• 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

I asked for a simple example of his leadership and got two examples.

1) His decision to not release the torture photos even though he had promised to release them and even though a majority of dems wanted him to release the photos

2) His decision to bail the auto industry despite the huge opposition to it

3) He did a bang up job of making sure that nearly all of the banksters suffered no criminal penalties for their crimes

4) He supports cuts to SS even though most dems strongly oppose them

5) He supports charter schools even though unions oppose them

I'll wait for you rejection of all of those as examples of leadership.
 
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 He repealed DADT, he got bin Laden, - oh.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.

Congress repealed DADT. Obama refused to use his power to stop the expulstion of gays in the military

Ordering the military to get OBL is not brave. Anyone would have done the same thing

I am not calling him a coward because he disagrees with me. I am calling him a coward because he refuses to fight the GOP
 
Congress repealed DADT. Obama refused to use his power to stop the expulstion of gays in the military

Ordering the military to get OBL is not brave. Anyone would have done the same thing

I am not calling him a coward because he disagrees with me. I am calling him a coward because he refuses to fight the GOP

Okay. I disagree, and I'm perfectly sure that's an okay thing.
 
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.

Obama is the most powerful politician in the world and he is usurping more power in pretty much every situation where he can’t get things done in congress by using federal branches of government to legislate law. He is very different because he has no respect for the Constitution of the United States or the rule of law. That is why I view him so differently than the other dirt bags.

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"

Obama himself didn’t do anything in the example you gave. Presidents don’t lead through their press secretaries. Besides, the press secretary was simply snapping back at those on the left who were being critical of the President.

Look, I feel so bad for you that I’ll give you an example of when Obama showed some real leadership. When Obama worked out a deal with republicans to extend the Bush era tax cuts, it was an example of real leadership. He believed he had to do it and knew he was going to take a lot of heat from both parties but he took control of the situation and basically went over the heads of Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid to get a deal done that he knew he needed to get done.
 
Obama is the most powerful politician in the world and he is usurping more power in pretty much every situation where he can’t get things done in congress by using federal branches of government to legislate law. He is very different because he has no respect for the Constitution of the United States or the rule of law. That is why I view him so differently than the other dirt bags.

IMO, that's what makes him the same as all the other dirt bags. I don't believe the other dirt bags respect the Consitution or the rule of law.



Obama himself didn’t do anything in the example you gave. Presidents don’t lead through their press secretaries. Besides, the press secretary was simply snapping back at those on the left who were being critical of the President.

Look, I feel so bad for you that I’ll give you an example of when Obama showed some real leadership. When Obama worked out a deal with republicans to extend the Bush era tax cuts, it was an example of real leadership. He believed he had to do it and knew he was going to take a lot of heat from both parties but he took control of the situation and basically went over the heads of Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid to get a deal done that he knew he needed to get done.

And the same can be said of his decision to not release the torture photos, his going up against teachers unions, his support for cutting SS, and his allowing most of the banksters go unpunished even though the vast majority of americans (of both parties) think they should be jailed (or worse)
 
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.

You see, we're right back at diversion and deflection. Not once in this entire thread have I say that President Obama is still blaming GWB for the problems in the economy. My rebuttal towards you was the issue of process, how each branch of government is to proceed in the political process of governance. It is you who is now trying to turn the debate into something it's not.

As far as your contention w/Pres. Obama, I'll say it yet again...STOP LISTENING TO THE TALKING HEADS AND READ A BOOK!!! If you really want to know the full details of what Pres. Obama has done and why he's done them, all you really need to take the initiative to learn the truths of the aforementioned matters for yourself. The three literary sources I'd recommend (sorry if I'm repeating myself here):

The Promise, by Jonathan Alter - outlines Obama's first 18 months in office

Obama's Wars, by Bob Woodward - details Obama's decision making process leading to his handling of the War on Terror in Afghanistan

Too Big to Fail, by Andrew Ross Sorkin - outlines in full detail the banking crisis

Read, get informed, learn for yourself what's really going on in this country beyond Main Street.
 
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?

