If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Outside the Beltway)   Senator Barack Obama railed about President Bush's abuses of power. President Barack Obama has seen the light   (outsidethebeltway.com) divider line 75
    More: Obvious, obama, President Obama, Charlie Savage, George W. Bush, human beings, obstructionism, clean air laws, War Powers Resolution  
•       •       •

1017 clicks; posted to Politics » on 23 Apr 2012 at 12:08 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



75 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-04-23 02:16:18 PM

Wooly Bully: The Republicans whining after being hoisted on their own petard -that's deeply satisfying.


Hmm, as an American, I'm less satisfied than I could be.
 
2012-04-23 02:19:57 PM

Lunaville: Hmm, as an American, I'm less satisfied than I could be.


Yeah, me neither.
 
2012-04-23 02:30:58 PM
"And during his first two years in the White House, when Democrats controlled Congress, Mr. Obama largely worked through the legislative process to achieve his domestic policy goals."

When he had a Democrat house and Senate and a rubber-stamp congress to push through wahtever he wanted, he had no need to go around congress.

And when he lost the rubber-stamp congress, (in a direct response to his over-reaching) and was faced with having to work with an opposition, he opted instead to find ways to go around congress.

This is a clear and correct use of the img1.fark.net tag.

Obama continues to struggle with being told "No."
 
2012-04-23 02:47:56 PM

BojanglesPaladin: "And during his first two years in the White House, when Democrats controlled Congress, Mr. Obama largely worked through the legislative process to achieve his domestic policy goals."

When he had a Democrat house and Senate and a rubber-stamp congress to push through wahtever he wanted, he had no need to go around congress.

And when he lost the rubber-stamp congress, (in a direct response to his over-reaching) and was faced with having to work with an opposition, he opted instead to find ways to go around congress.

This is a clear and correct use of the [img1.fark.net image 54x11] tag.

Obama continues to struggle with being told "No."


That's because that's all they ever say
 
2012-04-23 02:50:59 PM
TFA: "We had been attempting to highlight the inability of Congress to do anything," recalled William M. Daley, who was the White House chief of staff at the time. "The president expressed frustration, saying we have got to scour everything and push the envelope in finding things we can do on our own."

Bush said, "If this were a dictatorship, it would be a heck of a lot easier, just so long as I'm the dictator." It was meant to be a joke, but it wasn't taken as one - Bush has been derided for this comment for years, and not wholly inappropriately. Suggesting dictatorship is no joking matter.

Mr. Daley's statement the same sentiment with different wording - and it's not meant to be a joke - yet the reaction is "Oh, politicians will say anything to get re-elected. Don't hate the player, hate the game."
 
2012-04-23 02:51:28 PM

Lunaville: Is Obama a better president than GWB? Let's face it, Mr. Potato-head would make a better president that GWB. Comparing Obama to GWB: I'm sorry; that's not holding Obama up to a high enough standard.


Well, what exactly are our options? McCain would have been even worse. We'd probably be in Iran and Syria by now, plus he'd most likely be dead from a heart attack and then we'd have Palin as Armageddon in Chief. And now there's Romney. So what are we supposed to do?
 
2012-04-23 02:54:20 PM

CPennypacker: That's because that's all they ever say


Sure is. It's kinda what they were elected to do as I recall.
 
2012-04-23 02:58:07 PM

BojanglesPaladin: CPennypacker: That's because that's all they ever say

Sure is. It's kinda what they were elected to do as I recall.


That's sad
 
2012-04-23 03:05:47 PM

CPennypacker: That's sad


I can see why you would think so if you think that everything Obama is doing and wants to do is good. But many people don't see it that way, and their views are just as valid as yours or mine.

I do not fault the duly elected representatives who are duly representing the wishes of their constituancies, and in many of the newly elected Republican house members, those wishes are clearly to stop Obama from advancing his agenda.

Either way, don't look at me, I'm in Sheila Jackson Lee's district.
 
2012-04-23 03:09:58 PM

BojanglesPaladin: CPennypacker: That's sad

I can see why you would think so if you think that everything Obama is doing and wants to do is good. But many people don't see it that way, and their views are just as valid as yours or mine.

I do not fault the duly elected representatives who are duly representing the wishes of their constituancies, and in many of the newly elected Republican house members, those wishes are clearly to stop Obama from advancing his agenda.

Either way, don't look at me, I'm in Sheila Jackson Lee's district.


Its one thing to stand up to the President. He should not have unchecked power. It is another thing entirely to make your entire platform "the opposite of what the darkie said" and double down in opposition to anything he wants to do or even slightly agrees with. Then you aren't doing anything for the country, you're just being obstructionists.
 
2012-04-23 03:22:53 PM

BojanglesPaladin: It's kinda what they were elected to do as I recall.


Actually they were elected with the promise of jobs. Haven't seen any proposals for those yet.
 
2012-04-23 03:46:01 PM

CPennypacker: It is another thing entirely to make your entire platform "the opposite of what the darkie said"


I do not think that is a fair characterization of the Tea-Party' stated objectives. I believe they were something to do with no more taxes, smaller government, reduce what they consider to be job-killing government regulations and stop Obama from doing whatever it is he is trying to do.

I know it is fashionable to try to dismiss the tea-party movement and the sensibility that Obama must be stopped as racially motivated, but I just don't think that most people who feel that way are racist.

I know a lot of people who are opposed to Obama's agendas who are not racist. There is enough to be opposed to without having to concern oneself with half of his genetic makeup.
 
2012-04-23 03:47:33 PM

CPennypacker: BojanglesPaladin: CPennypacker: That's sad

I can see why you would think so if you think that everything Obama is doing and wants to do is good. But many people don't see it that way, and their views are just as valid as yours or mine.

I do not fault the duly elected representatives who are duly representing the wishes of their constituancies, and in many of the newly elected Republican house members, those wishes are clearly to stop Obama from advancing his agenda.

Either way, don't look at me, I'm in Sheila Jackson Lee's district.

Its one thing to stand up to the President. He should not have unchecked power. It is another thing entirely to make your entire platform "the opposite of what the darkie said" and double down in opposition to anything he wants to do or even slightly agrees with. Then you aren't doing anything for the country, you're just being obstructionists.


We get it. He's black.
 
2012-04-23 03:47:44 PM

BojanglesPaladin: CPennypacker: It is another thing entirely to make your entire platform "the opposite of what the darkie said"

I do not think that is a fair characterization of the Tea-Party' stated objectives. I believe they were something to do with no more taxes, smaller government, reduce what they consider to be job-killing government regulations and stop Obama from doing whatever it is he is trying to do.

I know it is fashionable to try to dismiss the tea-party movement and the sensibility that Obama must be stopped as racially motivated, but I just don't think that most people who feel that way are racist.

I know a lot of people who are opposed to Obama's agendas who are not racist. There is enough to be opposed to without having to concern oneself with half of his genetic makeup.


It's not a characterization of the Tea Party's stated objectives. It is a characterization of what they actually do.
 
2012-04-23 03:53:45 PM

BojanglesPaladin: I know it is fashionable to try to dismiss the tea-party movement and the sensibility that Obama must be stopped as racially motivated, but I just don't think that most people who feel that way are racist.


It's not that it's "fashionable". It's just that it's a very difficult conclusion not to come to. Taxes....lower than they ever were under Bush. Spending....the Tea Party was nowhere to be seen when Bush was conducting 2 costly wars that he kept off the books, started the corporate bailouts and turned a surplus into a record deficit. And given all the racist signs and racist rhetoric from the Tea Party since the second Obama was elected, sorry. Throwing around the race card is one thing. Coming to a logical conclusion based on all available facts is another.
 
2012-04-23 03:55:07 PM

CPennypacker: It's not a characterization of the Tea Party's stated objectives. It is a characterization of what they actually do.


I'm pretty sure that none of the Republican representatives have tried to stop Obama on the grounds that he is half-black.

And yes. We get it. He's black. It seems that this is far more important to his supporters than to most of his opponants.
 
2012-04-23 03:58:13 PM

BojanglesPaladin: CPennypacker: It's not a characterization of the Tea Party's stated objectives. It is a characterization of what they actually do.

I'm pretty sure that none of the Republican representatives have tried to stop Obama on the grounds that he is half-black.

And yes. We get it. He's black. It seems that this is far more important to his supporters than to most of his opponants.


You don't have to say "I'm blocking this because he's black" for it to be true. You try to give people the benefit of the doubt, but when all the cards play out you have to eliminate pretty much every other reason they give for their obstructionism. Any Democrat would surely have met some pushback, but nothing like this.
 
2012-04-23 04:05:21 PM

CPennypacker: You try to give people the benefit of the doubt, but when all the cards play out you have to eliminate pretty much every other reason they give for their obstructionism.


Or you just can't accept that they are opposed to a threat that you don't consider to tbe relevant.

For instance, I believe more people are vigorously opposed to his percieved efforts to lead the country into socialism than opposition to his being black.

I am not saying their opposition is rational only that is is not largely premised on racism.

And by mis-attributing the opposition to irrational racism, you are incapable of propelry responding to the irrationality.
 
2012-04-23 04:07:15 PM

BojanglesPaladin: CPennypacker: You try to give people the benefit of the doubt, but when all the cards play out you have to eliminate pretty much every other reason they give for their obstructionism.

Or you just can't accept that they are opposed to a threat that you don't consider to tbe relevant.

For instance, I believe more people are vigorously opposed to his percieved efforts to lead the country into socialism than opposition to his being black.

I am not saying their opposition is rational only that is is not largely premised on racism.

And by mis-attributing the opposition to irrational racism, you are incapable of propelry responding to the irrationality.


So they aren't racists, they are just idiots?

What if some of them are idiots and some of them are racists then? Compromise?
 
2012-04-23 04:39:13 PM

CPennypacker: So they aren't racists, they are just idiots?


I think that MOST of them are opposed to Obama's pronounced (or percieved) efforts to expand the power and scope of the Federal government and significant increases in spending, regulation, and taxes (not only income taxes).

And a small minority of them are opposed to a "darkie" in the office.

So:

What if some most of them are idiots and some a few of them are racists then? Compromise?

If you think that the idea that Obama *IS* working to dramatically expand the power and scope of the Federal government and significant increases in spending, regulation, and taxes (not only income taxes) is idiocy, then I am happy to comprimise with the corrected statement.

I do not expect you to see the Teabagger's viewpoint as possibly valid.
 
2012-04-23 05:00:19 PM

BojanglesPaladin: I think that MOST of them are opposed to Obama's pronounced (or percieved) efforts to expand the power and scope of the Federal government and significant increases in spending, regulation, and taxes (not only income taxes).


So in other words they're idiots.
 
2012-04-23 05:19:49 PM

Wooly Bully: lennavan: As a senator he bashed Bush's expansion of executive power but once he stood in Bush's shoes, he realized why Bush did it.

Actually there's an interesting story in today's NY Times about Obama gaming the system to get certain things done. Call him out on hypocrisy all you want, but you haven't even started to make a case that he's doing it for the same reasons Bush did. The reasons aren't the same, at all.


Uh, I think both of them did it for reasons they actually both believe were for the best interests in the country. Bush was fundamentally stupid and wrong but I never once doubted that was what he actually believed.
 
2012-04-24 12:49:53 AM
Obama's definitely the typical politician all right.
I never bought into the "hope and change" crap, but I did, regrettably, have a bit of trust in him to not take some of the worst things of the Bush administration and renew and even expand them.
(mostly talking about drone strikes and ever increasing audacity in surveillance and searches/arrests/intimidation of US citizens)
 
2012-04-24 03:22:17 PM

lennavan: Wooly Bully: lennavan: As a senator he bashed Bush's expansion of executive power but once he stood in Bush's shoes, he realized why Bush did it.

Actually there's an interesting story in today's NY Times about Obama gaming the system to get certain things done. Call him out on hypocrisy all you want, but you haven't even started to make a case that he's doing it for the same reasons Bush did. The reasons aren't the same, at all.

Uh, I think both of them did it for reasons they actually both believe were for the best interests in the country. Bush was fundamentally stupid and wrong but I never once doubted that was what he actually believed.


Just saw this and it really cracked me up. You really don't see the difference between "their reasons for expanding executive power were the same" and "they both believed what they're doing is right"?
 
2012-04-24 08:11:49 PM
if the r's and d's could work together for the benefit of the people, rather than their own desires, then the president wouldn't feel that way...
 
Displayed 25 of 75 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report