• 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!

Breaking: Obama Warns Cantor 'Don't Call My Bluff' As Debt Talks Stall

repeter said:
I never said they wouldn't, and don't assume I would've said they wouldn't.

I hate having to constantly criticize both sides whenever one side does something stupid...it seems like such a waste of time to me and gets really redundant.
Click to expand...

Repetition is a good thing. At some point it either becomes repetitive or it sinks in.
 
ptif219 said:
It appears that is what Obama wants. he will not work with the GOP

Obama officially threatens to veto 'cut, cap and balance' - TheHill.com
Click to expand...

From your own article ~

"White House communications director Dan Pfeiffer said in a conference call Monday afternoon that the Republican plan "enshrines into the Constitution the Ryan plan on steroids." Pfeiffer was referring to the House GOP budget authored by Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.), which included significant reforms to Medicare."

Why should the Democrats go along with cuts to seniors with no concessions for increased revenues from the GOP? Why do you feel it is up to our seniors to bear the total burden of reducing the deficit?
 
you seem to have "the White House Communications Director Said It" with "that's what it is". In fact, they are merely desperate to provide themselves some kind of cover. Interesting that you would go on to ask why it's up to our seniors to bear the burden, given that the President's plan calls for them to make sacrifices while the Ryan plan doesnt - effecting only those age 54 and below.
 
Catawba said:
From your own article ~

"White House communications director Dan Pfeiffer said in a conference call Monday afternoon that the Republican plan "enshrines into the Constitution the Ryan plan on steroids." Pfeiffer was referring to the House GOP budget authored by Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.), which included significant reforms to Medicare."

Why should the Democrats go along with cuts to seniors with no concessions for increased revenues from the GOP? Why do you feel it is up to our seniors to bear the total burden of reducing the deficit?
Click to expand...

You do not care about that with Obamacare but here you do. Nice try but the fact is Obama will not let this happen because he has to balance the budget something Obama does not want. Obama wants to spend spend spend this is why he can not agree with the GOP.

Obama is not for compromise he is for Obama's way or no way.
 
cpwill said:
you seem to have "the White House Communications Director Said It" with "that's what it is". In fact, they are merely desperate to provide themselves some kind of cover. Interesting that you would go on to ask why it's up to our seniors to bear the burden, given that the President's plan calls for them to make sacrifices while the Ryan plan doesnt - effecting only those age 54 and below.
Click to expand...

I suppose you think those now 54 and below will never become seniors? And you don't care that current seniors would have an extra $6,000 out of pocket costs for health care, so the rich can get an even bigger tax cut than the one they are already enjoying?

The working class ain't buying it! :sun
 
Catawba said:
I suppose you think those now 54 and below will never become seniors? And you don't care that current seniors would have an extra $6,000 out of pocket costs for health care, so the rich can get an even bigger tax cut than the one they are already enjoying?

The working class ain't buying it! :sun
Click to expand...

And people wonder why I'm planning my 'early retirement' from the planet. I won't be able to afford to live here anymore.
 
Catawba said:
I suppose you think those now 54 and below will never become seniors? And you don't care that current seniors would have an extra $6,000 out of pocket costs for health care, so the rich can get an even bigger tax cut than the one they are already enjoying?

The working class ain't buying it! :sun
Click to expand...

What does it matter when Obamacare screws all seniors anyway.

Obama does not want a solution he wants a blank check

DeMint Statement on Veto Threat of Cut, Cap & Balance: Democrats Oppose EVER Balancing the Budget - Press Releases - News Room - United States Senator Jim DeMint
 
ptif219 said:
Thanks to Obama's spend spend spend
Click to expand...

If I said an asteroid was about to hit Earth, you'd say it's because Obama spent too much money. The point is, your entire argument is a knee-jerk reaction to everything anyone says, and it's really stupid.
 
Ockham said:
Repetition is a good thing. At some point it either becomes repetitive or it sinks in.
Click to expand...

I think I miscommunicated. I hate that one group demands you attack another group first before they let you even consider their own group for the own faults.
 
Ockham said:
I don't agree --- their views at the time were very conservative, much more so than today. But let's just assume you're correct --- the founders would hate the far-left just as much.
Click to expand...

I was going to say this earlier but I was in a rush, the FF's would hate the far-right of today not for their political views, those are besides the point. They would hate them because they really embody many the faults of America, throughout its history. Now, I'm not saying they're the only group like that, but they certainly are a good example of such a group, that has become unAmerican.

A good point of comparison would be the Democrats just prior to the Civil War, their actions, speech and hatred were unAmerican.
 
Catawba said:
From your own article ~

"White House communications director Dan Pfeiffer said in a conference call Monday afternoon that the Republican plan "enshrines into the Constitution the Ryan plan on steroids." Pfeiffer was referring to the House GOP budget authored by Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.), which included significant reforms to Medicare."

Why should the Democrats go along with cuts to seniors with no concessions for increased revenues from the GOP? Why do you feel it is up to our seniors to bear the total burden of reducing the deficit?
Click to expand...



What's with the lack of honesty?

Why use the term "increased revenues" as code for "raising taxes"?
 
repeter said:
I love you, because you love me enough to do exactly what I said you would do. Thanks for the laugh :D
Click to expand...

You ignore the proof and think you are funny. This issue is not a joke. The only joke in this isssue is the cry baby President
 
ptif219 said:
You ignore the proof and think you are funny. This issue is not a joke. The only joke in this isssue is the cry baby President
Click to expand...

I'm not ignoring anything, and I don't care if I'm being funny, because I'm having fun here.

You're being all serious with this, and think you have a legitimate foundation for your claims, and it's just so funny.
 
Speaking of joke, I keep looking at this title and it just struck me...

"Don't call my bluff". I know it wasn't his intent, but I had to chuckle a bit once I stopped and read that back to myself and realize why it was tickling me the past few days. He's essentially saying that his stance and position is a bluff and threatening Cantor not to "call" it. Can I play poker with this man? (Not really, because I don't think he's bluffing, but he's basically saying its a bluff, which that in and of itself is a bluff for you to call his bluff so he can reveal pocket aces so he really wasn't bluffing but wa rather bluffing that he was bluffing.....oof)

:D

I know what his intent was, which is why I probably read it and it didn't click at first, but it still make me chuckle a bit.
 
Last edited:
Zyphlin said:
Speaking of joke, I keep looking at this title and it just struck me...

"Don't call my bluff". I know it wasn't his intent, but I had to chuckle a bit once I stopped and read that back to myself and realize why it was tickling me the past few days. He's essentially saying that his stance and position is a bluff and threatening Cantor not to "call" it. Can I play poker with this man?

:D

I know what his intent was, which is why I probably read it and it didn't click at first, but it still make me chuckle a bit.
Click to expand...



I already said this... :pimpdaddy:
 
repeter said:
I'm not ignoring anything, and I don't care if I'm being funny, because I'm having fun here.

You're being all serious with this, and think you have a legitimate foundation for your claims, and it's just so funny.
Click to expand...

Wanna see something funny?

its_all_bushs_fault_sticker-p217039.jpg


Ok maybe not "funny" per se but pertinent to "cry baby President".
 
Zyphlin said:
Speaking of joke, I keep looking at this title and it just struck me...

"Don't call my bluff". I know it wasn't his intent, but I had to chuckle a bit once I stopped and read that back to myself and realize why it was tickling me the past few days. He's essentially saying that his stance and position is a bluff and threatening Cantor not to "call" it. Can I play poker with this man? (Not really, because I don't think he's bluffing, but he's basically saying its a bluff, which that in and of itself is a bluff for you to call his bluff so he can reveal pocket aces so he really wasn't bluffing but wa rather bluffing that he was bluffing.....oof)

:D

I know what his intent was, which is why I probably read it and it didn't click at first, but it still make me chuckle a bit.
Click to expand...

I had the same reaction, but I know I likely would have said it the same way, even if what I was thinking was "You're a fool if you think I'm bluffing."
 
ReverendHellh0und said:
What's with the lack of honesty?

Why use the term "increased revenues" as code for "raising taxes"?
Click to expand...


There is no dishonesty, because raising taxes increases revenues. They are synonomous. :sun
 
Catawba said:
There is no dishonesty, because raising taxes increases revenues. They are synonomous. :sun
Click to expand...



They are not, and it's dishonest because you want folks to pay more. say "raise taxes" own it. don't hide behind wordsmithing...
 
ptif219 said:
You ignore the proof and think you are funny. This issue is not a joke. The only joke in this isssue is the cry baby President
Click to expand...

You want to be taken seriously? Stop with the rhetoric.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom