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.
The Republicans in Congress didn't have control of either house for the first two years and only one house the last two years. The Republicans in Congress don't give the impression that we owe an apology to the world for our affluence or power. The Republicans in Congress are not going before the UN and babbling about an offensive video. The Republicans in Congress did not make a priority or push for an expensive health care program at a time when jobs should have been the number one priority.
Very rare is the presidency that that doesn't have to work with the opposite party. The fact of the matter is, the only president since Lyndon Johnson that had control of both houses during his entire presidency was Carter. Poor Bush Sr. didn't have control of either house his entire presidency. The rest of them figured out how to work with the other party, Obama should have too. That's called leadership, which is what we elect presidents for.
.
I left in your bolding.
Quote:
Originally Posted by detwahDJ
Okay, none of this is true. You have been listening to and digesting Fox Media. They are telling you things you want to hear, and so you believe them out-of-hand. You are totally unaware of Romney's fabrications and republican dirty tricks. The cushy Fox cocoon.
You can go ahead and vote republican, helping to turn us into a corporate oligarchy. Hope you feel good about your complicity after that happens!
Good Lord. Let's just take the easy one to prove, Republicans in Congress didn't have control of either house for the first two years: The 111th Congress (2009-2011) had in the house 58 Democrats, 40 Republicans, and 2 Independents while the senate had 257 Democrats and 178 Republicans. Under what theory can you claim that Republicans had control of either house? Seriously, the way it works is the bigger number (Democrats) is the majority and the smaller number is the minority (Republicans). Yes, yes, I have seen the argument that the Democrats didn't have "control" because the senate wasn't filibuster proof but they did manage to get Obamacare pushed on us without a single Republican vote. Easy to prove next point, Very rare is the presidency that that doesn't have to work with the opposite party: Only 16 of our 44 presidents also had the same party in both houses of Congress for their entire term. Okay that is 36%, so the use of the adjective very was probably not correct - but it isn't the norm. Which leads me to this one: The rest of them figured out how to work with the other party, Obama should have too. That is more subjective, but you can not claim that the only 16 presidents were able to accomplish anything because the others didn't compromise with the other party. Part of being a leader is convincing others to follow your lead - Obama didn't do it. Bill Clinton did it, Ronald Reagan did it, as did Dwight Eisenhower.
Just FYI, I get most of my news from newspapers, the radio, and the Internet; I am not a TV fan. So what do you say we leave FOX news out of this?
Bottom line - I want Obama gone. I am an ABO voter.
Good Lord. Let's just take the easy one to prove, Republicans in Congress didn't have control of either house for the first two years: The 111th Congress (2009-2011) had in the house 58 Democrats, 40 Republicans, and 2 Independents while the senate had 257 Democrats and 178 Republicans. Under what theory can you claim that Republicans had control of either house? Seriously, the way it works is the bigger number (Democrats) is the majority and the smaller number is the minority (Republicans). Yes, yes, I have seen the argument that the Democrats didn't have "control" because the senate wasn't filibuster proof but they did manage to get Obamacare pushed on us without a single Republican vote. Easy to prove next point, Very rare is the presidency that that doesn't have to work with the opposite party: Only 16 of our 44 presidents also had the same party in both houses of Congress for their entire term. Okay that is 36%, so the use of the adjective very was probably not correct - but it isn't the norm. Which leads me to this one: The rest of them figured out how to work with the other party, Obama should have too. That is more subjective, but you can not claim that the only 16 presidents were able to accomplish anything because the others didn't compromise with the other party. Part of being a leader is convincing others to follow your lead - Obama didn't do it. Bill Clinton did it, Ronald Reagan did it, as did Dwight Eisenhower.
Just FYI, I get most of my news from newspapers, the radio, and the Internet; I am not a TV fan. So what do you say we leave FOX news out of this?
Bottom line - I want Obama gone. I am an ABO voter.
You made my point about control - that says it all. Dems never had it for 2 years - not even close - as you (and conservative media) attempted to assert.
Fox is the "voice of anti-Obama" and, being the big kahuna, metaphor for "conservative media". Everything you say is right off of their script - wherever you get it from (Ailes, Rove, Limbaugh). Probably has the same authors.
Bottom line is, the republican party is the party of, and conservative media is the voice of, plutocracy for America. Supporting them makes one a plutocrat.
Point two: You don't "figure out" how to work with the people whose stated goal is to destroy you - people who, in that attempt, block measures which they previously supported or even authored. This is not in the news you are reading?
As long as we have a measure of democracy, you can vote for whomever you want, but if we lose it to an oligarchy, don't complain.
It looks like the former governor has a good chance to win the election if you go by the polls. With as much as he has changed positions on various issues I gotta admit this is surprising. I wonder whether the close election is a rebuke of President Obama or a true embracing of Romney?
Some of both, I think. A lot of voters are equally unhappy with the choice they have been given.
But with the polls being so close, it could be equally asked if this election is a final embracing of Obama and a rebuke of Romney's final attempt at becoming the President. This is the last time either will ever run for the job.
The question is, what is behind these basic beliefs with nothing solid to support them - no evidence that we are being "led to destruction" over just the last four years. Let's see, what could be some rationales for a conservative "savior" to come along?
* A gut feeling of some sort.
* Right-wing at all costs.
* Remove the black guy who stole "our" White House.
* Back to simpler times when things were "better" and everybody knew their place.
* Unfettered laissez faire capitalism, zero regulation, serves everyone best.
* Corporations will do what's best for the country.
* The wealthy are "better and wiser" and therefore deserve to rule.
* Government is socialism and the less of it, the better.
* The lower-class vote is destructive.
* Wishful thinking.
* Blind faith in the "white right".
This is uncalled for.
I will remember to disregard your opinion from now on.
The Republicans in Congress didn't have control of either house for the first two years and only one house the last two years. The Republicans in Congress don't give the impression that we owe an apology to the world for our affluence or power. The Republicans in Congress are not going before the UN and babbling about an offensive video. The Republicans in Congress did not make a priority or push for an expensive health care program at a time when jobs should have been the number one priority.
Very rare is the presidency that that doesn't have to work with the opposite party. The fact of the matter is, the only president since Lyndon Johnson that had control of both houses during his entire presidency was Carter. Poor Bush Sr. didn't have control of either house his entire presidency. The rest of them figured out how to work with the other party, Obama should have too. That's called leadership, which is what we elect presidents for.
The Repubs may not have had control in the first two years but they certainly had enough control to exercise 274 filibusters, then when they did have control they voted no on every major piece of legislation,Kinda hard for any one President to effectively govern if half the government is just sitting on its butt having a hissy fit about not winning.
I'll be backing Obama in this election as i perceive him to have much more moral character than the opposition,and even though the economy is slow and not what it could have been its hard for me to put all the blame on one man who seems to have borne the lack of bi partisan governance with aplomb and exceptional character,the negativity and hate thrown his way in his first term i think he's handled with class and dignity. Democrats only had a veto proof majority for 24 working days | Fact Left
It looks like the former governor has a good chance to win the election if you go by the polls. With as much as he has changed positions on various issues I gotta admit this is surprising. I wonder whether the close election is a rebuke of President Obama or a true embracing of Romney?
Overall, a little of both. As for me, I am definitely voting against Obama and FOR Romney. I see Obama as being similar in many ways to Jimmy Carter (although I don't think Obama is as incompetent or as disliked as Carter was). But it's mainly the times were in now, which are rather similar to the late '70s & early '80s with a stagnant economy, tension in the Middle East, and most people believing the country is moving in the wrong direction.
I see Romney as the potential Ronald Reagan of our time: he wants to cut taxes and spending, stimulate the economy through private sector jobs instead of more gov't jobs, and bring America back to being a powerful nation with pride. This is what Reagan did in the 1980s, and I see Romney capable of doing the same now. We need somebody like Romney because the path we're on now will lead us nowhere.
This is uncalled for.
I will remember to disregard your opinion from now on.
What's your beef? Racism has never gone away, and is behind half of today's right-wing Obama-hate. That's my point.
Who says racism no longer exists - except conservative media protecting a sizeable part of its own audience?
Do you believe otherwise?
It looks like the former governor has a good chance to win the election if you go by the polls. With as much as he has changed positions on various issues I gotta admit this is surprising. I wonder whether the close election is a rebuke of President Obama or a true embracing of Romney?
Obama tries to make people scared. Those evil tea party members , those evil bankers, its Bushes fault. its the rich. Obama whole theme is to make you scared of it. If he can divide enough people out and make you scared of his many bogey men he can win.
The Republicans in Congress didn't have control of either house for the first two years and only one house the last two years. The Republicans in Congress don't give the impression that we owe an apology to the world for our affluence or power. The Republicans in Congress are not going before the UN and babbling about an offensive video. The Republicans in Congress did not make a priority or push for an expensive health care program at a time when jobs should have been the number one priority.
Very rare is the presidency that that doesn't have to work with the opposite party. The fact of the matter is, the only president since Lyndon Johnson that had control of both houses during his entire presidency was Carter. Poor Bush Sr. didn't have control of either house his entire presidency. The rest of them figured out how to work with the other party, Obama should have too. That's called leadership, which is what we elect presidents for.
Quote:
Originally Posted by detwahDJ
You made my point about control - that says it all. Dems never had it for 2 years - not even close - as you (and conservative media) attempted to assert.
Fox is the "voice of anti-Obama" and, being the big kahuna, metaphor for "conservative media". Everything you say is right off of their script - wherever you get it from (Ailes, Rove, Limbaugh). Probably has the same authors.
Bottom line is, the republican party is the party of, and conservative media is the voice of, plutocracy for America. Supporting them makes one a plutocrat.
Point two: You don't "figure out" how to work with the people whose stated goal is to destroy you - people who, in that attempt, block measures which they previously supported or even authored. This is not in the news you are reading?
As long as we have a measure of democracy, you can vote for whomever you want, but if we lose it to an oligarchy, don't complain.
Is your reading comprehension really that poor - show me where I said the democrats had control. What I said was the republicans never had control. There is a difference. I did add that they managed to pass Obamacare in that non-fillerbuster proof senate, so obviously they could have done that with other measures if they really wanted to. Since they didn't, I have to belive those job bills weren't as big of a priority as people are claiming now. And yes, a GOOD leader figures out how to work with people who try to block them.
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.
