• 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!

Obama, Republicans Spar at House GOP Event

if fox cut it off, fox shouldn't have

again, what's the great theater star gonna do?

sing?

dance?

will the bobby soxers swoon?

what's on the bill?
 
Charles Martel said:
When are those times? Where image is more imprtant than substance sometimes?
Click to expand...

When it comes to getting votes. Seriously, if Palin looked and talked like Pelosi, do you think she'd have any support among conservatives?

Please note: I made it clear that this is not a good thing. But it is how politics works these days.


Charles Martel said:
Dems...having just lost 3 fairly informative elections. New Jersey was a surprise, Corzine had a lot of money, the wide margin Virginia sweep not as surprising although the no contest results should have been telling. Now, a week after the Scott heard round the world, you're suggesting image rather than substance is called for? Or maybe I'm wrong.
Click to expand...

No, I am saying that the public often cares more about image than substance. Polls go up when image improves. Once more, I didn't say this was good for democracy; in fact, I said the exact opposite.

Charles Martel said:
Groucho, oh what a difference a year makes. My memories of past battles during Bush's tenure certainly included ignoring, dodging, changing, what he wanted to question or answer, I shant remember you breaking our yer "ALL good politicians do that" policy back then. But, maye I'm wrong.:roll:
Click to expand...

Let me be clear: By "good" politicians I mean "politicians who win elections." I don't mean "politicians who are good for democracy." I am not in any way saying this is "good for our country."

Charles Martel said:
Say what you will for consultants, members of talk forums didn't know this. Not until Jan 20, 2009. How the 'game is played' is a brand new concept for some of us, it was obvious this argument absent during the W years. I don't remember you ever giving him or Republican policies the "game is played" benefit of the doubt. But, maybe I'm wrong.
Click to expand...

Yes, you're wrong. I too criticize Obama for dodging the issues and not giving us the change we want. He's just playing the game like all politicians do.

My post was in response to criticisms here which basically boiled down to "He played the game better than we did." I am acknowledging that politics these days is PR as much as it is issues. (For that matter, it may have always been that way, just not as strong.) Once more, this is not a good thing, but it is reality. I was a campaign manager back in the 80s and I knew it then, and I'd emphasize it even more today.


Charles Martel said:
Play the game of image over substance, no, not even your favorite Palin is anywhere near his ability to play that game, Groucho. We're gonna cede you that point, we cannot fault Obama for mastering the game, being elected President on image...and making policy concerned for image. But, can we ask about you and his supporters? May we ask when it just may be time for you to change your tune and realize it's much better to have substance than image. To convince your President...our President...that with war and national security and voter anger and what not, substance may very well need to be taken off your sidelines and put bak on your 'game' board here. Maybe even take the image nonsense piece off the board for awhile and start being concerned for we look rather than how you look.
Click to expand...

They ALL play the game, so in the long run you pick the one who you think might actually deliver what you want even despite the game. And then you cheer on your guy when he plays the game better than your opponents.

Obama has a lot of substance to him, though. Unlike our last President, he has a command of the facts and is genuinely intelligent. I disagree with him on certain issues, am frustrated with him in other ways, but know that no candidate is perfect. He's still better for our country than McCain/Palin would have been.
 
reefedjib said:
Then why did they cut away?
Click to expand...

No idea. Could have been any number of reasons. Doesn't matter. The claim -- by ThinkProgress (sic) and Groucho -- is that they "explained" they cut away because he was being "combative" and "lecturing." That's not what they said.

To say it was is either dishonest or because it's viewed from deep inside the Kool-Aid bowl.
 
American said:
Politically they can say they presented him with alternative policies, and now have a right to block everything he does that is outside their suggestions.
Click to expand...

absolutely true and pithily put

you, unlike this most incompetent politician america has ever produced and his panting supplicants, can see two moves ahead
 
Harshaw said:
No idea. Could have been any number of reasons. Doesn't matter. The claim -- by ThinkProgress (sic) and Groucho -- is that they "explained" they cut away because he was being "combative" and "lecturing." That's not what they said.

To say it was is either dishonest or because it's viewed from deep inside the Kool-Aid bowl.
Click to expand...

I don't care what "reasons" left-wingers give for the actions of Fox - that perpetuates bull****. I do care that Fox is not giving full access to a political event they started to cover. I have seen them do this before and all they do is throw talking heads on the air. It is a ****ing disgrace.
 
My Way News - Bin Laden blasts US for climate change

One of them should have asked Obama why he sounds so much like Osama.

In the tape, broadcast in part on Al-Jazeera television, bin Laden warned of the dangers of climate change and says that the way to stop it is to bring "the wheels of the American economy" to a halt.

He blamed Western industrialized nations for hunger, desertification and floods across the globe, and called for "drastic solutions" to global warming, and "not solutions that partially reduce the effect of climate change."
Click to expand...
 
Harshaw said:
No idea. Could have been any number of reasons. Doesn't matter. The claim -- by ThinkProgress (sic) and Groucho -- is that they "explained" they cut away because he was being "combative" and "lecturing." That's not what they said.
Click to expand...

Well, the video clearly shows that they called him "combative" and "lecturing."

I agree that they never said clearly "We're cutting away because he's making us look bad" but seriously, what other conclusion can you make?

You have a 24 hour news channel. You cover important news live, as it happens. You have plenty of time to interview other politicians. And you cut away from the most important live news happening at that time -- a live, recorded give-and-take between the President and the opposition party that is unprecedented -- to interview some talking head about exactly what is going on at that moment.

Come on. None of the other 24 hour networks did that. The most obvious conclusion is that Fox didn't like what they were seeing. You got another explanation that makes better sense? Let's hear it.
 
msnbc didn't show scott brown's acceptance speech

who cares

what's obama's agenda?

today?
 
reefedjib said:
I don't care what "reasons" left-wingers give for the actions of Fox - that perpetuates bull****. I do care that Fox is not giving full access to a political event they started to cover. I have seen them do this before and all they do is throw talking heads on the air. It is a ****ing disgrace.
Click to expand...

Well, that's a different issue from that to which I was responding.
 
Groucho said:
Well, the video clearly shows that they called him "combative" and "lecturing."

I agree that they never said clearly "We're cutting away because he's making us look bad" but seriously, what other conclusion can you make?

You have a 24 hour news channel. You cover important news live, as it happens. You have plenty of time to interview other politicians. And you cut away from the most important live news happening at that time -- a live, recorded give-and-take between the President and the opposition party that is unprecedented -- to interview some talking head about exactly what is going on at that moment.

Come on. None of the other 24 hour networks did that. The most obvious conclusion is that Fox didn't like what they were seeing. You got another explanation that makes better sense? Let's hear it.
Click to expand...

I have no idea. I do know that I don't jump to conclusions based on forty seconds of video.

As I've said, there could be many reasons for it, just as there could have been many reasons for CNN and MSNBC not showing Scott Brown's victory speech.

Bias could be one of those reasons, but I don't automatically assume it.
 
j-mac said:
I think it is safe to say, that his agenda is that which has been spelled out by Saul When faced with this type of adversity, step on the gas.


j-mac
Click to expand...
Nothing like creating a new crisis or deversion when your feet is to the fire...another Saul Alenski tactic.
 
no drama obama is morphing into drama queen

meanwhile, here on earth i'll tell you what's the agenda of our pre pubescent president:

1. gitmo---it'll never close

2. health care---stuck with it, which can't move

3. cap and trade---dead

4. wall street regulatory reform---dead

5. ksm---forced to back down

6. mirandizing mutallab---cost him massachusetts

7. iran---no policy, no reach out, no personal diplomacy, ahmedinejad daily flips him off

8. ESCALATION in afghanistan

9. china---do what you're told

10. putin---get played by the master puppeteer

11. islamic terror---bury your head, ostrich like, hope it goes away

12. international climate accords---LOL!

13. bank tax---improvised, incoherent, to force banks to lend by punishing them, to get his money back from those who never took any in the first place and others who already paid it all back

14. debt commission---killed in the senate, 53-47, the day before sotu

15. spending freeze---pelosi remained seated---pelosi! (LOL!), the jumping jack-in-the-box

16. offshore oil---LOL!

17. capital gains---words for a wednesday evening

18. clean coal---puhleez

19. yemen---caught COMPLETELY by surprise, STILL no policy, obama announced his partnership with saleh, oh, about 6 hours before he was impolitely repulsed

20. geithner directing aig to keep secrets from the sec---on substance (a word unfamiliar to the bobby soxers), a scandal

21. spending---1.9T lifting of the debt ceiling, the day after sotu, the day before the Marcia Brady Tour

22. takeovers---THIRD bailout of gm, december, ROOFLESS reconstruction of fannie and fred, december

23. immigration reform---no way, jose

24. openness---LOL!

25. blaming---bush, republicans, "politics," people who don't "get it," banks, insurers, investors, lobbyists (LOL!), his own senate, intelligence agents, those who would kill EVERY SINGLE BILL JUST CUZ THEY CAN (LOL!), tv pundits, fox news, media misrepresentation, those who conduct themselves as if on "perpetual campaign..."

26. personnel---rahm, responsible for health care; napolitano, who said the system worked, then testified to senate she was NOT CONSULTED about the mirandizing of mutallab; holder, accountable for ksm and mutallab, both political fiascos; gibbs, who actually tried to say the president won MA; geithner, nuff said; bernanke, political lightning rod; and the charming, charismatic crooner at the top, bereft of vision, sans policy, relegated to petty political reaction and stagemanship, devoid of substance, reduced to improvisation, prone to daily correction and contradiction...

land, birdies

but then, who really needs an agenda when it's all about HIM?
 
Last edited:
Moving away from the partisan rhetoric and whose coverage was unfair issues, this from the linked article caught my eye:

House Republicans, by and large, support a far less ambitious overhaul of the health-care system, including measures that would allow insurance to be sold across state lines. Mr. Obama said he would be willing to work with Republicans if they could find ways to compromise while embracing shared goals, such as reducing insurance premiums.

"I'm game," he said.

Responded Tennessee Rep. Marsha Blackburn: "Game on."
Click to expand...

I have made no secret that I thought the plans the house and senate have come up with do too much, and a scaled back bill, with some significant improvements to the status quo that both parties could agree on would make me very happy.

Of course, I find this all too unlikely to happen. I think both sides are thinking politically, and not about what is best. I think democrats feel that if they give too much on health care, it will be viewed as a republican victory, and we cannot have that, and I think republicans feel that if they let any health care bill go through they will find a tough time come November. So I have a nasty feeling what we will have is largely a stalemate this year, with republicans claiming that they are fighting against turning our country socialist, and democrats claiming the republicans are just saying no to anything and everything. And we, the people, get the shaft yet again. This is why the mood of the country is not so much pro-democrat, or pro-republican, or even anti either party, but anti-incumbent. If you are in Washington, you are being viewed as part of the problem right now.
 
Redress said:
Moving away from the partisan rhetoric and whose coverage was unfair issues, this from the linked article caught my eye:



I have made no secret that I thought the plans the house and senate have come up with do too much, and a scaled back bill, with some significant improvements to the status quo that both parties could agree on would make me very happy.

Of course, I find this all too unlikely to happen. I think both sides are thinking politically, and not about what is best.
Click to expand...

Yes, I saw that, and I by and large agree with you. But in that exchange was also this:

THE PRESIDENT: Actually, I've gotten many of your ideas. I've taken a look at them, even before I was handed this. Some of the ideas we have embraced in our package. Some of them are embraced with caveats. So let me give you an example.
Click to expand...

This is a man who has been for many months saying that Republicans were offering nothing but no -- no alternatives, no ideas, no anything except resistance. Now he's saying he's not only listened to the other side, which did have ideas, but they've actually incorporated some of those ideas into the bill.

I have a hard time taking him at his word for much of this. So, there's very little good faith involved here at all. Not much to build any true bipartisanship -- to come together at square one and hammer out a real bipartisan bill.
 
Harshaw, he was complaining this past year about the republican unwillingness to work with democrats on health care. I don't believe he ever said that republicans had no plans. The problem is, while democrats did put some republican ideas into the bills, republicans where not willing to compromise at all. "The Party of no" is a talking point, and it is not entirely accurate, but it is not entirely inaccurate either. While democrats and Obama have to do better, republicans have to actually show a willingness to not reject out of hand.
 
I've heard him say it several times -- along with other prominent Democrats.

I'm not excusing Republicans here, only noting that the total atmosphere is not one of good faith.
 
rblaze09 said:
i have heard that fox news cut off the last 20 mins of this debate. Can anyone confirm or disprove this?
Click to expand...

The key question is: Why is Obama's dog and pony show with the republicans aired everywhere while he chooses to meet in secret with the democrats? What does "Mr. Transparency" have to hide?
 
aps said:
I watched a lot of the footage and was thrilled with how Obama carried himself. Wow. I have been feeling so blah about his presidency, and loved what I watched.

He knew his facts. He accepted fault with issues that have gone wrong. He blamed BOTH Democrats and Republicans for the tone in Washington. I didn't like how he interrupted some of the people who were asking him questions, but maybe he was getting defensive. Overall, I thought Obama shined. It was fascinating to watch.
Click to expand...

What facts? Most of his speeches are filled with lies and exaggeration!
 
Groucho said:
Come on. None of the other 24 hour networks did that. The most obvious conclusion is that Fox didn't like what they were seeing. You got another explanation that makes better sense? Let's hear it.
Click to expand...


I have no idea why Fox did it, and I wish they hadn't.

But, out of curiosity, did you have the same criticism of CNN and MSNBC when they aired all/most of Coakley's concession speach, but much smaller parts of Brown's victory speach follolwing the MA election?
 
buck said:
I have no idea why Fox did it, and I wish they hadn't.
Click to expand...

Well.. did they cut away to breaking news? No. Did they break away to start the criticism of the speech that was not finished? yes. So it must be they did not like what they were hearing and wanted to "spare" their viewers from more.

But, out of curiosity, did you have the same criticism of CNN and MSNBC when they aired all/most of Coakley's concession speach, but much smaller parts of Brown's victory speach follolwing the MA election?
Click to expand...

One hell of a difference between the US President and a local election in one of 50 states of the union....
 
rebelbuc said:
The key question is: Why is Obama's dog and pony show with the republicans aired everywhere while he chooses to meet in secret with the democrats? What does "Mr. Transparency" have to hide?
Click to expand...

It was the Republicans that wanted the whole thing aired.. even though their propaganda station did not. Obama was a guest.

As for transparency in the Obama White House.. could it be better? you betcha to quote a popular freak on the right.. but it is still a million times better than under Bush.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom