The Imperial President - Yes or No

[carlfense]

He says he wants to work with republicans and build bipartisan consensus on things, yet he has done nothing to try and be bipartisan.

What about Obamacare?

Are you saying this is bipartisan?

I'm saying that adopting the Republican plan for healthcare reform is quite the attempt at bipartisanship.

 

That's true regardless of the purely political policy reversal and adoption of obstructionism by the GOP.

[Junior]

Yeah! Why can't we get His Lordship Obama out of office? Without term limits this man will be president for the next 50 years, and then who'll be laughing?

 

Why can't we at least try term limits? Then we'd fix the imperialness and the hypocrisy of this man, Barack Obama! YOU'LL SEE!!!!

 

Knapp, I get what you are saying, and I agree there is hypocrisy an imperialism on both sides. That is the nature of politics. Obama IMO is just worse, because he comes right out and says he is going to be this and then he doesn't do it.

 

Whether you like Obama Care policies or not, he lied on tape numerous times about being able to keep your current policy.

 

He says he wants to work with republicans and build bipartisan consensus on things, yet he has done nothing to try and be bipartisan.

 

He agreed to the government automatic cuts then when they happened he wants to put all the blame on the pubs.

 

I could go on and on.

 

Are other politicians better, no not really, but he really tries to come off as someone who is better and above all this stuff.

 

There's really no way to respond to this most of this post. It is so filled with random, arbitrary "I hate Obama" lines learned on Fox News that you can't argue with it. However, I will laugh at the notion that Obama won't do anything "bipartisan". The republican idea of "bipartisan" is to have Obama acquiesce to every demand they have. I.E. "We're going to shut down the government unless you repeal Obamacare!" -- Ted Cruz

 

Four months later:

"It wasn't US that wanted to shut down the government. It was Obama and Harry Reid. They just wouldn't be bipartisan at all!" -- Ted Cruz

http://crooksandliar...face-repeatedly

 

"Well, Bob, with all due respect, I don't agree with the premise of your question," Cruz replied. "Throughout the government shutdown, I opposed a government shutdown. I said we shouldn't shut the government down. I think it was a mistake that President Obama and the Democrats shut the government down this fall."

"The question I asked you was, would you ever conceive of trying to shut down the government again?" Schieffer pressed, clearly not buying in to the alternate reality.

"As I said, I didn't threaten to shut down the government the last time," Cruz insisted. "I don't think we should ever shut down the government. And I repeatedly voted..."

"Well," Schieffer interrupted, laughing out of frustration. "If you didn't threaten to shut down the government, who was it that did?"

"President Obama," Cruz said.

Schieffer dropped his head as the Republican senator's rant continued: "I understand the White House said over and over again that the shutdown is the Republicans' fault. And I understand that's what you're repeating. But the reality is, I voted over and over again to fund the federal government."

 

And Obama is CLEARLY the first President to have to change directions on a policy promise. "Read my lips, no new taxes!"

[knapplc]

Obama isn't the first president to change directions on policy promises, no - he's just the worst president to change directions on policy promises.

 

Bush changed policy on taxes because of reasons. Obama changed because he's the worst president in the last 100 years.

 

 

I don't see how people don't understand this. It's obvious.

[knapplc]

Knapp, I get what you are saying, and I agree there is hypocrisy an imperialism on both sides. That is the nature of politics. Obama IMO is just worse, because he comes right out and says he is going to be this and then he doesn't do it.

 

Whether you like Obama Care policies or not, he lied on tape numerous times about being able to keep your current policy.

 

He says he wants to work with republicans and build bipartisan consensus on things, yet he has done nothing to try and be bipartisan.

 

He agreed to the government automatic cuts then when they happened he wants to put all the blame on the pubs.

 

I could go on and on.

 

Are other politicians better, no not really, but he really tries to come off as someone who is better and above all this stuff.

 

I could not agree more. There is hypocrisy everywhere, but the worst hypocrisy is from Obama. There hasn't been a single documented instance where Obama tried to work with the Republicans. Obama is destroying this country, there's no doubt. I'll be amazed if we survive three more years. We could be watching the end of the world as we know it.

[NUpolo8]

Yes, he is the most imperial president we have had and he is a hypocrite.

 

The reason why our system is broken right now is because it was not designed by our founding fathers to be a profession. Jefferson, Washington, Adams, Franklin, et. al did not want to spend their whole life working in government , nor did they think anyone should. Working in public service is to promote the public good, not to keep getting elected. I truly believe most get into public service with the best of intentions but the temptations of the power, money and prestige is just too great.

 

Lets get some term limits and see what happens.

 

I would direct you to study CA state politics for the last 20 years if you think congressional and senate term limits are the answer.

 

I didn't say it was the answer, I said try it and see what happens.

 

I don't know why I'm trying to respond in this thread with a serious answer but here goes.

 

Congressional and Senatorial term limits will create this-- less to zero compromise, more gridlock, and more lobbyists controlling policy.

 

Breaks down like this, let's say a very staunch conservative (or liberal) wins his very gerrymandered district for his two senate tour. Now, he/she knows they've only got two terms, so why anger his/her base? Just tow the party line, leave a hero, and either step across the street into a six figure "consulting" position at the lobby firm of your choice. Then a new staunchly partisan person steps in for their two term limit.

 

Lather, rinse, repeat.

 

 

[NUinID]

Yes, he is the most imperial president we have had and he is a hypocrite.

 

The reason why our system is broken right now is because it was not designed by our founding fathers to be a profession. Jefferson, Washington, Adams, Franklin, et. al did not want to spend their whole life working in government , nor did they think anyone should. Working in public service is to promote the public good, not to keep getting elected. I truly believe most get into public service with the best of intentions but the temptations of the power, money and prestige is just too great.

 

Lets get some term limits and see what happens.

 

I would direct you to study CA state politics for the last 20 years if you think congressional and senate term limits are the answer.

 

I didn't say it was the answer, I said try it and see what happens.

 

I don't know why I'm trying to respond in this thread with a serious answer but here goes.

 

Congressional and Senatorial term limits will create this-- less to zero compromise, more gridlock, and more lobbyists controlling policy.

 

Breaks down like this, let's say a very staunch conservative (or liberal) wins his very gerrymandered district for his two senate tour. Now, he/she knows they've only got two terms, so why anger his/her base? Just tow the party line, leave a hero, and either step across the street into a six figure "consulting" position at the lobby firm of your choice. Then a new staunchly partisan person steps in for their two term limit.

 

Lather, rinse, repeat.

 

I guess you are entitled to your opinion and you may be right, but what you describe is exactly what we have right now. Something needs to change. I am probably a little to conservative for your thinking. Mostly my views run towards the libertarian end of things. I think there is way to much government period. Our president thinks the answer for everything is more government and IMO moving much more towards a socialistic state. I don't agree, it hasn't worked over the long hall in Europe, so why should it work here.

[NUpolo8]

Yes, he is the most imperial president we have had and he is a hypocrite.

 

The reason why our system is broken right now is because it was not designed by our founding fathers to be a profession. Jefferson, Washington, Adams, Franklin, et. al did not want to spend their whole life working in government , nor did they think anyone should. Working in public service is to promote the public good, not to keep getting elected. I truly believe most get into public service with the best of intentions but the temptations of the power, money and prestige is just too great.

 

Lets get some term limits and see what happens.

 

I would direct you to study CA state politics for the last 20 years if you think congressional and senate term limits are the answer.

 

 

I didn't say it was the answer, I said try it and see what happens.

 

I don't know why I'm trying to respond in this thread with a serious answer but here goes.

 

Congressional and Senatorial term limits will create this-- less to zero compromise, more gridlock, and more lobbyists controlling policy.

 

Breaks down like this, let's say a very staunch conservative (or liberal) wins his very gerrymandered district for his two senate tour. Now, he/she knows they've only got two terms, so why anger his/her base? Just tow the party line, leave a hero, and either step across the street into a six figure "consulting" position at the lobby firm of your choice. Then a new staunchly partisan person steps in for their two term limit.

 

Lather, rinse, repeat.

 

I guess you are entitled to your opinion and you may be right, but what you describe is exactly what we have right now. Something needs to change. I am probably a little to conservative for your thinking. Mostly my views run towards the libertarian end of things. I think there is way to much government period. Our president thinks the answer for everything is more government and IMO moving much more towards a socialistic state. I don't agree, it hasn't worked over the long hall in Europe, so why should it work here.

 

Do you think the situation I described where you constantly create more politicians every two terms will shrink government? This is important.

[Landlord]

Reading knapp's hyper-sarcastic incessant trolling:

 

 

[knapplc]

Create dozens of hyper-partisan threads = no comment

 

Comment on one of those threads agreeing with the premise = trolling

 

 

[sd'sker]

I guess you are entitled to your opinion and you may be right, but what you describe is exactly what we have right now. Something needs to change. I am probably a little to conservative for your thinking. Mostly my views run towards the libertarian end of things. I think there is way to much government period. Our president thinks the answer for everything is more government and IMO moving much more towards a socialistic state. I don't agree, it hasn't worked over the long hall in Europe, so why should it work here.

i am just wondering how you think we are moving towards a socialistic state? or how there is more government?

 

yes, there is obamacare. one of the greatest legislative gifts to private industry, a huge boon to insurance companies. the only socialism i see is in alaska, what with their state owned oil fields and profit sharing with the citizens through tax refunds. but no one seemed to be bothered by that socialism; their state's governor ran for vice president!

 

also, we can debate whether socialism has worked in europe (first we would have to define what you mean by socialism), but the argument that something did not work somewhere else so we should not try it here is a bad argument. for instances, people like to point to cuba as a huge failure in communism. as if communism is the reason it is a failed state, not that the world's largest economy placed a rather arbitrary embargo against it. what nation would succeed if it could not trade with america? then people look at russia. communism turned a peasant nation into a first world nation that caused problems for america. now, obviously soviet russia was a dump, but it takes a lot more context and perspective to just say, "the soviet union failed, their form of economy is garbage". (the failures came from rampant corruption and mismanagement, not inherent to the economic philosophy they were trying to install). the flip-side that i hear is that only capitalism could have created the wealth we have seen in america. but america has many natural advantages not seen by other nations. would other forms of economies have been successful? we will never know, but this would have been the country to experiment. but the point is that america has to do what is best for america and has to fine tune whatever system and policies to fit our needs.

[NUinID]

I guess you are entitled to your opinion and you may be right, but what you describe is exactly what we have right now. Something needs to change. I am probably a little to conservative for your thinking. Mostly my views run towards the libertarian end of things. I think there is way to much government period. Our president thinks the answer for everything is more government and IMO moving much more towards a socialistic state. I don't agree, it hasn't worked over the long hall in Europe, so why should it work here.

i am just wondering how you think we are moving towards a socialistic state? or how there is more government?

 

yes, there is obamacare. one of the greatest legislative gifts to private industry, a huge boon to insurance companies. the only socialism i see is in alaska, what with their state owned oil fields and profit sharing with the citizens through tax refunds. but no one seemed to be bothered by that socialism; their state's governor ran for vice president!

 

also, we can debate whether socialism has worked in europe (first we would have to define what you mean by socialism), but the argument that something did not work somewhere else so we should not try it here is a bad argument. for instances, people like to point to cuba as a huge failure in communism. as if communism is the reason it is a failed state, not that the world's largest economy placed a rather arbitrary embargo against it. what nation would succeed if it could not trade with america? then people look at russia. communism turned a peasant nation into a first world nation that caused problems for america. now, obviously soviet russia was a dump, but it takes a lot more context and perspective to just say, "the soviet union failed, their form of economy is garbage". (the failures came from rampant corruption and mismanagement, not inherent to the economic philosophy they were trying to install). the flip-side that i hear is that only capitalism could have created the wealth we have seen in america. but america has many natural advantages not seen by other nations. would other forms of economies have been successful? we will never know, but this would have been the country to experiment. but the point is that america has to do what is best for america and has to fine tune whatever system and policies to fit our needs.

 

I didn't say we are moving towards a socialist state I said Obama would like to move towards a socialist state.

 

What natural advantages does the United States have not seen by other nations?

[Junior]

I guess you are entitled to your opinion and you may be right, but what you describe is exactly what we have right now. Something needs to change. I am probably a little to conservative for your thinking. Mostly my views run towards the libertarian end of things. I think there is way to much government period. Our president thinks the answer for everything is more government and IMO moving much more towards a socialistic state. I don't agree, it hasn't worked over the long hall in Europe, so why should it work here.

i am just wondering how you think we are moving towards a socialistic state? or how there is more government?

 

Because socialism. And 4 dead Americans, sd.

[Landlord]

Not actually contributing to the discussion but feigning fake agreement not once but eleven straight times = trolling

 

 

Agreed.

[NUinID]

Do you think the situation I described where you constantly create more politicians every two terms will shrink government? This is important.

 

I don't know if it would create more politicians or not, but I don't think the founders of our nation envisioned 40 year career politicians in the federal government.

[sd'sker]

What natural advantages does the United States have not seen by other nations?

the two big ones are vast natural resources and we are surrounded by an ocean, insulating us from our enemies.