Is Obama retarded or lying?

[UKRider]

It was Obama who proposed the gutless, thoughtless Sequester, now he's saying his own idea will devastate us. Is he retarded or lying?

It's the name of the political game. How else can you whip up the masses. That's why the fiscal cliff was created. President Obama is smart and using the sequester to force the Republicans into some positions that they would rather not take and if they don't want to go there then there's the Norquist pledge.

Yeah, he's a smart one. Regardless of his policies which history will judge better than I.

Dear UKRider and CrusaderFrank:
Thanks for your messages and feedback.

I agree Obama has been effective in using politics and even executive orders and media to push for change, though the responsibility for fixing what is unconstitutional is left to the people and he does not accept equal responsibility for that work or the COSTS incurred, and does not admit he takes advantage of it, including taking false credit for these as a "success." I believe if you are going to push imperfect legislation for the purpose of forcing the issue to correct things wrong with the system "after the fact", AT LEAST be honest about it instead of saying your position is right and the others are wrong for political gain. But again, part of the politics is to push one side and discredit the other; it is not the job of the legal prosecution to defend the other side's views, which I also believe is what is wrong with the legal system not being fully Constitutional because it does not guarantee equal protection of interests when used for adversarial bullying back and forth. Same with our govt leaders playing party politics, and losing sight of the duty to represent all people equally as the American public, which would require equal protection and inclusion of ALL party views to be fully Constitutional, not favoring some views over others (which I believe is against the 1st and 14 Amendment as well as the Code of Ethics for Govt Service see ethics-commission.net)

It totally bothers me as dishonest for Obama to claim to be for consensus and grassroots change, but then demonize and EXCLUDE views members and leaders in opposition, and then blame them for why there is not a consensus? That part drives me nuts, because when I push for real consensus, people don't believe it is possible now, because of how Obama has abused it to mean forcing "his view of a consensual solution" on people politically, not reaching a true consensus naturally by including everyone's input and consent.

What I would say Obama is doing is balancing the karma, where both sides have been taking turns pushing their agenda and approach over opposition of the other, until they call a truce, and agree to accept equal responsibility for respective costs incurred.

We are waiting for people to figure out this is not sustainable and wastes resources back and forth, that could be invested in solutions, even pursued separately to avoid fighting.

So in the meantime he keeps pushing things until the right solutions come forth from the people and parties working together, and not from him directly. The right solution to funding health care and jobs/medical education is to reform the criminal justice and mental health system so the funds wasted there can be directed into facilities and progrms for medical treatment, education and clinics that work effectively and sustainably to correct and prevent the causes of abuses, illness and crime that costs so much more to taxpayers than preventative education and services it is bankrupting our state budgets and economy.

So those solutions will come from the state level, not the federal; pushing it from Washington was not the solution in itself but a catalyst to compel reform. A lot of the work to treat and heal criminal illness and addiction comes from the "spiritual recovery" programs and can't be legislated or mandated through govt anyway; so all this pushing is just to force that issue to come out in public, so people can resolve problems in other ways.

I think it would be more effective to have people organize resources around their solutions by party, and not try to impose one policy for the whole nation by bullying between parties trying to dominate; just separate the funding and even taxes paid by members by directing it to programs organized by the party structures and keep those out of the public realm. Only use the federal budget and authority for policies that all people and parties agree to.

That would achieve the goal of Conservative Republicans and Libertarians of limited federal govt, and would also fulfill the role of the liberal Democrats in organizing grassroots individuals and communities in having direct representation in managing their own resources through localized democracy and economy. This also fits the focus of Green and Occupy in having sustainable environmentally-based cooperatives. If everyone can govern the programs and policies of their free choice, equally under the Constitution, that would satisfy the Tea Party also trying to hold govt to the Constitution and quit going off on tangents that are the responsibility of the people and the states to manage and fund locally.

I believe this is where we are heading, and Obama and Bush have been taking turns playing "Good Cop Bad Cop" until people realize it's easier to behave and take responsibility for being or hiring our own Cops!

Legislation is imperfect which is why there is a Superior Court that decides on the legislative skews. It's not up to President Obama to perfect anything. It's simply up to him to continue his agenda. Which he is doing and seems to be doing quite well.

He needs no consensus now and he's not at the podium for consensus. He's already the President and in a second term mandate that is restructuring the US from the outside in and the inside out. Consensus is done by the bully pulpit and Presidential order/decrees when the Congress is not playing at all. He's smart. Considering he hasn't had Congress for over 3 years, he's making serious moves outside of Congress and to hamstring Congress by popular choice.

The Clinton's were simply concerned with the Health Care and President Obama got it for them and it took away his power of congress after the two years it took to legislate Obama Care.

Now he's doing what he really wants which is tying the military to the government and forcing the Republicans to raise taxes. In politics, that's a double whammy and the Republican party is furious.

I'm certainly interested in seeing just where these major and fundamental changes take us.

 

[kwc57]

It's funny that the Republicans were able to vote 'no' on Obamacare, but happily voted 'yes' on the sequester,

and now suddenly both Obamacare and the sequester belong to Obama.

It's funny how Obama signed it into law after originally proposing it and now he wants to disown it and blame Republicans.

 

[emilynghiem]

blaming your partys inability to construct anything positive for the nation on someone else is stupid

Hi TM:
I find some of the best solutions have come from the Green Party (such as independent currency, recognizing and supporting representation by different parties instead of just one's own, and consensus-based decision making to include all input in agreed solutions. also holding corporations directly accountable similar to checking Govt by the Bill of Rights).

As long as both the Dems and Reps push their policies in opposition to the other, then they are BOTH responsible for why solutions aren't supported by all members of the public when they are excluding half the population by party! That would take working with ALL parties to put together sustainable effective solutions, based on their best ideas and SHARING credit.

Some of the third party movements, from Occupy to Tea Party may be better at pushing for issues and candidates based on what solution they support, so instead of demonizing or marginalizing such groups by "party" the focus should be on perfecting solutions as a team.

What I thought about doing to promote this approach, is to push for the "First Lady" positions with any top executive office to serve as facilitator among the different parties and issues, since this is NOT an elected position. People can push for this position as a public figure in the media to organize, lobby and fund any campaign around any issue that can represent and bring together solutions coming from a mix of sources without conflict, either religious or political groups, business or charity, private or public govt, educational or secular.

Since the House and Senate are already checked by the Executive, maybe forming an unoffical network of all political parties per state, and having the First Lady position or the partner of the Vice President work with representatives to organize solutions per issue.
And whatever points of agreement or disagreement can be hashed out, writing those up and presenting reports to the respective officials in government to based policies upon.
The First Lady or partners of the President/Vice President/Governors do not necessarily have to be their spouses. The First Lady for Jefferson when he was widowed was Dolly Madison. So this could be an appointed person, or someone selected by a constitutional convention of all parties to form consensus on issues so no legislation is passed that excludes key points.

I believe it is best for consensus to be formed outside government first, and then recommendations or resolutions brought to government to endorse the will of the people.
Otherwise, the current infiltration and unequal influence of corporate and party politics
has skewed the "consensus" process and produced policies that all sides have objections to.

Why not resolve those conflicts BEFORE passing policy, instead of imposing legislation or mandates to FORCE reform and conciliation? I believe that is abuse of the democratic process. So citizens should be rewarded and encouraged for working things out in advance, and even funding their own solutions as locally and directly as possible without relying on govt to form these policies or make decisions, but where govt represents public agreement.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

Contrary to the willfully ignorant rantings of our neocon/teabagger Crusader Frank, the sequester was a COMPROMISE AGREED UPON BY BOEHNER AND OBAMA in order to avoid the "fiscal cliff" that the GOP was threatening the country with if they didn't get their way on the Bush tax cuts. The sequester would happen only if Congress couldn't get it's act together regarding the budget.

Both Boehner and Ryan are on record stating that they were satisfied with that agreement.

Next.

The idea was put forward by Obama's team according to the President's own press secretary.

And yeah, I have no doubt that Boehner and other Republicans agreed with it for the puke-stained purpose of crafting some kind of compromise.

A pox on all their houses.

But let's none of us pretend that it was the brainchild of Boehner or, just because it was the Obama team that cobbled the idea together, that Boehner and the GOP have no responsibility for it.

But it makes no honest sense for Obama to try to do a partisan smear on Boehenr and the GOP about the consequences of the very idea he and his "team" initiated.

 

[emilynghiem]

It's the name of the political game. How else can you whip up the masses. That's why the fiscal cliff was created. President Obama is smart and using the sequester to force the Republicans into some positions that they would rather not take and if they don't want to go there then there's the Norquist pledge.

Yeah, he's a smart one. Regardless of his policies which history will judge better than I.

Dear UKRider and CrusaderFrank:
Thanks for your messages and feedback.

I agree Obama has been effective in using politics and even executive orders and media to push for change, though the responsibility for fixing what is unconstitutional is left to the people and he does not accept equal responsibility for that work or the COSTS incurred, and does not admit he takes advantage of it, including taking false credit for these as a "success." I believe if you are going to push imperfect legislation for the purpose of forcing the issue to correct things wrong with the system "after the fact", AT LEAST be honest about it instead of saying your position is right and the others are wrong for political gain. But again, part of the politics is to push one side and discredit the other; it is not the job of the legal prosecution to defend the other side's views, which I also believe is what is wrong with the legal system not being fully Constitutional because it does not guarantee equal protection of interests when used for adversarial bullying back and forth. Same with our govt leaders playing party politics, and losing sight of the duty to represent all people equally as the American public, which would require equal protection and inclusion of ALL party views to be fully Constitutional, not favoring some views over others (which I believe is against the 1st and 14 Amendment as well as the Code of Ethics for Govt Service see ethics-commission.net)

It totally bothers me as dishonest for Obama to claim to be for consensus and grassroots change, but then demonize and EXCLUDE views members and leaders in opposition, and then blame them for why there is not a consensus? That part drives me nuts, because when I push for real consensus, people don't believe it is possible now, because of how Obama has abused it to mean forcing "his view of a consensual solution" on people politically, not reaching a true consensus naturally by including everyone's input and consent.

What I would say Obama is doing is balancing the karma, where both sides have been taking turns pushing their agenda and approach over opposition of the other, until they call a truce, and agree to accept equal responsibility for respective costs incurred.

We are waiting for people to figure out this is not sustainable and wastes resources back and forth, that could be invested in solutions, even pursued separately to avoid fighting.

So in the meantime he keeps pushing things until the right solutions come forth from the people and parties working together, and not from him directly. The right solution to funding health care and jobs/medical education is to reform the criminal justice and mental health system so the funds wasted there can be directed into facilities and progrms for medical treatment, education and clinics that work effectively and sustainably to correct and prevent the causes of abuses, illness and crime that costs so much more to taxpayers than preventative education and services it is bankrupting our state budgets and economy.

So those solutions will come from the state level, not the federal; pushing it from Washington was not the solution in itself but a catalyst to compel reform. A lot of the work to treat and heal criminal illness and addiction comes from the "spiritual recovery" programs and can't be legislated or mandated through govt anyway; so all this pushing is just to force that issue to come out in public, so people can resolve problems in other ways.

I think it would be more effective to have people organize resources around their solutions by party, and not try to impose one policy for the whole nation by bullying between parties trying to dominate; just separate the funding and even taxes paid by members by directing it to programs organized by the party structures and keep those out of the public realm. Only use the federal budget and authority for policies that all people and parties agree to.

That would achieve the goal of Conservative Republicans and Libertarians of limited federal govt, and would also fulfill the role of the liberal Democrats in organizing grassroots individuals and communities in having direct representation in managing their own resources through localized democracy and economy. This also fits the focus of Green and Occupy in having sustainable environmentally-based cooperatives. If everyone can govern the programs and policies of their free choice, equally under the Constitution, that would satisfy the Tea Party also trying to hold govt to the Constitution and quit going off on tangents that are the responsibility of the people and the states to manage and fund locally.

I believe this is where we are heading, and Obama and Bush have been taking turns playing "Good Cop Bad Cop" until people realize it's easier to behave and take responsibility for being or hiring our own Cops!

Legislation is imperfect which is why there is a Superior Court that decides on the legislative skews. It's not up to President Obama to perfect anything. It's simply up to him to continue his agenda. Which he is doing and seems to be doing quite well.

He needs no consensus now and he's not at the podium for consensus. He's already the President and in a second term mandate that is restructuring the US from the outside in and the inside out. Consensus is done by the bully pulpit and Presidential order/decrees when the Congress is not playing at all. He's smart. Considering he hasn't had Congress for over 3 years, he's making serious moves outside of Congress and to hamstring Congress by popular choice.

The Clinton's were simply concerned with the Health Care and President Obama got it for them and it took away his power of congress after the two years it took to legislate Obama Care.

Now he's doing what he really wants which is tying the military to the government and forcing the Republicans to raise taxes. In politics, that's a double whammy and the Republican party is furious.

I'm certainly interested in seeing just where these major and fundamental changes take us.

????
Consensus is where people AGREE.
So if half the nation is not agreeing and believes certain policies are overreaching
and unconstitutional that is not true consensus.

What I would do to hold Republicans responsible is let them pay taxpayers back for war spending that the Democrats didn't "consent to" in exchange for Democrats funding the
health care exchanges that Republicans "don't consent to"
that way they can both fund the policies and programs they agree to.
And split the budget in half, holding each party to structure and pay for their
part of the programs they are interested in.

I think there is greater chance of consensus by working per party
than playing this bully pulpit game which is NOT sustainable.

Maybe you think it is ok to keep up with these tactics if it doesn't affect you as much directly.

With me, I have been working to build a true consensus in my own district
that has been DESTROYED by this expensive bullying politics game going
on with all the money of the poor minorities and blacks going into "political
campaigns" for candidates who CAN'T solve problems through govt, and then
there is no money to fund the community programs that DO have solutions.

so we won't even survive another year if people keep putting millions
if not billions of dollars gambling on the party game and which bully
is going to dominate the other. We've lost national history because
funding never went where it was supposed to, and nobody would
do anything to go against corporate interests that FUND THE PARTIES.

So whatever it is that you think is working "for the short term"
is not solving the long term problems, and is in fact costing us
15 to 20 years that we could have been working on sustainable solutions.
While 6 billion was spent by Obama alone just to keep his office.
Sorry but that is not sustainable, and we need to invest in solutions,
which are so sound that ALL sides agree to invest in them FREELY,
not bullying which would not even be necessary if the right solutions were pushed.

 

[UKRider]

Emily. He's already the President, and consent is not the same thing as consensus.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Powers_of_the_President_of_the_United_States

 

[CrusaderFrank]

It's funny that the Republicans were able to vote 'no' on Obamacare, but happily voted 'yes' on the sequester,

and now suddenly both Obamacare and the sequester belong to Obama.

So Republicans are at fault for not voting down Obama's Sequester?

 

[RoadVirus]

blaming your partys inability to construct anything positive for the nation on someone else is stupid

blah blah blah....Blame the GOP....blah blah blah

Get some new material, Libturd.

 

[RoadVirus]

The blame lies with whomever voted for it.

But, instead of playing the blame game, how about the congress get off their buts and actually do some WORK?

Congress? We're still waiting on Obama to get off the damn golf course. Playing Putt Putt with Tiger Woods is more important then working on a solution to the problem.

 

[NYcarbineer]

It's funny that the Republicans were able to vote 'no' on Obamacare, but happily voted 'yes' on the sequester,

and now suddenly both Obamacare and the sequester belong to Obama.

So Republicans are at fault for not voting down Obama's Sequester?

They are at fault for holding the debt ceiling hostage and not taking a sensible compromise from the President.

 

[RoadVirus]

why did the Rs run with it if it was such a bad "Obama" Idea?

What they voted for is very different than what was suggested. They would never vote in favor of something that would help. The Rs are loving this because it will hurt Americans.

Oh yes...the Republicans love to hurt Americans. More boring tripe from the Left.

 

[NYcarbineer]

It's funny that the Republicans were able to vote 'no' on Obamacare, but happily voted 'yes' on the sequester,

and now suddenly both Obamacare and the sequester belong to Obama.

It's funny how Obama signed it into law after originally proposing it and now he wants to disown it and blame Republicans.

The GOP was going to let the country go into default by not raising the debt ceiling, you might recall.

 

[Amelia]

The blame lies with whomever voted for it.

But, instead of playing the blame game, how about the congress get off their buts and actually do some WORK?

Congress? We're still waiting on Obama to get off the damn golf course. Playing Putt Putt with Tiger Woods is more important then working on a solution to the problem.

Obama campaigns very hard. He needs some downtime.

 

[Intense]

It's funny that the Republicans were able to vote 'no' on Obamacare, but happily voted 'yes' on the sequester,

and now suddenly both Obamacare and the sequester belong to Obama.

It's funny how Obama signed it into law after originally proposing it and now he wants to disown it and blame Republicans.

The GOP was going to let the country go into default by not raising the debt ceiling, you might recall.

So when you can't afford to pay back what you already owe, your idea of good government is to borrow more? Borrow more... Spend more.... borrow more....spend more.... Starting to see the pattern?

 

[Redfish]

The blame lies with whomever voted for it.

But, instead of playing the blame game, how about the congress get off their buts and actually do some WORK?

Congress? We're still waiting on Obama to get off the damn golf course. Playing Putt Putt with Tiger Woods is more important then working on a solution to the problem.

Hmmm, are you suggesting that obama and tiger are into man on man "putt putt" ? There have been those rumors, and Mooshelle is off plowing a snow hill

 

[kwc57]

It's funny that the Republicans were able to vote 'no' on Obamacare, but happily voted 'yes' on the sequester,

and now suddenly both Obamacare and the sequester belong to Obama.

It's funny how Obama signed it into law after originally proposing it and now he wants to disown it and blame Republicans.

The GOP was going to let the country go into default by not raising the debt ceiling, you might recall.

Which would do absolutely nothing....regardless of all the fear mongering Dear Leader is engaged in.

 

[Redfish]

It's funny that the Republicans were able to vote 'no' on Obamacare, but happily voted 'yes' on the sequester,

and now suddenly both Obamacare and the sequester belong to Obama.

It's funny how Obama signed it into law after originally proposing it and now he wants to disown it and blame Republicans.

The GOP was going to let the country go into default by not raising the debt ceiling, you might recall.

False narrative--------the country would never default on its debt, the interest on the debt is the first thing paid. they might have had to defund Planned Parenthood or NPR, but there would never be a default on the debt

once again, obama lied to you and you bought it like a good little dem sheep.

 

[asaratis]

It was Obama who proposed the gutless, thoughtless Sequester, now he's saying his own idea will devastate us. Is he retarded or lying?

BOTH!

 

[Redbone]

It was Obama who proposed the gutless, thoughtless Sequester, now he's saying his own idea will devastate us. Is he retarded or lying?

Both... He truly is a devious SOB. I trust Obama just about as far as I can throw my car. It is a big heavy chunk of metal too.

 

[Antares]

Too funny

You have no idea what you are talking about but you think that your words can create the reality you want.

On your best day you could never make me melt dow kid

Sorry, you just aren't all that

Silly lil guy, the argument has been about who's idea the sequestration was, and it was Bammys...do try and keep up...the sequestration is inconsequential....it actually won't hurt anyone.

So what if you support it.

Me I could care less about it, it's a bunch of fear mongering by this moron who happens to hold the office.

I support the sequestration, so you look like an idiot again.

You're not even interesting when you have a meltdown.