I do believe it specifically says that this thread is for Obama versus Romney.
Anyhow, I was supremely glad to hear Clinton's speech. I had been getting that horrible feeling that the current generation of Democrats had forgotten what it was like to stand up for their beliefs and not just cringe and try to damage control everything the Republicans say. And I don't just mean 'go on the attack' but to really explain why they think their side and their ideas are the best for the United States.
I'm hoping that Obama can deliver a strong speech tomorrow and really nail the tone to set him up for a strong run in September and October. I found it amusing that some pundits and whatnot were trying to say how well the Republicans had done and how hard they'd nailed Obama in the time when the Republican convention ended and before the Democratic one began. It'd be kind of like asking a jury to decide a case after they've heard closing arguments from only one side.
As an aside, it really does feel like the Democrats produce the stronger orators. I can bet you that people will probably remember "Bill Clinton gave a great speech" and "Clint Eastwood talked to a chair" a week or so from now.
|
On September 06 2012 19:27 Defacer wrote:Wow. That is a pathetic response. Clinton basically called out Romney's campaign for lying and they can't even bring themselves to address it. I think it's pretty funny that they're still trying to co-opt Clinton as a 'model President'. He spent 50 minutes making it pretty fucking clear he has more respect for Obama's policies and leadership than Romney's.
"GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney's campaign issued a statement after former President Bill Clinton's address to the Democratic National Convention on Tuesday night, saying Clinton "drew a stark contrast between himself and President Obama."
"Bill Clinton worked with Republicans, balanced the budget, and after four years he could say you were better off," Romney campaign spokesman Ryan Williams wrote. "Barack Obama hasn’t worked across the aisle – he’s barely worked with other Democrats – and has the worst economic record of any president in modern history.
"President Clinton’s speech brought the disappointment and failure of President Obama’s time in office clearly into focus,” Williams continued. "
Romney's campaign's response clearly shows that they don't want to attack Clinton. Anyone who listened to Clinton's speech would take away his constant expounding of the fact that Obama inherited a worse economy than he himself did, and that no president could have solved the economy as it is.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
