• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

McConnell invites Obama to GOP lunch; president says no, thanks

Ockham said:
It's too bad Mr. Obama won't meet with our own legislative members. Give his past rhetoric, I can only conclude such economic issues are not relevant to the safety of the United States.
Click to expand...

It's because he has no answers. Community organizers never had to clean up the mess they made.
 
cpwill said:
the speech after the Giffords shooting where he basically told his own base to shut up and sit down. I'd call that one a thumbs up.
Click to expand...

Yeah, thumbs up for him noticing that they all were making asses of themselves.
 
1Perry said:
It's because he has no answers. Community organizers never had to clean up the mess they made.
Click to expand...

I think that's probably the right answer. It's not that he wouldn't meet with them, he just doesn't know how to proceed. The vacation time at Camp David may be a brainstorming session to see what options are available without undoing the last 4 years (1 1/2 years of campaigning and 2 1/2 years as President) of economic policy which has utterly failed.

That's really the rub - how can he run for re-election and win, when his economic policy has utterly failed - and how does he do ANYTHING in the next 16 months without showing his belly to the Republicans? I don't think he can - therefore, his only action can be to try and make sure the whole thing doesn't crash and burn around his ears until he's re-elected; then try something else economically.
 
Objective Voice said:
Towhich the real purpose behind McConnell's GOP Senate luncheon invite:



Why sit down with them when: 1) they're only going to rehash the same bullheaded stance - no tax increases whatsoever; and 2) only to be dictated to which was the real goal for this luncheon.

He's the freakin' President of the United States! Why should he be dictated to even by Congress? I mean, it's funny. One minute Congressional Republicans are demanding that Pres. Obama show leadership. The next, they're trying to gould him into doing what they want him to do and dictate the terms. And once he sits with them, they can say "He's weak! We got him to do what we wanted him to do."

I don't think so. Even I would fall for that trap. Just to re-emphasize where both sides of the negotiations currently stand:



Dems have compromised and agreed to spending cuts. Where's the Reps olive branch in giving up some of their sacred cows?
Click to expand...

If republicans didn't make stuff up, they'd have nothing to say. The wingnuts are now pretending that McConnel wants to negotiate with Obama even though McC stated that he won't negotiate on tax increases
 
sangha said:
If republicans didn't make stuff up, they'd have nothing to say. The wingnuts are now pretending that McConnel wants to negotiate with Obama even though McC stated that he won't negotiate on tax increases
Click to expand...

You can't negotiate unless you're at the table.
 
Ockham said:
It is when Obama will meet with others and has made the claim publically.
Click to expand...

As I've said before "If the conservatives didn't make stuff up, they'd have nothing to say"

Obama has never promised that he would meet whenever and wherever the republicans demanded

Can you cite where the Republican leadership has said the same? No?

Thanks for playing ... we have a nice concession gift for you.
Click to expand...

Can you cite where Obama said he would meet with republicans whenever they demanded it?

I thought not :lol:
 
sangha said:
As I've said before "If the conservatives didn't make stuff up, they'd have nothing to say"

Obama has never promised that he would meet whenever and wherever the republicans demanded
Click to expand...
I've already quoted exactly what Obama stated. Moving the goal posts by changing the qualifiers is intellectually dishonest. No one is claiming Obama promised to meet republicans whenever and wherever they demanded. That's called a "strawman".



sangha said:
Can you cite where Obama said he would meet with republicans whenever they demanded it?

I thought not :lol:
Click to expand...
Strawman. I cited that Obama during the 2008 campaign, identified he would meet with foreign leaders connected even to terrorist organizations (Iran for example), without preconditions. I then stated he would not do the same thing with Congress.

Try to keep up.
 
sangha said:
McConnel has publically stated hat the meeting wasn't for negotiating. He said he wanted to tell POTUS why the repubs won't vote for tax increases. That doesn't require a meeting.

And speaking about not being at the table

Editorial, 7/2: GOP walkout is shortsighted
Click to expand...

And when, in politics, does what they "say" and what they "do" always follow?
 
"I believe that the well-off like me can afford to shoulder higher taxes and reduced benefits. We have a duty to give back to the country that helped us achieve the American Dream, by passing on a healthy economy which ensures that all Americans have the resources and opportunities to pursue their own success."
Click to expand...

Read more: Editorial, 7/2: GOP walkout is shortsighted

Dear Mr. Peterson. I knew some of the good guys were still somewhere in the USA. Mazel Tov.
 
GPS_Flex said:
I’m glad you asked.

The point would be to find a way to avert what will likely be the worst economic disaster in U.S. history if he doesn’t sit down with the Republicans to find some common ground and work out a deal.

The President wants to negotiate with the Taliban for crying out loud, you would think he could handle negotiations with Republicans considering what is at stake. Not this President though.

