Do you have adblock enabled?
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.

(Talking Points Memo)   What Obama's "Permission Structure" means: "I'm gonna fark you farking obstructionist dumbasses so hard, you'll wish Grover farking Norquist had the power to make you close your eyes and think of budget cuts"   (tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com) divider line 120
    More: Interesting, President Obama, Grover Norquist, obstructionists, Jeremy Irons, partisan polarization, Dana Milbank, Rube Goldberg device, United States budget process  
•       •       •

4190 clicks; posted to Politics » on 03 May 2013 at 10:04 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-05-03 10:07:57 AM  
And this time, he really means it.
 
2013-05-03 10:10:56 AM  
Don't worry. This won't work perfectly, which will cause angry liberals to declare he needs to be meaner, softer, friendlier, angrier, or whatever liberal fantasy they dream up while masturbating to the "The American President".
 
2013-05-03 10:12:42 AM  
Obama needs Norquist to pass Illegal Alien Amnesty/ Immigration Reform.... so Obama is going to cool his jets. Norquist is a bigger Amnesty supporter than Obama is
 
2013-05-03 10:13:06 AM  
It's not a leadership failure when the opposition's arguments are "DEMONCRAT SOCIALIST MUSLIM KENYAN BLAH MAN!".

But I'm glad that someone can get around to blaming him for allowing Republicans to be retards.
 
2013-05-03 10:13:31 AM  
It means something more along the lines of "I'm going to gently coax sanity out of the GOP by filtering my message through their approved authoritarian mouthpieces so that their slack-jawed base won't reject it out of hand because I'm blah."
 
2013-05-03 10:13:54 AM  
that article made my head spin. thanks, obama.
 
2013-05-03 10:14:33 AM  

WTF Indeed: Don't worry. This won't work perfectly, which will cause angry liberals to declare he needs to be meaner, softer, friendlier, angrier, or whatever liberal fantasy they dream up while masturbating to the "The American President".


ahm... that's one of the strangest statements I think I've seen in a while.
 
2013-05-03 10:15:17 AM  
What Obama thinks is irrelevant. The President has no power in this country as long as the Senate lacks a 60-seat supermajority
 
2013-05-03 10:15:42 AM  
Otherwise known as the continued tantrum of president man child who is angry that he can't have everything after the 2010 election.

Just remember

2008: Elections have consequences, you have to do what Obama wants.
2010: Elections have no consequences, you have to do what Obama wants or you're an obstructionist.
2012: Elections have consequences again, you have to do what Obama wants.
 
2013-05-03 10:15:51 AM  

dinch: WTF Indeed: Don't worry. This won't work perfectly, which will cause angry liberals to declare he needs to be meaner, softer, friendlier, angrier, or whatever liberal fantasy they dream up while masturbating to the "The American President".

ahm... that's one of the strangest statements I think I've seen in a while.


He is just living up to his logon.
 
2013-05-03 10:15:56 AM  
I thought it's hilarious that the Senate Democrats basically say that they are the reason the House Republicans get anything done in their own party. Apparently in order to bypass the Tea Tards, they go to the Democrats.

farking hilarious.
 
2013-05-03 10:16:39 AM  
Boner is the one that can't lead his own troops.

The reality is the teabaggers need to go, and it shouldn't be too hard to find republicans willing to help with that.
 
2013-05-03 10:18:03 AM  
Perhaps stubby read a different article? Cause this one talks about Obama pretty much giving up on the idea of getting the GOP to work with him, and instead having to pretend he has nothing to do with bills just to get them a fair vote.
 
2013-05-03 10:19:19 AM  
Still wants more taxes from the wealthy, right? This will not end well.
 
2013-05-03 10:19:55 AM  
I read that in Jesus Quintana's voice.
 
2013-05-03 10:20:36 AM  

Cletus C.: Still wants more taxes from the wealthy, right?


Everyone does, and it's time for them to pay the fiddler.
 
2013-05-03 10:21:30 AM  

HotWingConspiracy: Boner is the one that can't lead his own troops.

The reality is the teabaggers need to go, and it shouldn't be too hard to find republicans willing to help with that.


The GOP base is baggers. If anything they're just going to elect even crazier ones next time. There's no getting rid of them, since they get even more insane when they don't get their way. It's either abandon ship or go full bagger if you're a moderate Republican.
 
2013-05-03 10:23:33 AM  

HotWingConspiracy: Cletus C.: Still wants more taxes from the wealthy, right?

Everyone does, and it's time for them to pay the fiddler.


If everyone does then it shall be.
 
2013-05-03 10:24:23 AM  

Cletus C.: HotWingConspiracy: Cletus C.: Still wants more taxes from the wealthy, right?

Everyone does, and it's time for them to pay the fiddler.

If everyone does then it shall be.


Right, like universal background checks for firearms purchases.
 
2013-05-03 10:25:28 AM  

Cletus C.: HotWingConspiracy: Cletus C.: Still wants more taxes from the wealthy, right?

Everyone does, and it's time for them to pay the fiddler.

If everyone does then it shall be.


Except background checks
 
2013-05-03 10:25:39 AM  

randomjsa: Otherwise known as the continued tantrum of president man child who is angry that he can't have everything after the 2010 election.

Just remember

2008: Elections have consequences, you have to do what Obama wants.
2010: Elections have no consequences, you have to do what Obama wants or you're an obstructionist.
2012: Elections have consequences again, you have to do what Obama wants.


When I see him having a conniption and screaming "I'm the Decider. I'M THE DECIDER!!!" Then I'll consider him having a tantrum.
 
Bf+
2013-05-03 10:25:41 AM  
See "Divide and Conquer"

He is in a unique position.  The Republicans have not only flatly stated, but in action, confirmed that they will oppose anything ANYTHING Obama suggests.
Sequestration?  Bring it on!
Background checks that 90% Americans want?  No!

There's already in-fighting among the Republicans in general, and the Republican lead house of representatives is the lowest approval rate in history.
This is the Democrats best chance ever to completely dismantle the republican party.
Start drafting bills to fund meals on wheels, prevent known terrorists from selling assault weapons, declare Mr Rogers a "nice guy".
Most will oppose it all and be hit hard with negative press.  Then go after gerrymandered redistricting.

/Yeah, I know.  Unlikely.
 
2013-05-03 10:26:58 AM  

tricycleracer: I read that in Jesus Quintana's voice.


I read that in Roman Moroni's voice

/fargin war!!!
 
2013-05-03 10:29:29 AM  
Has it been long enough yet for us to objectively say that Obama has not been a particularly effective president? He certainly could have been worse, and he certainly could have been better, but if we consider the job of the Presidency to be primarily to effectively implement policy, it should be clear by now that he is mediocre at best.

Or will it be another three years of rationalizations, excuses, modified expectatiions and whatnot?
 
2013-05-03 10:30:00 AM  
But the alternative for Obama is to limp along with sequestration - or at best perpetually underfunded discretionary programs - and cede debt limit politics to the GOP for the foreseeable future.

Sounds good to me
 
2013-05-03 10:36:21 AM  

BojanglesPaladin: Has it been long enough yet for us to objectively say that Obama has not been a particularly effective president? He certainly could have been worse, and he certainly could have been better, but if we consider the job of the Presidency to be primarily to effectively implement policy, it should be clear by now that he is mediocre at best.

Or will it be another three years of rationalizations, excuses, modified expectatiions and whatnot?


You mean if we arbitrarily set the definition of effectiveness at "implementing policy no matter what, ignoring all context and reason"? Plus if you ignore the few legislative successes too?

You can't evaluate a president absent any context, it's meaningless.
 
2013-05-03 10:36:46 AM  

Saiga410: Sounds good to me


Yea..... because there's nothing quite like performing endoscopic surgery with a battleaxe....
 
2013-05-03 10:36:47 AM  
Republicans remind me of that episode on Sesame Street w L.L....(yes, I have 4 kids....watch WAY more sesame street than I care to admit)  Where they were talking about the word 'unanimous'.  And no matter what the group decided, Oscar the Grouch would disagree, just to be disagreeable, and prevent the vote from being 'unanimous'.  So just to make a point, the group kept agreeing with him, and eventually, he ran and hid in his trash can...kind of a fitting analogy for the likes of Bachmann, Aikin, Windbag(I mean Limbaugh), and the like...eh?
 
2013-05-03 10:38:21 AM  

BojanglesPaladin: Has it been long enough yet for us to objectively say that Obama has not been a particularly effective president? He certainly could have been worse, and he certainly could have been better, but if we consider the job of the Presidency to be primarily to effectively implement policy, it should be clear by now that he is mediocre at best.

Or will it be another three years of rationalizations, excuses, modified expectatiions and whatnot?


Since the POTUS is not a dictator, how do you propose he/she lead a group of congress members who, by their own admission, will not work with him/her at all? What can he/she do?

You righties biatched and moaned that Obamacare was shoved down our throats. You righties also complain at the same time, that Obama can't get anything done. So you biatch when he gets things done... and you biatch when he does not.

Lastly, if the POTUS could bypass congress, then I'm sure Obama would have done so a long time ago, which sounds like you are OK and not OK with this.
 
2013-05-03 10:38:34 AM  
I have to reluctantly conclude President Obama is not sufficiently displaying the iron fist. There needs to be military base closings and withdrawal of Federal contracts  now in obstreperous Red states, with the message "toe the line or suffer the consequences." Obama is just too nice a guy to be an effective president.
 
2013-05-03 10:41:35 AM  

BojanglesPaladin: Has it been long enough yet for us to objectively say that Obama has not been a particularly effective president?


Compared to what?

Compared to Bill Clinton, he's an also-ran. Compared to W Bush, he's goddamn Deep Thought.
 
2013-05-03 10:41:48 AM  

BojanglesPaladin: Has it been long enough yet for us to objectively say that Obama has not been a particularly effective president? He certainly could have been worse, and he certainly could have been better, but if we consider the job of the Presidency to be primarily to effectively implement policy, it should be clear by now that he is mediocre at best.

Or will it be another three years of rationalizations, excuses, modified expectatiions and whatnot?


See here folks, this is what a deeply rooted partisan bias does to your perceptions.
 
2013-05-03 10:42:49 AM  

BojanglesPaladin: Has it been long enough yet for us to objectively say that Obama has not been a particularly effective president? He certainly could have been worse, and he certainly could have been better, but if we consider the job of the Presidency to be primarily to effectively implement policy, it should be clear by now that he is mediocre at best.

Or will it be another three years of rationalizations, excuses, modified expectatiions and whatnot?


I really hope Drew isn't paying you top dollar, because that is some of the most phoned in trolling I have seen in my entire time on the Politics boards.

Might want to step it up or you're gonna be replaced.
 
2013-05-03 10:45:45 AM  

Bashar and Asma's Infinite Playlist: There's no getting rid of them, since they get even more insane when they don't get their way.


This "doubling-down" effect is quite troublesome.  Pants-shiattingly frightening, in fact.  Absolutely no good will come from pandering to these morons, because the policy decisions they support are not in their best interest, leading to greater frustration, derp, and baggin'.  Thus, even candidates that go full derp are playing a losing game, as these morons will find ever-increasingly violent, short-sighted, ignorant rhetoric or positions.
 
2013-05-03 10:47:01 AM  
As Sen. Pat Toomey (R-PA) revealed in an interview about the gun bill's failure this week, "There were some on my side who did not want to be seen helping the president do something he wanted to get done, just because the president wanted to do it."


This kinda pisses me off.

/at least he had the balls (or was stupid enough) to admit it.
 
2013-05-03 10:48:52 AM  

DROxINxTHExWIND: As Sen. Pat Toomey (R-PA) revealed in an interview about the gun bill's failure this week, "There were some on my side who did not want to be seen helping the president do something he wanted to get done, just because the president wanted to do it."


This kinda pisses me off.

/at least he had the balls (or was stupid enough) to admit it.


And sadly, will probably get his ass primaried in the next PA Senate race.
 
2013-05-03 10:54:30 AM  

LasersHurt: Plus if you ignore the few legislative successes too? You can't evaluate a president absent any context, it's meaningless.


Which ones? I'm not evaluating absent any context.

hugram: Since the POTUS is not a dictator, how do you propose he/she lead a group of congress members who, by their own admission, will not work with him/her at all? What can he/she do?


Be more effective in convincing them, or be more effective in working on mutual objectives without including divisive ingredients. Less "no quid without my quo" negotions. I don't think anyone believes he has had a compliant congress since Pelosi lost control of the house, but it's been five years, and he hasn't figured out how to change his game. That has proven to be innefective.
 
2013-05-03 10:54:38 AM  
but if we consider the job of the Presidency to be primarily to effectively implement policy,

ahhh hahahahhhahhah
 
2013-05-03 10:55:42 AM  

KiltedBastich: See here folks, this is what a deeply rooted partisan bias does to your perceptions.


How so? Do you think Obama has been very effective? What leads you to that conclusion?
 
2013-05-03 10:57:01 AM  
I don't understand exactly wtf a "permission structure" is, exactly.  That article was a little too much for me this morning.
 
2013-05-03 11:03:31 AM  

Bashar and Asma's Infinite Playlist: The GOP base is baggers

dildoes.
 
2013-05-03 11:04:37 AM  

BojanglesPaladin: hugram: Since the POTUS is not a dictator, how do you propose he/she lead a group of congress members who, by their own admission, will not work with him/her at all? What can he/she do?

Be more effective in convincing them, or be more effective in working on mutual objectives without including divisive ingredients. Less "no quid without my quo" negotions. I don't think anyone believes he has had a compliant congress since Pelosi lost control of the house, but it's been five years, and he hasn't figured out how to change his game. That has proven to be innefective.


Republicans love tax cuts... then why did they blocked a 10 percent tax break for small businesses that hires new employees?

And speaking of divisive... how is this not divisive?

Mitch McConnell Admits That Republicans Took America Hostage and that his number one priority is to make sure President Obama is a one-term president

Just admit that the GOP never planned to work with the President. Why don't guys own up to it?
 
2013-05-03 11:04:59 AM  

DirkValentine: I don't understand exactly wtf a "permission structure" is, exactly.  That article was a little too much for me this morning.


I read permission structure as Obamas attempt to double reverse meta troll the repubs into doing his bidding by him not doing anything and letting the house and senate work together because he admits whenever he touches any legislation it turns to mush.
 
2013-05-03 11:06:03 AM  

BojanglesPaladin: Be more effective in convincing them, or be more effective in working on mutual objectives without including divisive ingredients. Less "no quid without my quo" negotions. I don't think anyone believes he has had a compliant congress since Pelosi lost control of the house, but it's been five years, and he hasn't figured out how to change his game. That has proven to be innefective.


How exactly does he change his game to work with people that refuse to work with the president on principle. Just see the background checks vote for an example.

BojanglesPaladin: KiltedBastich: See here folks, this is what a deeply rooted partisan bias does to your perceptions.

How so? Do you think Obama has been very effective? What leads you to that conclusion?


People think of stuff like healthcare reform, the stimulus, DADT and so on.
 
2013-05-03 11:13:33 AM  
Obama Permission structure:

UN
  |
Soros
  |
NPR/Planned Parenthood
  |
Barney Frank / Nancy Pelosi's brother-in-law
  |
RINOs
  |
Anyone other than Rand Paul
 
2013-05-03 11:14:59 AM  

Dr Dreidel: Compared to Bill Clinton, he's an also-ran. Compared to W Bush, he's goddamn Deep Thought.


Agreed. But objectively, I think GW actually got more things done. They may have been BAD things, but he was effective. And what Obama wants to get done may be GOOD things, but he hasn't been very effective in getting them done.

Clinton was extremely effective, even with a congress so adverserial that they impeached him. Obama hasn't figured out how to work the levers effectively. If it wasn't for Biden and others doing background work, I think it would be even worse. I really wish he had waited until 2016 to run. Then he would have had a deeper, more instinctive understanding of the system and how to more deftly manipulate congress.
 
2013-05-03 11:15:38 AM  

Saiga410: DirkValentine: I don't understand exactly wtf a "permission structure" is, exactly.  That article was a little too much for me this morning.

I read permission structure as Obamas attempt to double reverse meta troll the repubs into doing his bidding by him not doing anything and letting the house and senate work together because he admits whenever he touches any legislation it turns to mush.


Yeah, I was kind of getting that. Wanting the top level Repubs to feel like they came up with the idea so the guys beneath feel like they have "permission" to vote on it the way ZEROBAMA wants.  I just thought the phrase "permission structure" was weird.
 
2013-05-03 11:16:38 AM  

DROxINxTHExWIND: As Sen. Pat Toomey (R-PA) revealed in an interview about the gun bill's failure this week, "There were some on my side who did not want to be seen helping the president do something he wanted to get done, just because the president wanted to do it."


This kinda pisses me off.

/at least he had the balls (or was stupid enough) to admit it.


Reading things like this and McConnells "Top priorty one term of presidentin' while black", then watching election results and/or discussing politics with people (not farkers) reminds me that there aren't a whole lot of people who pay any attention to this stuff other than, well, people like us.  Or they watch FOX news.

Otherwise how in the fark can people openly admit all this then get reelected?  Same goes for shiat like the Franken "Rape Bill".  I brought it up to guys at work who always felt the need to interject a shiatty comment about "libs" or "nobama" during a normal lunch.  They told me I was full of shiat. I pull it up on the phone.  They say "it's from HuffPo, so I'm not reading it".  So I go to the farking AP, or the farking congressional website.  They pore over it and then come away with, "well, i've never heard about this.  this is weird.  there MUST be more to the story".

In.  The.  farking. Bubble.
 
2013-05-03 11:18:27 AM  

hugram: Just admit that the GOP never planned to work with the President.


Of course they didn't. They have announced that intent. They won in 2010 by promising not to. They are the OPPOSITION. Why are some of you still startled to discover that the opposition party is intent on opposing?

This line of argument "Obama is not effective because the Republicans are all poop-heads who won't do anything he wants"  is all well and good and it has the added benefit of being true, but it simply does not change the fact that five years and two elections later, Obama is not effective.
 
2013-05-03 11:22:20 AM  
God forbid that a president actually attempt to fulfill his campaign promises...

Obama always has taken the long view. He will slow roll the GOP until they come around or show themselves to be obstructionist haters. Even if he doesnt get what he wants this term he is laying the ground work for further development by future Democrats.

I like his style.
 
Displayed 50 of 120 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report