• 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

sangha said:
Rightwing Logic:

rightwingers criticizing rightwingers = leadership
leftwingers criticizing leftwingers = not leadership

IOKIYAR
Click to expand...

Still working on an example of Obama leadership? I know it was a tough homework assignment but I really expected a few more examples than have been provided.

It isn’t looking good for “The One”, even among his supporters.
 
GPS_Flex said:
Still working on an example of Obama leadership? I know it was a tough homework assignment but I really expected a few more examples than have been provided.

It isn’t looking good for “The One”, even among his supporters.
Click to expand...

I know, I know

It's only leadership when a republican does it
 
GPS_Flex said:
Second, this problem was created by Republicans and Democrats alike.
Click to expand...

Don't tell some people on this board. They think Republicans sat on the side while Democrats sat in the Senate chamber smoking cigars and trying to figure out how we could become part of China.
 
sangha said:
I know, I know

It's only leadership when a republican does it
Click to expand...

I’m not a Republican. In fact, I have almost as much disdain for John Boehner as I do for Obama but this thread is about the President and the Senate, not crybaby Boehner so you’ll have to wait to see me grill him.

Did you give up on your search?
 
rocket88 said:
Don't tell some people on this board. They think Republicans sat on the side while Democrats sat in the Senate chamber smoking cigars and trying to figure out how we could become part of China.
Click to expand...

Yes and some people think the Republican President spent us into this by going to war but do their best to ignore the current administrations new and continued war’s. This is what is most wrong with America. Too many people refuse to think for themselves and rely on partisan talking points to dictate what they think and feel. See my signature.
 
OH...you mean like he did on Health Care?


sangha said:
Good post, but I have to add that Obama is fool for playing the republicans game. If he wasn't such coward, he woujld demand an up and down vote on raising the ceiling, with no conditions.
Click to expand...
 
Why didn't Bammy and his minions want an up or down on Health Care?

They didn't.....so instead they snuck it through "procedurally"......they were worried about their OWN would vote on it.




sangha said:
I don't understand the point you're trying to make. COuld you explain?
Click to expand...
 
Amazed said:
Why didn't Bammy and his minions want an up or down on Health Care?

They didn't.....so instead they snuck it through "procedurally"......they were worried about their OWN would vote on it.
Click to expand...

I still don't understand. Congress always pass bills "procedurally" (there's a process, and the law requires they follow it). I'm not trying to snarky or semantic, but I don't understand what 'snuck it through "procedurally"' refers to.
 
My mistake, I was thinking of Pelosi's "Deem and Pass" strategy.


sangha said:
I still don't understand. Congress always pass bills "procedurally" (there's a process, and the law requires they follow it). I'm not trying to snarky or semantic, but I don't understand what 'snuck it through "procedurally"' refers to.
Click to expand...
 
sangha said:
I still don't understand. Congress always pass bills "procedurally" (there's a process, and the law requires they follow it). I'm not trying to snarky or semantic, but I don't understand what 'snuck it through "procedurally"' refers to.
Click to expand...

Remember when Massachusetts Senator Scott Brown was elected to the Late Ted Kennedy seat? That changed the balance of power in the Senate and Democrats no longer had a filibuster proof majority.

The Constitution requires that any changes made to a bill by either house require a new vote and passage by the other house. Democrats sidestepped this requirement using a procedure known as “Deem and Pass” where they didn’t vote on the revised bill, they just deemed that it was passed.
 
Amazed said:
My mistake, I was thinking of Pelosi's "Deem and Pass" strategy.
Click to expand...

Ahhh! Now I see

FYI, I don't think the "up and down vote" argument holds much water as a concept. However, since republicans have made the argument in the past, I think it would be a smart political move for Obama to turn it around against them
 
GPS_Flex said:
Remember when Massachusetts Senator Scott Brown was elected to the Late Ted Kennedy seat? That changed the balance of power in the Senate and Democrats no longer had a filibuster proof majority.

The Constitution requires that any changes made to a bill by either house require a new vote and passage by the other house. Democrats sidestepped this requirement using a procedure known as “Deem and Pass” where they didn’t vote on the revised bill, they just deemed that it was passed.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the explanation, but that makes the HCR bill a different issue, doesn't it? Deem and pass has nothing to do with raising the debt ceiling, right?

Or am I missing something?
 
sangha said:
Thanks for the explanation, but that makes the HCR bill a different issue, doesn't it? Deem and pass has nothing to do with raising the debt ceiling, right?

Or am I missing something?
Click to expand...

I was only trying to clarify what Amazed was referring to. I don't think it is the same thing but I did start another breaking news thread that is related to such procedural shenanigans.
 
GPS_Flex said:
I was only trying to clarify what Amazed was referring to. I don't think it is the same thing but I did start another breaking news thread that is related to such procedural shenanigans.
Click to expand...

Thanks, and for the record, I think the "up and down vote" argument is BS. I proposed it, not because it makes sense, but because it might work.
 
GPS_Flex said:
I wasn’t trying to prove he didn’t follow the budgetary process, I was simply proving that you didn’t know what you were talking about when you claimed it wasn’t the president’s job to take a leadership role in the budget process.
Click to expand...

