Boehner just asked Obama to move his speech by one day

[MiddleClass]

Much ado about nothing - just media hype over a scheduling conflict

 

[Conservative]

Much ado about nothing - just media hype over a scheduling conflict

Do you honestly think that either the President or his staff is so incompetent that the 'conflict' was an accident?

 

[Article 15]

I have no idea what that means.......explain please?

Meaning they had the numbers but not the votes for cloture.

I'm looking at Sen. Webb and Sen. Nelson.

so they had a filibuster majority, but they didn't. I am sorry that doesn't wash.

Sure it does.

They had the number of D's they needed for it....well not really, they had 58 D's and Lieberman and Sanders were I's. Lieberman who often votes with the GOP, BTW.

But then there is Nelson-NE and Webb-VA who are blue dog Dems and a huge reason why the Dems couldn't just ram thru a healthcare bill of their choosing, they refused to vote for cloture.

So like I said they had the numbers but not the votes.

A filibuster proof majority in name only.

Pretty easy concept.

 

[Jarhead]

Much ado about nothing - just media hype over a scheduling conflict

boy...if this is true, then we are in deeper trouble than I thought.

With all the taxpayer money that is spent on the white house staff, they were not aware that there was a GOP debate at the Reagan Library that night?

Wow.....the scheduling people have only one thing to do...make sure it doesnt conflict with anything.....and they werent aware that the speaker had a prior engagement that has been advertised for months?

Wow.....thats distrurbing.

 

[Jarhead]

Much ado about nothing - just media hype over a scheduling conflict

Do you honestly think that either the President or his staff is so incompetent that the 'conflict' was an accident?

dam...you beat me to it.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I just read every page on this thread.


I have come to the conclusion that we are fucked as a nation.


I personally rather hear what the Prez has to say however, I understand there is some excitement about the GOP debate but do we really have to turn this into a Parisian debacle?


I sit here quite disappointed in the majority of the posts I read, on both ends. We have a lack of critical thinking going on here, for sure.

I believe the point, drooler, is that the nation shouldn't HAVE to choose between hearing Obama's droning, long-winded batch of nothing much and seeing a debate between future contenders for the same office.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Obama has a few aces in his back pocket, now is not the time to go there. the gloves will come off. If im him, I wait for the GOP to decide on a contender and then go full throttle. Obama is a smart tactful politician.


This was not worth even going there. I would assume most of American would want to hear Obamas new plan. I should say, more peeps want to hear Obama than listen to a GOP round table sparring match.

Yeah, he's so smart and tactful that he just stepped on his johnson with THIS dumbass, puerile stunt.

 

[BoycottTheday]

This is nice, i get offered two free MRE's per person butt...

i have to drive a 20 mile round trip to get them..

Jee, thanks for nothing Obama, you people are doomed.

And besides, i dont need your freaken handouts, thanks anyways.

Whats the topic? Never mind i have more important things to deal with.

Im sure all this is Bush's fault anyways.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Didn't backfire at all.

Worked just as it was probably intended to work.

You wouldn't see that.

But then again..you'll probably be dumbfounded by the 2012 election results too.

Claim it was ACORN!!!

I it worked the way it was intended to work....then that must mean the intention was to piss people off.

Is that a good way to lead this country?

By pissing everyone off???

Forget it.

You lack the empathy and/or cognition to understand statecraft.

Or why this was well played.

And, see, loftily declaring that you'll never understand it frees Sallow from having to EXPLAIN why this is "statecraft" and "well-played", rather than just vaguely declaring that it was.

If this is the best you can bluff, fool, you should avoid poker tables like the plague.

 

[Cecilie1200]

The speaker has the power to stop him. He does control when the house gathers after all. This could get ugly.

can you believe this petty shit!! Don't try to tell me Obama did not plan this !!

Nope.

This was completely intended.

And it worked great.

You're such a nut..you might understand why.

::Searching in vain for where Sallow explains how this was brilliant on Obama's part, rather than just claiming it was and everyone else is too stupid to get it::

 

[Conservative]

can you believe this petty shit!! Don't try to tell me Obama did not plan this !!

Nope.

This was completely intended.

And it worked great.

You're such a nut..you might understand why.

::Searching in vain for where Sallow explains how this was brilliant on Obama's part, rather than just claiming it was and everyone else is too stupid to get it::

like I said earlier... he's been snorting the glitter again.

 

[Jarhead]

Nope.

This was completely intended.

And it worked great.

You're such a nut..you might understand why.

::Searching in vain for where Sallow explains how this was brilliant on Obama's part, rather than just claiming it was and everyone else is too stupid to get it::

like I said earlier... he's been snorting the glitter again.

whoa...back up a minute...

I, certainly not an Obama lover, see it as brilliant.

On thuirsday he is going to tell the American people that the GOP made it quite clear that their little debate...one of dozens...was more important than the job situation in the country.

It was a calculated, brilliant move by the Obama team.

And Boehner fell for it.....hook line and sinker...

And I guarantee you this...right now Boehner is kicking huimself for falling for it.

 

[mudwhistle]

What do our opponents mean when they apply to us the label “Liberal?” If by “Liberal” they mean, as they want people to believe, someone who is soft in his policies abroad, who is against local government, and who is unconcerned with the taxpayer’s dollar, then the record of this party and its members demonstrate that we are not that kind of “Liberal.” But if by a “Liberal” they mean someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the people — their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties — someone who believes we can break through the stalemate and suspicions that grip us in our policies abroad, if that is what they mean by a “Liberal,” then I’m proud to say I’m a “Liberal.” -- John F Kennedy

You can't define "liberal" anymore either. This is why so many of you try to evade the word. Some of you pretend that you are "progressives" while simultaneously pretending that "progressive" means something else. Some of you come up with other ways to evade the application of the term "liberal."

Now, flummoxed as always by your own disingenuous positions, you ask for others to "define" their meaning of your slippery terminology? Why? So that you can quibble and evade some more.

One thing is clear despite your determined efforts to muddy the waters. When your opponents refer to you guys as "libs," they mean that you aren't conservatives. And that entails a lot of things.

One thing it means is that you REJECT the intended meanings of the Constitution. You REJECT the notion that the Constitution is supposed to be more akin to an anchoring ROCK rather than some amorphous, ephemeral, changeable, mutable "living" and "breathing" thing subject to constant re-defining to suit the preferences of the day and of the partisans.

Instead of asking us what WE mean when we call you libs, "liberals," why don't you try to pin it down for yourself? Do some heavy lifting.

WTF do YOU guys mean by "liberal?"

L, what do YOU mean by "conservative" because you are merely a New Right hard reactionary. Your philosophy is not what this country needs and certainly not the poseurs from the New Right in the GOP. You are a rino.

There's nothing radical about conservatism. Hard-right only applies when you're living in a hard-left ideology.

Conservatism is the resistance to radical change. Saying true conservatives are hard right is as much a misnomer as saying apple-pie is an exotic dish.

 

[deepthunk]

I understand that John Boehner’s objections stemmed from the fact that security would have less than two hours to examine the premises? One wonders what the house speaker thinks might happen, is he concerned that a member of congress is going to attempt to assonate the president? I know the partisan bickering and proverbial vitriol has reached an all-time high but I hardly think such levels of concern are justified. Indeed one might even be inclined to call it paranoid, unless of course the house speaker has someone in mind he might believe to be of concern (I’m not hedging any bets here, I think its Eric Cantor).
When I first heard that the president had capitulated and moved the date of his address, I was for a moment disappointed that such an oblivious political powerplay had been allowed to succeed. However, having considered the facts in the matter, I understand the administrations reasoning.
Recently I got involved in a situation where I disagreed with someone else over a relatively small matter. Technically, we both had valid points and neither of us was willing to concede even one small detail, as a result the argument continued to escalate until this tiny insignificant issue had been blown ridiculously out of proportion. Sometimes it’s better to just concede a small issue, than allow it to become the proverbial mountain from a molehill.

 

[deepthunk]

You can't define "liberal" anymore either. This is why so many of you try to evade the word. Some of you pretend that you are "progressives" while simultaneously pretending that "progressive" means something else. Some of you come up with other ways to evade the application of the term "liberal."

Now, flummoxed as always by your own disingenuous positions, you ask for others to "define" their meaning of your slippery terminology? Why? So that you can quibble and evade some more.

One thing is clear despite your determined efforts to muddy the waters. When your opponents refer to you guys as "libs," they mean that you aren't conservatives. And that entails a lot of things.

One thing it means is that you REJECT the intended meanings of the Constitution. You REJECT the notion that the Constitution is supposed to be more akin to an anchoring ROCK rather than some amorphous, ephemeral, changeable, mutable "living" and "breathing" thing subject to constant re-defining to suit the preferences of the day and of the partisans.

Instead of asking us what WE mean when we call you libs, "liberals," why don't you try to pin it down for yourself? Do some heavy lifting.

WTF do YOU guys mean by "liberal?"

L, what do YOU mean by "conservative" because you are merely a New Right hard reactionary. Your philosophy is not what this country needs and certainly not the poseurs from the New Right in the GOP. You are a rino.

There's nothing radical about conservatism.

It's like claiming apple-pie is an exotic dish.

It depends on what one means by radical, while the doctrine of conservatives may seem to be, by definition conservative, the reality is conservatives often propose radical ideas (such as radical deregulation of business’s) or use radical means to push their agenda (such as Timothy McVeigh).

 

[J.E.D]

Kennedy described himself as a "liberal" but obviously was alluding to the emerging "social liberal" construct.

He was a liberal in many respects, too.

But in some ways, his behavior would be difficult to distinguish from that of one of today's conservatives. He was unabashed about projecting an image of our national military strength, for example. Unlike today's "libs" who are oddly embarrassed about it.

JFK also understood that a rising tide lifts all boats (to closely paraphrase his own use of the language) and therefore JFK was not opposed to CUTTING taxes.

What do our opponents mean when they apply to us the label “Liberal?” If by “Liberal” they mean, as they want people to believe, someone who is soft in his policies abroad, who is against local government, and who is unconcerned with the taxpayer’s dollar, then the record of this party and its members demonstrate that we are not that kind of “Liberal.” But if by a “Liberal” they mean someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the people — their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties — someone who believes we can break through the stalemate and suspicions that grip us in our policies abroad, if that is what they mean by a “Liberal,” then I’m proud to say I’m a “Liberal.” -- John F Kennedy

Democrats don't stand for all of that, they just say they do.

They're all about unions, socialism, crony-capitalism, and race-baiting.

You say you will only accept proof from non-biased sources that regulations from Obama and now lawsuits from his DOJ is hurting business. That's impossible because if left up to you every source can be easily dismissed. Long as you have your blinders on no truth can penetrate.

How convenient for you.

 

[mudwhistle]

I understand that John Boehner’s objections stemmed from the fact that security would have less than two hours to examine the premises? One wonders what the house speaker thinks might happen, is he concerned that a member of congress is going to attempt to assonate the president? I know the partisan bickering and proverbial vitriol has reached an all-time high but I hardly think such levels of concern are justified. Indeed one might even be inclined to call it paranoid, unless of course the house speaker has someone in mind he might believe to be of concern (I’m not hedging any bets here, I think its Eric Cantor).
When I first heard that the president had capitulated and moved the date of his address, I was for a moment disappointed that such an oblivious political powerplay had been allowed to succeed. However, having considered the facts in the matter, I understand the administrations reasoning.
Recently I got involved in a situation where I disagreed with someone else over a relatively small matter. Technically, we both had valid points and neither of us was willing to concede even one small detail, as a result the argument continued to escalate until this tiny insignificant issue had been blown ridiculously out of proportion. Sometimes it’s better to just concede a small issue, than allow it to become the proverbial mountain from a molehill.

You're new here.

What goes on here shouldn't be going on in Washington but this what happens when one side has principles and the other only wants to score points to assure reelection.

And a Joint Session should be the time when all precautions must be taken. The POTUS, the VP, the Speaker of the house and bo the House and Senate are in one room, a perfect time to set off a bomb, pop nerve agent or Sarin-gas, or fly a plane into the capital.

You don't want our entire govt whiped out,do you?

 

[J.E.D]

I just read every page on this thread.


I have come to the conclusion that we are fucked as a nation.


I personally rather hear what the Prez has to say however, I understand there is some excitement about the GOP debate but do we really have to turn this into a Parisian debacle?


I sit here quite disappointed in the majority of the posts I read, on both ends. We have a lack of critical thinking going on here, for sure.

I believe the point, drooler, is that the nation shouldn't HAVE to choose between hearing Obama's droning, long-winded batch of nothing much and seeing a debate between future contenders for the same office.

Wow, nice response. The guy gives a well-reasoned opinion and you come back with insults and partisan jabs.

 

[mudwhistle]

L, what do YOU mean by "conservative" because you are merely a New Right hard reactionary. Your philosophy is not what this country needs and certainly not the poseurs from the New Right in the GOP. You are a rino.

There's nothing radical about conservatism.

It's like claiming apple-pie is an exotic dish.

It depends on what one means by radical, while the doctrine of conservatives may seem to be, by definition conservative, the reality is conservatives often propose radical ideas (such as radical deregulation of business’s) or use radical means to push their agenda (such as Timothy McVeigh).

Yes, I vote the Mc'Veigh platform.

Pluleeeeze. Spare me.

I can tell you haven't studied that kook's history much. He was more Liberatarian, leaning towards Atheism.

He was not a conservative. He was too anti-government to be called conservative.

 

[mudwhistle]

What do our opponents mean when they apply to us the label “Liberal?” If by “Liberal” they mean, as they want people to believe, someone who is soft in his policies abroad, who is against local government, and who is unconcerned with the taxpayer’s dollar, then the record of this party and its members demonstrate that we are not that kind of “Liberal.” But if by a “Liberal” they mean someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the people — their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties — someone who believes we can break through the stalemate and suspicions that grip us in our policies abroad, if that is what they mean by a “Liberal,” then I’m proud to say I’m a “Liberal.” -- John F Kennedy

Democrats don't stand for all of that, they just say they do.

They're all about unions, socialism, crony-capitalism, and race-baiting.

You say you will only accept proof from non-biased sources that regulations from Obama and now lawsuits from his DOJ is hurting business. That's impossible because if left up to you every source can be easily dismissed. Long as you have your blinders on no truth can penetrate.

How convenient for you.

Actually I pointed out how choosing to be so closed-minded makes it convenient for you to ignore reality.

Obama shows this brand of ideology during a Democrat debat no less. He was asked if it was discovered that raising taxes on the rich never increased revenue would he still do it. He said yes? They made fun of him, but the point was that regardless of the outcome his goal was raising taxes even if it didn't bring the desired results. People like this can't be reasoned with.