Actually, the thread is about how the President turned down a lunch invitation by Sen. McConnell and Republican Senator's. You've just managed to turn the discussion in several different directions long after being told why it was proper for him to politely turn them down.
 
1) His decision to not release the torture photos even though he had promised to release them and even though a majority of dems wanted him to release the photos

2) His decision to bail the auto industry despite the huge opposition to it

3) He did a bang up job of making sure that nearly all of the banksters suffered no criminal penalties for their crimes

4) He supports cuts to SS even though most dems strongly oppose them

5) He supports charter schools even though unions oppose them

I'll wait for you rejection of all of those as examples of leadership.

I'll add to that list:

6) Before taking office immediately following the Wall Street collapse, took charge of the very meeting on the state of the economy Sen. McCain sought to suspended his campaign for.

7) Restructured the auto bailout to ensure taxpayers received as much of their money back as possible, whereas beforehand what GWB had establish the auto industry were NOT required to put up anything in collateral. Moreover, they weren't required to payback anything! Pres. Obama and his economic team changed that; but most people know nothing of this.

8) Refocused the War on Terror from kill and capture to counterinsurgency, a military and national security strategy that is now being used in other countries where remnants of Al Quaida are now trying to hide out.

9) Enacted financial reform which include protects for consumers, i.e., excessive credit card fees, no unfair penalties or raising credit card interest rates without advance notification, forcing banks to keep assets on-hand equal to their risks in the securities market to ensure banks can never come back to Congress asking for bailouts for their own gross mistakes at the taxpayers' expense.

10) Rallied his party (and a couple of Republicans) to pass health care reform.

11) Pulled congressional leadership together to pass a budget (1st half of FY2011) which included extending the Bush tax cuts. (Hate it, but it is what it is.)
 
Last edited:
The man isn't operating in a vacuum. He DID inherit a huge mess. It is NOT passing the buck to say "Well, Rome wasn't built in a day." You can't clean up what literally was years if not decades in the making. It just can't be done.
 
Unfortunately, BDBoop, too many people want instant changes. For example, according to the book, The Promise (page 4, paraphrasing here), "in a 48-hour period (between September 17-18, 2010) withdrawals from money market funds topped $400 billion overnight, when $5 billion was the norm." Think about that...

$400 billion dollars gone from the American economy in just two days. And the situation got progressively worse from there. But this is a snippet of just how bad things were at the time, yet people think that this kind of economic disarray can be resolved in a few days, months, a few short years. Fat chance!!

Two of our nation's largest investment banks - Lehman Bros. and Bear Sterns - fell within 60-90 days of each other w/Merrill Lynch very close to being next. Smaller banks then began to fall. From there many small businesses began to fold. Add to that two American auto makers were coming to the Treasury with their hands out following the banks. It's a wonder this country did fold under that much simultaneous pressure and volitility.
 
Last edited:
Unfortunately, BDBoop, too many people want instant changes. For example, according to the book, The Promise (page 4, paraphrasing here), "in a 48-hour period (between September 17-18, 2010) withdrawals from money market funds topped $400 billion overnight, when $5 billion was the norm." Think about that...

$400 billion dollars gone from the American economy in just two days. And the situation got progressively worse from there. But this is a snippet of just how bad things were at the time, yet people that this kind of economic disarray can be resolved in a few days. Two of our nation's largest investment banks fell within 60-90 days. Smaller banks then began to fall. From there many small businesses began to fold. Add to that two American auto makers were coming to the Treasury with their hands out following the banks. It's a wonder this country did fold under that much simultaneous pressure and volitility.

:shock: ... I had no idea. And of course my second thought is, how could I not know that??
 
BDBoop,

That's why I continue to say folks who are so against Pres. Obama likely have no idea just how bad things were and how the initiative his Administration took really did save this country. Again, back away from talk radio and main stream news and read, girl, read!!!

Of course, such big financial loses wouldn't be publically reported would they. Otherwise, such news would create mass panic and there would be no way to stop a run on the banks. Such losses had to remain "hush, hush".
 
Last edited:
BDBoop,

That's why I continue to say folks who are so against Pres. Obama likely have no idea just how bad things were and how the initiative his Administration took really did save this country. Again, back away from talk radio and main stream news and read, girl, read!!!

