• 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!

President Obama To Announce Merrick Garland As Supreme Court Nominee

Moderate Right said:
Well, you're right there. Other than the ACA they have been smart enough to know that wasting their time on legislation which Obama won't sign off on is, well, a waste of time.
Click to expand...

Well, that's an ... interesting way to look at it.
 
Moderate Right said:
I'm not falling for that loaded question. This is not a debate about the merits of what could have been accomplished or not. This is a debate about who are the obstructionists now. Just because Democrats feel they are taking the moral high ground does not give them carte-blanche to be obstructionists. Both sides can claim the moral high ground with their beliefs and both will disagree with each other on that subject but it doesn't change the fact that the Democrats are the obstructionists now and want the Republicans to compromise to their demands, despite the fact that Republicans were voted in by the people to control both the House and the Senate. Where have the Democrats compromised to Republican ideals?
Click to expand...

Please tell us what reasonable pieces of legislation that should have been passed. Any of the 55+ bills that repealed the PPACA, obviously can not be counted. Hint: if it was reasonable, there would be some (more that a very few) Dem votes.....

Answer: The Congress was not a serious Congress and really did not pass any serious legislation, hence, they obstructed themselves.

Rep. Lynn Jenkins blames Harry Reid for 'do-nothing Senate' | PolitiFact
Boehner’s ‘Bipartisan’ Bunk
 
Last edited:
upsideguy said:
Please tell us what reasonable pieces of legislation that should have been passed. Any of the 55+ bills that repealed the PPACA, obviously can not be counted. Hint: if it was reasonable, there would be some (more that a very few) Dem votes.....

Answer: The Congress was not a serious Congress and really did not pass any serious legislation, hence, they obstructed themselves.

Rep. Lynn Jenkins blames Harry Reid for 'do-nothing Senate' | PolitiFact
Boehner’s ‘Bipartisan’ Bunk
Click to expand...

That's the trouble. The Democrats stand on their holier than thou ground and deem everything the Republicans want as being unreasonable, just as the far right does the same thing. Both sides think that their moral high ground is good reason to be obstructionists. It's just hypocrisy really, on both sides. In Obama's first years the Republicans were obstructionists and standing on their holier than thou ground but now those tables have been reversed since the pubs took over the Senate and now the Dems are only willing to compromise as long as things get done their way because they deem most Republican policies unreasonable. Latest polls show around 65% - 70% are unhappy with congress but, alas, the left only thinks people are only unhappy with the Republicans. They refuse to look in the mirror at themselves.
 
Moderate Right said:
That's the trouble. The Democrats stand on their holier than thou ground and deem everything the Republicans want as being unreasonable, just as the far right does the same thing. Both sides think that their moral high ground is good reason to be obstructionists. It's just hypocrisy really, on both sides. In Obama's first years the Republicans were obstructionists and standing on their holier than thou ground but now those tables have been reversed since the pubs took over the Senate and now the Dems are only willing to compromise as long as things get done their way because they deem most Republican policies unreasonable. Latest polls show around 65% - 70% are unhappy with congress but, alas, the left only thinks people are only unhappy with the Republicans. They refuse to look in the mirror at themselves.
Click to expand...

Nice preachy and completely unresponsive post. Let's try it again, I asked you to TELL US what specific pieces of legislation you deemed reasonable.....and tell us why they were reasonable.
 
upsideguy said:
Nice preachy and completely unresponsive post. Let's try it again, I asked you to TELL US what specific pieces of legislation you deemed reasonable.....and tell us why they were reasonable.
Click to expand...

Just so that you can tell me how they really aren't reasonable and therefore you have the right to be obstructionists? Who made you the moral authority to determine what is reasonable or not? I"m merely stating a fact. I'm not talking about what is reasonable and what is not. No matter what policies you want to debate the end result is always the same:

1. When the Democrats controlled 2/3 of the government (under Obama) the Republicans claimed the moral high ground to be obstructionists because Democratic policies were unreasonable. It doesn't really matter what specific policies you want to argue about.