He has a choice; he can find a way to get a deal done or he can allow the nation to fall into total economic chaos. Obviously he is choosing the latter. My question to you is why?

Why is he choosing the US default/disaster scenario?
Click to expand...

Oh, come now. VP Biden, who was assigned by the President to speak on his behalf during these negotiations, has been in continuous dialog w/the Republican party leadership for well over a month! And all the GOP has managed to agree on is more spending cuts and nothing else.

So, here it is after Cantor walks out of negotiations and the President tells Congress to stop acting like kids and to do their jobs, and public talks both domestically and internationally has heated up warning of the implications of not raising the debt ceiling, only then do we have GOP Senators finally deciding they want to "talk" w/the President. They had their chance to negotiate in good faith, but instead their party comes up with a no tax pledge. Way to keep that door to compromise open. :roll:

GPS_Flex said:
Recess canceled; Senate to work next week on debt


This is ridiculous. The President decides his fundraisers are more important than sticking around to work on this issue after he lambasted congress for not working hard enough on this issue.

In response, the Senate cancels their scheduled holiday recess to deal with this issue and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid schedules the Senate to debate authorization of Libya? Are you friggin kidding me???

I can’t believe these idiots. Standard & Poor is going to drop the U.S. credit rating of AAA to D if it defaults but Harry Reid is scheduling a debate on Libya instead of the debt limit crisis??? Are these morons intentionally trying to destroy America?

The Libya issue is stupid. The President either broke the law a long time ago or he didn’t. It is preposterous of them to think a bill that gives him authorization now (after the fact) is more important than the debt limit crisis.

I just can’t believe the insanity of these idiots.
Click to expand...

You know, I get so tired of hearing people complain about the President not taking a leadership role in these budget talks. It's not the President's job to do these things. That's Congress' responsibility. They're the ones who control the country's purse strings, i.e., appropriations.

Again...process, ladies and gentlemen. Understand it and you'll understand why McConnell's "invite" was bogus.
 
Last edited:
Ockham said:
I've already quoted exactly what Obama stated. Moving the goal posts by changing the qualifiers is intellectually dishonest. No one is claiming Obama promised to meet republicans whenever and wherever they demanded. That's called a "strawman".



Strawman. I cited that Obama during the 2008 campaign, identified he would meet with foreign leaders connected even to terrorist organizations (Iran for example), without preconditions. I then stated he would not do the same thing with Congress.

Try to keep up.
Click to expand...

Well I think that is because obama feels he has so much to learn from these dictators.... on how to rule over his unruley subjects ... Where as those in the house, dare to disagree with the messiah that he invisions himself to be.
 
Objective Voice said:
The GOP had a place at the table - until Cantor and Kyle walked out on negotiations.
Click to expand...

Yep. And that's a tactic, just like Obama not agreeing to meet with McConnell... same thing.
 
Ockham said:
I've already quoted exactly what Obama stated. Moving the goal posts by changing the qualifiers is intellectually dishonest. No one is claiming Obama promised to meet republicans whenever and wherever they demanded. That's called a "strawman".
Click to expand...

Translation: Obama never said he would meet with republicans. He said he would meet with Iran. Claiming that Obama said something he did not in fact say is dishonest,


Strawman. I cited that Obama during the 2008 campaign, identified he would meet with foreign leaders connected even to terrorist organizations (Iran for example), without preconditions. I then stated he would not do the same thing with Congress.
Click to expand...

Translation: Obama never said he would meet with republicans.

Also, the proposewd meeting did have a precondition....McConnell publically stated that the purpose of the meeting was to tell Obama why the repubs would not vote for tax increases. That is not a negotitation.

Try to keep up
 
Objective Voice said:
Oh, come now. VP Biden, who was assigned by the President to speak on his behalf during these negotiations, has been in continuous dialog w/the Republican party leadership for well over a month! And all the GOP has managed to agree on is more spending cuts and nothing else.

So, here it is after Cantor walks out of negotiations and the President tells Congress to stop acting like kids and to do their jobs, and public talks both domestically and internationally has heated up warning of the implications of not raising the debt ceiling, only then do we have GOP Senators finally deciding they want to "talk" w/the President. They had their chance to negotiate in good faith, but instead their party comes up with a no tax pledge. Way to keep that door to compromise open. :roll:



You know, I get so tired of hearing people complain about the President not taking a leadership role in these budget talks. It's not the President's job to do these things. That's Congress' responsibility. They're the ones who control the country's purse strings, i.e., appropriations.

Again...process, ladies and gentlemen. Understand it and you'll understand why McConnell's "invite" was bogus.
Click to expand...

Shhhhhh!!!

The rightwingers are pretending that they don't like it when a politician refuses to meet.
 
Ockham said:
Yep. And that's a tactic, just like Obama not agreeing to meet with McConnell... same thing.
Click to expand...

But partisan that you are, you only complain about the dems.

IOKIYAR

When the repubs do it, it's a "tactic". When Obama does the same thing, it's a "lack of leadership"
 
BDBoop said:
All they'd have to do is say "We've revisited our stance, and we'd like to discuss it with you." But I wouldn't take a meeting either if they just want to lockstep some more. He doesn't have time for that ****. He already KNOWS that ****. So no meeting necessary.
Click to expand...

How dare he not listen to us say that we're not going to compromise with him!
 
cpwill said:
the speech after the Giffords shooting where he basically told his own base to shut up and sit down. I'd call that one a thumbs up.
Click to expand...

Obama; said:
You see, when a tragedy like this strikes, it is part of our nature to demand explanations -- to try to impose some order on the chaos, and make sense out of that which seems senseless. Already we've seen a national conversation commence, not only about the motivations behind these killings, but about everything from the merits of gun safety laws to the adequacy of our mental health systems. Much of this process, of debating what might be done to prevent such tragedies in the future, is an essential ingredient in our exercise of self-government.

But at a time when our discourse has become so sharply polarized -- at a time when we are far too eager to lay the blame for all that ails the world at the feet of those who think differently than we do -- it's important for us to pause for a moment and make sure that we are talking with each other in a way that heals, not a way that wounds.

Scripture tells us that there is evil in the world, and that terrible things happen for reasons that defy human understanding. In the words of Job, "when I looked for light, then came darkness." Bad things happen, and we must guard against simple explanations in the aftermath.
For the truth is that none of us can know exactly what triggered this vicious attack. None of us can know with any certainty what might have stopped those shots from being fired, or what thoughts lurked in the inner recesses of a violent man's mind.
So yes, we must examine all the facts behind this tragedy. We cannot and will not be passive in the face of such violence. We should be willing to challenge old assumptions in order to lessen the prospects of violence in the future.

But what we can't do is use this tragedy as one more occasion to turn on one another. As we discuss these issues, let each of us do so with a good dose of humility. Rather than pointing fingers or assigning blame, let us use this occasion to expand our moral imaginations, to listen to each other more carefully, to sharpen our instincts for empathy, and remind ourselves of all the ways our hopes and dreams are bound together.
Click to expand...

I never heard him tell his base to shut up and sit down. In fact, that was an excellent opportunity for him to show leadership by doing just that. Instead he came out with the above “milk toast” comments.

If he had come out strongly and called on the Democrats to stop it, they probably would have but alas we were left with 6 more months of “Republicans get people killed” chatter from the left.

An example of leadership? Hardly.
 
Last edited:
sangha said:
But partisan that you are, you only complain about the dems.
Click to expand...
Mind changing your "lean" in your profile to "Rabid frothing Progressive"? Thanks.


sangha said:
When the repubs do it, it's a "tactic". When Obama does the same thing, it's a "lack of leadership"
Click to expand...
English must not be your primary language. I clearly stated it's a tactic when both do it.
 
Ockham said:
Mind changing your "lean" in your profile to "Rabid frothing Progressive"? Thanks.


English must not be your primary language. I clearly stated it's a tactic when both do it.
Click to expand...

What's the matter? Your post contains nothing but ad homs. There's absolutely no content. Don't you want to discuss the issue anymore, or are you going to concentrate and discussing me?
 
sangha said:
What's the matter? Your post contains nothing but ad homs. There's absolutely no content. Don't you want to discuss the issue anymore, or are you going to concentrate and discussing me?
Click to expand...

I'm appealing to any sense of honesty you have to test if it's there. Don't tell me, evil GW Bush stole it and I'm not complaining about your loss loud enough - right?
 
Ockham said:
I've already quoted exactly what Obama stated. Moving the goal posts by changing the qualifiers is intellectually dishonest. No one is claiming Obama promised to meet republicans whenever and wherever they demanded. That's called a "strawman".



Strawman. I cited that Obama during the 2008 campaign, identified he would meet with foreign leaders connected even to terrorist organizations (Iran for example), without preconditions. I then stated he would not do the same thing with Congress.

Try to keep up.
Click to expand...

Are you then calling Congress a bunch of domestic terrorist? Or are you saying that the President shouldn't talk to irrational people? Pick your words very carefully, my friend.
 
GPS_Flex said:
I never heard him tell his base to shut up and sit down. In fact, that was an excellent opportunity for him to show leadership by doing just that. Instead he came out with the above “milk toast” comments.

If he had come out strongly and called on the Democrats to stop it, they probably would have but alas we were left with 6 more months of “Republicans get people killed” chatter from the left.

An example of leadership? Hardly.
Click to expand...

Did he not call for civility among both parties during that speech? Yes or no will do.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom