Obama Caves In Harder Than A Poorly Constructed Chilean Mine
- Thread starter Tacitusitis
- Start date
Xanikk999
History junkie
Considering Chaimberlin bowed to the Nazis, and Obama is bowing to the GOP, what connections can we draw?
Couldnt resist adhering to Godwin's Law?
Bad ones, like most connections drawn with historical janxConsidering Chaimberlin bowed to the Nazis, and Obama is bowing to the GOP, what connections can we draw?
Xanikk999
History junkie
Oddly enough, I always hear politicians use that fallacious arguments like that all the time even when the two ideas are unrelated. Rational thinking should be a requirement for pursuing a political career.
It's not just politicians. Most people seem to think that they can apply some "lesson" from history forward or compare dissimilar things. I only tend to do so when trolling.
Archbob
Ancient CFC Guardian
Sorry, liberals. Barack Obama is no Bill Clinton.
Heck, he's not even Hillary.
Heck, he's not even Hillary.
Xanikk999
History junkie
It will be hard to trust a so called "liberal" politician in the future. Honestly I thought he would be a tad different from Bush considering his family history, where he is from and lived, and his political background.
Yep - things were looking great for the Big Dog at this point in '94. Got his health care bill done, progress on DADT, and had a great mid-term election cycle.
Archbob
Ancient CFC Guardian
Bill Clinton persevered, Barack Obama is Doomed!!! Muhahahaha.
Obama is just a cigar and stained blue dress away from getting his popularity back.
Archbob
Ancient CFC Guardian
Who volunteers to be the girl this time?
I still maintain: He has a choice. That you all (you, him, Axelrod) agree on not appreciating it doesn't change that.
Here. Technically you didn't exclude the possibility. But your point - apparently - was exactly that there is no real alternative.
(Which is allways a great argument and a nice starter for a decent conversation).
Here. The second part. If you didn't mean by that, that Obama couldn't have the extension passed that he wanted before the election, i really don't know what sense you were trying to make in that context.
Again: If you clarify i'm perfectly willing to go along with it. Until you do you should be able to deal with me picking the arguably most plausible meaning in good faith.
So what you write does only matter as long as you want it to? Maybe you didn't get it: I was trying to be nice. I was saying that i saw your point.
But ok. You never made that point. So i don't see what you intended to communicate.
But i still see that point. That you never made.
As i said. I didn't call him liberal before you claimed i did. I was so nice to qualify instead of being defensive.
I might as well have condemned you for misrepresenting me.
And you had the nicety to follow up on that, suggesting that i completely misused the term liberal by using it in its conventional meaning (that i consider as questionable as you do).
I was kind of hurt by that, cause i thought i made it amply clear in some other topics that i am very much aware of the erosion of this term (and some others). I tried to argue that in a decent fashion, too, instead of just outright attacking you for libeling me or something like that.
Basically yes. It's part of my point. But at the heart of it is that he knew perfectly well that this wasn't going to work out the easy way and he still confirmed his resolve to have his way (extension for the middle class but not the rich) time and time again. That he now isn't willing to risk the confrontation is, well, going back on his word. It's not far fetched to say he decieved people on this (or lied).
Please note that i am generally not someone who expects Obama to be the macho president all the time. Of course he couldn't fit all expectations on healthcare or the economy. I didn't critezise him for either in this thread. I am not pushing the idea that he is to weak in general. But he is to weak on some things. Or he should not have campaigned on them. This is one. The "full repeal" of Doma is another one and even worse. He perfectly well knew that going through an actual filibuster would be the least that would be necessary to accomplish that. And he didn't even make Republicans do that and step in one line with Strom Thurmond...
I'm sorry. You deserve a more elaborate answer.
JohnRM
Don't make me destroy you
It isn't a punishment for our wealthier citizens. It is recognizing that their wealth only exists because of the contributions made by the rest of us. But, of course, we don't allow anyone to volunteer to make contributions of their own, just like most of us have no choice, but to contribute to the profits of the wealthy. If any of us had a choice, we wouldn't do any of it. But we all have a role to play that makes this country work and the wealthy benefit more than enough to make up for the taxes that they pay.
That's why Obama was nominated.
JohnRM
Don't make me destroy you
Bottom line, Obama and the Democrats are gutless. They're too worried about trying to please everyone that they end up pissing everyone off.
Archbob
Ancient CFC Guardian
Hahaha, the once great Barack Obama is falling, he will soon be overthrown!
You all will wish for the times of Barack Obama once the mighty Sarah Palin ascends the Throne.
You all will wish for the times of Barack Obama once the mighty Sarah Palin ascends the Throne.
Bestbank Tiger
Deity
The Repubs aren't in charge until January. If the D's really wanted to they could use the lame duck session to make the Bush tax cuts permanent for the bottom 98%. It's a revenue related bill so they could use reconciliation to overcome a filibuster.
If I remember right, NAFTA was passed in a lame duck session.
If I remember right, NAFTA was passed in a lame duck session.
Formaldehyde
Both Fair And Balanced
He obviously has a choice. I don't think anybody is stating that. I am certainly not.
Once again, I am stating nothing of the sort.
No, I simply stated that presidents have always used the same procedure to put their bills before Congress, and that most of Obama's important bills have been filibustered in the Senate by the Republicans voting as a block to defeat them. It's really that simple. Do you disagree with either statement?
Sorry that I apparently hurt your feelings. I meant nothing by it and I certainly haven't read enough of your posts yet to be able to discern your views on most topics.
I would agree with you on that. He promised that the taxes of the rich would be increased. But now he apparenlly feels he can no longer do so unless he sacrifices his promise to the middle class to not increase their taxes. I can certainly see why he would want to break the former promise instead of the latter one. Increasing the taxes of the middle class would likely be political suicide right now. Most people now expect their votes to be bought by politicians in this absurd manner and he has repeatedly told them he would not do so.
As Illiram pointed out earlier, it may be an occupational disease with attorneys. They tend to be very risk averse.
Personally, I think he should have made a lot more public appearances to hype his vision of the word. He is now finally doing that to some extent with his Asia tour. Hopefully, there will be more of it during the next two years.
The Republicans have shown that they can still control Congress even when they have a minority in both bodies by forcing everybody to march in lockstep to defeat all his major bills. The American public should be incensed about this continual misuse of political power. But they are not. Instead, they seem to be actually rallying behind it as a way to stop "government spending".
I think it is too early to give up on Obama. He still has two more years to show the American public that he deserves to have this job. He has already worked wonders in transforming back the American reputation in many foreign countries, which was hopelessly destroyed by the largely inept Bush administration. The economy is apparently starting to recover.
Similar threads
- Locked