2. Now that the Republicans control 2/3 of the government the Democrats claim the moral high ground to be obstructionists because Republican policies are unreasonable. Again, it doesn't really matter what specific policies you want to argue about.

We could be here for the next several years debating whether any particular policy is reasonable or not and the left will have one answer and the right will have another answer and of course both sides will claim their moral high ground justifies their right to be obstructionists.
 
Last edited:
Moderate Right said:
Just so that you can tell me how they really aren't reasonable and therefore you have the right to be obstructionists? Who made you the moral authority to determine what is reasonable or not? I"m merely stating a fact. I'm not talking about what is reasonable and what is not. No matter what policies you want to debate the end result is always the same:

1. When the Democrats controlled 2/3 of the government (under Obama) the Republicans claimed the moral high ground to be obstructionists because Democratic policies were unreasonable. It doesn't really matter what specific policies you want to argue about.

2. Now that the Republicans control 2/3 of the government the Democrats claim the moral high ground to be obstructionists because Republican policies are unreasonable. Again, it doesn't really matter what specific policies you want to argue about.

We could be here for the next several years debating whether any particular policy is reasonable or not and the left will have one answer and the right will have another answer and of course both sides will claim their moral high ground justifies their right to be obstructionists.
Click to expand...

You have not yet put forth one specific example when asked. Yes, most likely I will tear your example to shreds, because it will not be a reasonable piece of legislation, but the fact you can't be specific and only speak generalities tells us all, "ya got nutin"...you have no argument and therefore no case. Stand down my friend, you are losing this argument.
 
upsideguy said:
You have not yet put forth one specific example when asked. Yes, most likely I will tear your example to shreds, because it will not be a reasonable piece of legislation, but the fact you can't be specific and only speak generalities tells us all, "ya got nutin"...you have no argument and therefore no case. Stand down my friend, you are losing this argument.
Click to expand...

Of course, you are the moral authority who decides when something is reasonable or not, just like the first few of Obama's years the pubs decided they had the moral authority to decide what was reasonable or not. You and them are just two opposite sides of the same exact coin. You have actually proven my point and, I might ad, my posts have found fault with both sides as I am fair and not partisan while you continue to be partisan only, just like the far right. I shouldn't need to provide you with examples because if you know that little about politics that you don't even know the obvious examples, then you aren't even worth debating with. Again, my point isn't about whether a particular policy is reasonable or not but that both sides think they stand on the moral high ground and that gives them the right to be obstructionists and that is why we have a disfunctional congress, not because of the right, but because of BOTH sides. Both sides tell the other that it is either my way or the highway.
 
Moderate Right said:
Of course, you are the moral authority who decides when something is reasonable or not, just like the first few of Obama's years the pubs decided they had the moral authority to decide what was reasonable or not. You and them are just two opposite sides of the same exact coin. You have actually proven my point and, I might ad, my posts have found fault with both sides as I am fair and not partisan while you continue to be partisan only, just like the far right. I shouldn't need to provide you with examples because if you know that little about politics that you don't even know the obvious examples, then you aren't even worth debating with. Again, my point isn't about whether a particular policy is reasonable or not but that both sides think they stand on the moral high ground and that gives them the right to be obstructionists and that is why we have a disfunctional congress, not because of the right, but because of BOTH sides. Both sides tell the other that it is either my way or the highway.
Click to expand...

Well written rejoinder which is a total failure as an attempt to support assertions about Obama's obstructionism
 
Somerville said:
Well written rejoinder which is a total failure as an attempt to support assertions about Obama's obstructionism
Click to expand...

No kidding.

You think he'd be able to at least formulate a weak argument, instead of the fake 'both sides do it' one.
 
Fenton said:
Governing doesn't include rubber stamping Obama's judicial appointments. On the contrary.
Click to expand...

Similarly, governing doesn't include rubber stamping Trump's judicial appointments. On the contrary.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom