Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
If he had said that I would not have even commented. Again, here is what he said.
"They've been throwing this at the Democrats, saying we put two proposals on the table to replace the sequester," Amash told the gathering of 75-plus constituents at Gaines Township Hall. "No, we haven't."
They did put two proposals on the table to replace the sequester. Those are the facts. He might believe, and perhaps even rightfully so that they were poor attempts but all the same the basic facts are true.
An empty plate was put on the dinner table. How can anyone eat? Like I said, you missed the lack of substance in the bills. That is what he was referring to.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pknopp
The simply truth and facts are always the best position for a politician to take. Why they say things like Amash said leaves me scratching my head especially coming from someone I might otherwise agree with. When you start off with a statement that is not factual it muddy's everything else you have to say.
Because nothing was in the bills, which is what he was pointing out.
"If you take the first year of cuts and spread it out over five years, you are increasing spending, because the current Congress can only control what happens now," Amash said. "I can't control, and neither can anyone else in Congress, what happens three, four, five years from now."
An empty plate was put on the dinner table. How can anyone eat? Like I said, you missed the lack of substance in the bills. That is what he was referring to.
Then be honest and simply say that they were bills he could not support. I can't understand why we should have to discern what politicians are actually saying. Why is it that they can not simply say what they mean?
Is it because they know that many will defend them no matter what they say?
Quote:
Because nothing was in the bills, which is what he was pointing out.
It was not a blank bill. Please, just be honest with what you want to say here.
President Barack Obama’s greatest adversary in the latest budget battle isn’t the Republican leadership in Congress — it’s his confidence in his own ability to force a win. He has been so certain of his campaign skills that he didn’t open a line of communication with House Speaker John Boehner and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell until Thursday, a week before the spending ax hits. And when they did finally hear from Obama, the calls were perfunctory, with no request to step up negotiations or invitations to the White House.
I've been saying for 4+ years that Barack Obama is a lightweight devoid of any leadership skills or ability. Indeed, he's spent his entire life bringing up the rear of the pack. Never once has he been the person to step up to the front and provide guidance or leadership. This was evident in his plethora of "present" votes in the Illinois Senate, and it's been abundantly clear as President as well.
I wonder why liberals have avoided asking why he's such a pansy? Are they truly so apathetic that such a leadership void is A-OK as long as there's a Democrat in the Oval Office?
Barack Obama is so ideologically entrenched that he sees compromise as too much work and, frankly, a personal failure. He does not know what it means to rise above it all for the sake of getting something done.
I've been saying for 4+ years that Barack Obama is a lightweight devoid of any leadership skills or ability. Indeed, he's spent his entire life bringing up the rear of the pack. Never once has he been the person to step up to the front and provide guidance or leadership. This was evident in his plethora of "present" votes in the Illinois Senate, and it's been abundantly clear as President as well.
I wonder why liberals have avoided asking why he's such a pansy? Are they truly so apathetic that such a leadership void is A-OK as long as there's a Democrat in the Oval Office?
Barack Obama is so ideologically entrenched that he sees compromise as too much work and, frankly, a personal failure. He does not know what it means to rise above it all for the sake of getting something done.
No one would listen to the rational in politics.
Ron and Rand Paul said this would happen, way before Repubs and demos agreed to this, if they didn't come up with a way out.
I've been saying for 4+ years that Barack Obama is a lightweight devoid of any leadership skills or ability. Indeed, he's spent his entire life bringing up the rear of the pack. Never once has he been the person to step up to the front and provide guidance or leadership. This was evident in his plethora of "present" votes in the Illinois Senate, and it's been abundantly clear as President as well.
I wonder why liberals have avoided asking why he's such a pansy? Are they truly so apathetic that such a leadership void is A-OK as long as there's a Democrat in the Oval Office?
Barack Obama is so ideologically entrenched that he sees compromise as too much work and, frankly, a personal failure. He does not know what it means to rise above it all for the sake of getting something done.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
well said