Not me, man! No talk radio, no main stream news. I just go to news.google.com and use whatever search terms get me to where I'm going.

Who is the author of the book you quoted?
 
Not me, man! No talk radio, no main stream news. I just go to news.google.com and use whatever search terms get me to where I'm going.

Who is the author of the book you quoted?

From my post #156:

The Promise, by Jonathan Alter - outlines Obama's first 18 months in office

Obama's Wars, by Bob Woodward - details Obama's decision making process leading to his handling of the War on Terror in Afghanistan

Too Big to Fail, by Andrew Ross Sorkin - outlines in full detail the banking crisis
 
Kindle update time! Thanks.
 
1) His decision to not release the torture photos even though he had promised to release them and even though a majority of dems wanted him to release the photos

A failed example of leadership because this was an issue he created and when the pressure from the military, CIA and the public became too much, he reversed his position and caved. This is more of an example of his spinelessness.

2) His decision to bail the auto industry despite the huge opposition to it

Another failed example of leadership because the unions got him elected and he knew he would need them and their money for the 2012 elections. This was political cronyism 101, not leadership.



3) He did a bang up job of making sure that nearly all of the banksters suffered no criminal penalties for their crimes

This isn’t even worth responding to.

4) He supports cuts to SS even though most dems strongly oppose them

Really? He supports cuts to social security? What has he done to show that other than giving it lip service depending upon the crowd sitting in front of him or the hot topic issue of the day? I haven’t heard him say anything about cutting social security in his last several speeches.

This one can’t be considered leadership until he takes action on it. If he does agree to SS cuts or restructuring, this might count as leadership. Paying lip service to the issue isn’t enough though.

5) He supports charter schools even though unions oppose them

Again, I haven’t seen any action on this from him. Just another example of lip service.

I'll wait for you rejection of all of those as examples of leadership.

I didn’t reject them for the reasons you probably think though. In fact, I’ll give you another example of what I think was Obama leadership even though I vehemently disagreed with him on the issue. The Russian START II Treaty is an example of Obama showing some back bone and getting things done. He fought hard to get that legislation through.

So, in the end, he isn’t fighting hard to get this debt issue resolved because he thinks he can gain some political advantage by drawing it out and setting the stage and the tone for his 2012 campaign. That isn’t leadership either, that’s a snake oil salesman.
 
Of course Obama denies them. He wants to have his cake and eat it too....
 
From my post #156:

The Promise, by Jonathan Alter - outlines Obama's first 18 months in office

Obama's Wars, by Bob Woodward - details Obama's decision making process leading to his handling of the War on Terror in Afghanistan

Too Big to Fail, by Andrew Ross Sorkin - outlines in full detail the banking crisis

I zipped right through the free bit and promptly bought The Promise.
 
A failed example of leadership because this was an issue he created and when the pressure from the military, CIA and the public became too much, he reversed his position and caved. This is more of an example of his spinelessness.



Another failed example of leadership because the unions got him elected and he knew he would need them and their money for the 2012 elections. This was political cronyism 101, not leadership.





This isn’t even worth responding to.



Really? He supports cuts to social security? What has he done to show that other than giving it lip service depending upon the crowd sitting in front of him or the hot topic issue of the day? I haven’t heard him say anything about cutting social security in his last several speeches.

This one can’t be considered leadership until he takes action on it. If he does agree to SS cuts or restructuring, this might count as leadership. Paying lip service to the issue isn’t enough though.



Again, I haven’t seen any action on this from him. Just another example of lip service.



I didn’t reject them for the reasons you probably think though. In fact, I’ll give you another example of what I think was Obama leadership even though I vehemently disagreed with him on the issue. The Russian START II Treaty is an example of Obama showing some back bone and getting things done. He fought hard to get that legislation through.

So, in the end, he isn’t fighting hard to get this debt issue resolved because he thinks he can gain some political advantage by drawing it out and setting the stage and the tone for his 2012 campaign. That isn’t leadership either, that’s a snake oil salesman.

As I predicted, you would reject them all. And the false claims you've used to justify your rejections are unsurprising. Take the auto bailout. You make it sound like the unions made out, when the truth is, Obama forced them to take cuts in their pay and their benefits. Union presidents are now threatening to withold their support from him.
 
Just came across this article from FoxNews pertaining to some crazy notion that the President can raise the debt ceiling on his own without Congress using clause 4 of the 14th Amendment. Frankly, I think it's a crazy idea and would go against one of Congress' enumerated powers (appropriations from the Treasury in accordance with laws Congress passes). But what struck me as politicians talking out the side of their necks was this quote by Sen. Jeff Sessions:

Without addressing efforts to invoke the Constitution, Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., said Sunday the president and congressional negotiators shouldn't even be discussing a debt deal privately.

"Congress is the constitutional place for this to be decided," said Sessions, who is the ranking member of the Senate Budget Committee.

When I read that I was like, "Really???" So, let me get this straight...

Before this 14th Amendment issue came up, the GOP was insisting that the President get involved in debt ceiling talks. But now suddenly not only shouldn't he hold private negotiations with congressional legislators, it's not his place to do so?

I'm :lol: because now a member of the GOP wants to fall behind "process" when it seems their party's stonewalling tactics on not raising the debt ceiling could be subverted. Hillarious!!!
 
I zipped right through the free bit and promptly bought The Promise.

It's dry reading, but you get good insight into the President's thinking, his decision making process and the make-up of his Administration. I've come away with a better understanding of the steps he took in certain situations both while on the campaign trail and once he got in office and why he took them. The author is even critical of his actions or inactions at certain points. A dry read, but a good read nonetheless. I think you'll be pleasantly surprised.
 
As I predicted, you would reject them all. And the false claims you've used to justify your rejections are unsurprising. Take the auto bailout. You make it sound like the unions made out, when the truth is, Obama forced them to take cuts in their pay and their benefits. Union presidents are now threatening to withold their support from him.

The auto bailout would have landed people in jail had it been a Wall Street transaction because Obama basically took the share holders stock and gave it to the unions.

I gave you another example that I was completely opposed to and you think me a political homer? Whatever.
 
Just came across this article from FoxNews pertaining to some crazy notion that the President can raise the debt ceiling on his own without Congress using clause 4 of the 14th Amendment. Frankly, I think it's a crazy idea and would go against one of Congress' enumerated powers (appropriations from the Treasury in accordance with laws Congress passes). But what struck me as politicians talking out the side of their necks was this quote by Sen. Jeff Sessions:



When I read that I was like, "Really???" So, let me get this straight...

Before this 14th Amendment issue came up, the GOP was insisting that the President get involved in debt ceiling talks. But now suddenly not only shouldn't he hold private negotiations with congressional legislators, it's not his place to do so?

I'm :lol: because now a member of the GOP wants to fall behind "process" when it seems their party's stonewalling tactics on not raising the debt ceiling could be subverted. Hillarious!!!

Did you express these views in the thread dedicated to that issue? If so, I’ll respond soon.
 
It's dry reading, but you get good insight into the President's thinking, his decision making process and the make-up of his Administration. I've come away with a better understanding of the steps he took in certain situations both while on the campaign trail and once he got in office and why he took them. The author is even critical of his actions or inactions at certain points. A dry read, but a good read nonetheless. I think you'll be pleasantly surprised.

Actually, the author thus far reminds me of Ann Rule, and how you barely know you're reading non-fiction because she is so engaging with her facts.
 
Did you express these views in the thread dedicated to that issue? If so, I’ll respond soon.

What issue are you referring to: The President declining Senate Republican's lunch invite or this concept of him using the 14th Amendment to raise the debt ceiling? If it's the former, this is the only thread I know of pertaining to the luncheon. But if it's the latter, I found the FoxNews article late last night and haven't bothered to look for another thread on the topic. Perhaps you could post a link to it and maybe I'll comment there.

Actually, the author thus far reminds me of Ann Rule, and how you barely know you're reading non-fiction because she is so engaging with her facts.

Then you'll like "The Promise" very much.
 
Back
Top Bottom