And it is my position that you are still wrong. Yes, the President is to submit his budget at the appropriate timeframe by law and he has done that. However, it is up to Congress to agree to the appropriations (Art. 1, Sec. 9, clause 6, "No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law."). As such, it is their job to figure out exactly how the money under the President's budget proposal is to be spent. If they disagree with the President's budget proposal, they can come up with their own budget(s) (One from the House which is then merged with that of the Senate). Either way, it is Congress' job to figure out exactly how the money is to be spent. When they become deadlocked, it then becomes a matter where the Executive Office gets involved. Towhich, the President sent the Vice President to act in his stead. Nothing wrong with that.

All this talk about the President not showing "leadership" is just a ploy to get him involved in every detail of governance no matter how big or how small. If he's not giving a press conference on this issue or that one when the GOP insists he should, all he's done is fall right into their hands to find something to hold against him. Notice how no matter what he says there's always something someone within the GOP is critical about. Granted, it happens no matter what party is the incumbant in the White House, but this purposeful political attempt to trip him up at every turn has gotten old. It's beyond time for Congress to do its job, most of all the Republicans in Congress.
 
Objective Voice said:
And it is my position that you are still wrong. Yes, the President is to submit his budget at the appropriate timeframe by law and he has done that. However, it is up to Congress to agree to the appropriations (Art. 1, Sec. 9, clause 6, "No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law."). As such, it is their job to figure out exactly how the money under the President's budget proposal is to be spent. If they disagree with the President's budget proposal, they can come up with their own budget(s) (One from the House which is then merged with that of the Senate). Either way, it is Congress' job to figure out exactly how the money is to be spent. When they become deadlocked, it then becomes a matter where the Executive Office gets involved. Towhich, the President sent the Vice President to act in his stead. Nothing wrong with that.

All this talk about the President not showing "leadership" is just a ploy to get him involved in every detail of governance no matter how big or how small. If he's not giving a press conference on this issue or that one when the GOP insists he should, all he's done is fall right into their hands to find something to hold against him. Notice how no matter what he says there's always something someone within the GOP is critical about. Granted, it happens no matter what party is the incumbant in the White House, but this purposeful political attempt to trip him up at every turn has gotten old. It's beyond time for Congress to do its job, most of all the Republicans in Congress.
Click to expand...

Um, ok. I think they all suck and should all be thrown out of office, Republicans and Democrats alike. Some, like Obama however, are especially reprehensible because they always blame everyone else for their failures to lead and then act like they are the best thing to come along since sliced bread.

As long as Obama plays the “it’s not me, it’s them and Bush” game while trying to convince us he is a great leader, I’ll continue to cap on him.

I asked for a simple example of his leadership and got two examples. The only one that would have been a real example of leadership came from a conservative who was mistaken about what Obama did.

If you think this whole mess is the Republican's fault, I have no choice but to consider you a total homer and view your responses in that light. Try thinking outside the homer box for a change, it can be quite enlightening.
 
Last edited:
sangha said:
Good post, but I have to add that Obama is fool for playing the republicans game. If he wasn't such coward, he woujld demand an up and down vote on raising the ceiling, with no conditions.
Click to expand...

A coward? Really? I think you must know a different definition than the one in the dictionary.
 
GPS_Flex said:
Um, ok. I think they all suck and should all be thrown out of office, Republicans and Democrats alike. Some, like Obama however, are especially reprehensible because they always blame everyone else for their failures to lead and then act like they are the best thing to come along since sliced bread.

As long as Obama plays the “it’s not me, it’s them and Bush” game while trying to convince us he is a great leader, I’ll continue to cap on him.

I asked for a simple example of his leadership and got two examples. The only one that would have been a real example of leadership came from a conservative who was mistaken about what Obama did.

If you think this whole mess is the Republican's fault, I have no choice but to consider you a total homer and view your responses in that light. Try thinking outside the homer box for a change, it can be quite enlightening.
Click to expand...

I think you started great in recognizing that both parties deserve to be kicked out of office. Why did you ruin it by insinuating that Obama is any different (in quantity or quality) than any other politician.

And there's no point in giving you any examples of "leadership" because you just deny it. You still haven't explained why Obama's calling out of the "professional left" is not "leadership"
 
sangha said:
I'm surprised that you would resort to a personal attack merely because you disagree with me.
Click to expand...

If you perceive that as a personal attack, report me. It was nothing of the sort.
 
You said
I think you must know a different definition than the one in the dictionary.
Click to expand...

That statement was about me (personal) and was definitely not meant to flatter (attack)

If you think that Obama is a "brave" politician, then make your case.

If you think Obama has shown any bravery on this issue, make your case
 
Last edited:
sangha said:
You said

That statement was about me (personal) and was definitely not meant to flatter (attack)

If you think that Obama is a "brave" politician, then make your case.

If you think Obama has shown any bravery on this issue, make your case
Click to expand...

How much of a case do you need made? He repealed DADT, he got bin Laden, - oh. This issue requires 'bravery'? I think he's doing what needs to be done. Just because he's not taking the same path you would, it doesn't necessarily follow that he's a coward.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom