[stupendousman]

Obama to GOP: 'I won' - Jonathan Martin and Carol E. Lee - Politico.com

President Obama listened to Republican gripes about his stimulus package during a meeting with congressional leaders Friday morning - but he also left no doubt about who's in charge of these negotiations. "I won," Obama noted matter-of-factly, according to sources familiar with the conversation.

Not even a week into office and he's already pushing the Republicans to the back of the bus using less than "post partisan" methods and demeanor.

Change? Yep? For the better? Apparently not.

Sad.

[SpaceMonkey]

The difference being that the same kind of meeting would never have even happened in the previous government.

Counterbalancing portrayal:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/23/us...l?ref=politics

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

The difference being that the same kind of meeting would never have even happened in the previous government.

Sorry, but Bush met with the opposing party often in the same manner. I doubt though that he ever told them "I won" and they could pound sand when they gave objections. He may have THOUGHT it, but I don't remember any reports of Bush acting in this manner. This is a new low in partisanship.

I'm pressed for time, so I haven't read the NYT's propaganda version of events...even for sh*ts and giggles. I'll get back to it later.

[hyteckit]

Maybe we can finally get something done in government and Republicans can stop crying like babies.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Sorry, but Bush met with the opposing party often in the same manner. I doubt though that he ever told them "I won" and they could pound sand when they gave objections. He may have THOUGHT it, but I don't remember any reports of Bush acting in this manner. This is a new low in partisanship.

No, he just said it in his inaugural addresses.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Sorry, but Bush met with the opposing party often in the same manner. I doubt though that he ever told them "I won" and they could pound sand when they gave objections. He may have THOUGHT it, but I don't remember any reports of Bush acting in this manner. This is a new low in partisanship..

"Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists."

[brassplayersrock²]

re original post:
I'm writing a novel, and you helped me come up with the title:
"when knee meets a jerk"

catchy huh?

[hyteckit]

The economy is in turmoil and we need the stimulus package as soon as possible.

Should Pres. Obama get this stimulus package passed as soon as possible?

Or spend weeks upon weeks listening to Republican opponents whine and cry, just so they can feel special, while Americans suffer?

[ort888]

I read that Obama ate a sandwich with mustard. MUSTARD!

This is change?

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by ort888 

I read that Obama ate a sandwich with mustard. MUSTARD!

This is change?

Yes. It use to be mayo. Now it's mustard.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by ort888 

I read that Obama ate a sandwich with mustard. MUSTARD!

This is change?

I heard it was imported dijon. Way to stick it to the American worker, B.H.O.!

[besson3c]

I love these "my articles is better than your article" threads. We all assign more value to articles that reaffirm what we thought prior, so it should be no surprise that stupendousman feels as he does.

[thechidz]

Hahahahahaha!!!!

Yes..... He...... Did!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Railroader]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

I love these "my articles is better than your article" threads. We all assign more value to articles that reaffirm what we thought prior, so it should be no surprise that stupendousman feels as he does.

I love all these condescending posts. We all place very little value in them, a lot less than you do, and probably think you feel they deserve, so it's no surprise you keep posting them.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

"Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists."

He was talking about people who claimed to be our allies overseas. Not his fellow Americans.

Fail.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

The economy is in turmoil and we need the stimulus package as soon as possible.

Should Pres. Obama get this stimulus package passed as soon as possible?

Or spend weeks upon weeks listening to Republican opponents whine and cry, just so they can feel special, while Americans suffer?

When 1/2 of it is just pork deficit spending that will do nothing to help "stimulate" anything but the election chances of Democrat congressman and won't even be spent until right before the next election? No...we don't need to rush to let the President do that. If he really cares, he'll limit the bill to what will actually help spur growth and jobs.

But, it looks like he's more interested in playing politics and being partisan. No real surprise.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

I love these "my articles is better than your article" threads. We all assign more value to articles that reaffirm what we thought prior, so it should be no surprise that stupendousman feels as he does.

I quoted an article that didn't seem based on bias, from a source that isn't known to shill for either side. The same simply can't be said of the NYT. They gave up their right to even be considered a credible voice when they constantly played defense for Obama during the election instead of holding his feet to the fire.

Here's another (though from a less credible source) that says the same thing and more!

PREZ ZINGS GOP FOE IN A $TIMULATING TALK - New York Post

"I won," he said, according to aides who were briefed on the meeting. "I will trump you on that."

The response was to the objection by Rep. Eric Cantor (R-Va.) to the president's proposal to increase benefits for low-income workers who don't owe federal income taxes.

Not that Obama was gloating. He was just explaining that he aims to get his way on the stimulus package and all other legislation, sources said, noting his unrivaled one-party control of both congressional chambers.

Doesn't sound like Obama is being "post partisan" to me. Sounds like he is being even more partisan than even the Democrats used to complain about with recent Republican Presidents. I say fillibuster his ass. That's what they would have done to Bush.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

Yes. It use to be mayo. Now it's mustard.

He's an agent for The Man! Didn't you see Undercover Brother?

[thechidz]

why is it that whenever we joke about republicans it is always about lack of intelligence and whenever we joke about democrats it is always about elitism and snootiness?

[OldManMac]

Yet it was somehow different when George W. won the last time, and he said he had political capital to spend, and he was going to spend it.

[nonhuman]

The GOP is pushing just as hard as the Democrats to continue throwing billions upon billions of dollars down a bottomless pit, and yet the only thing Republicans are complaining about is that the newly elected President seems to think that the fact people voted for him suggests that they also support his policy ideas and that therefore they should be given some credence?

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

He was talking about people who claimed to be our allies overseas. Not his fellow Americans.

Fail.

and, yet, it was applied many times by his followers against any Americans who were opposed to his actions. even on this forum

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

The GOP is pushing just as hard as the Democrats to continue throwing billions upon billions of dollars down a bottomless pit, and yet the only thing Republicans are complaining about is that the newly elected President seems to think that the fact people voted for him suggests that they also support his policy ideas and that therefore they should be given some credence?

The fact is that people voted AGAINST him too. He got what..4% more votes? That would seem to mean that almost as many Americans were against his policy ideas as were for. That would seem to me to suggest that maybe he should take that faction, represented by people NOT of his party, into consideration if he's really the "post partisan" uniter he campaigned as. He wasn't going to play these power games and yet, just a few days into office and he's already trying to segregate all those who didn't vote for him to the "back of the bus" because "he won".

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

and, yet, it was applied many times by his followers against any Americans who were opposed to his actions. even on this forum

Change of subject noted.

[olePigeon]

"Only a liberal senator from Massachusetts would say that a 49 percent increase in funding for education was not enough."

"Removing Saddam Hussein was the right decision early in my presidency, it is the right decision now, and it will be the right decision ever."

"I got a lot of Ph.D.-types and smart people around me who come into the Oval Office and say, 'Mr. President, here's what's on my mind.' And I listen carefully to their advice. But having gathered the device, I decide, you know, I say, 'This is what we're going to do.'"

"Goodbye from the world's biggest polluter." - Leaving abruptly from the G8 summit.

The question is, who ought to make that decision? The Congress or the commanders? And as you know, my position is clear -- I'm a commander guy."

"My job is a job to make decisions. I'm a decision -- if the job description were, what do you do -- it's decision maker."

"I will not withdraw, even if Laura and Barney are the only ones supporting me."

"I'm the decider, and I decide what is best. And what's best is for Don Rumsfeld to remain as the Secretary of Defense."

"I'm the commander - see, I don't need to explain - I do not need to explain why I say things. That's the interesting thing about being president."

"I know what I believe. I will continue to articulate what I believe and what I believe - I believe what I believe is right."

"I want everybody to hear loud and clear that I'm going to be the president of everybody."

"I am mindful of the difference between the executive branch and the legislative branch. I assured all four of these leaders that I know the difference, and that difference is they pass the laws and I execute them."

"There's Adam Clymer, major-league-a*sh*le from New York Times."

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

"Only a liberal senator from Massachusetts would say that a 49 percent increase in funding for education was not enough."

<lots of additional quotes not pertaining to Bush telling Democrats in Congress that they wouldn't have any real input into any legislation because he won, showing a total lack of desire for non-partisanship in our government, snipped>

Thanks.

[ort888]

I love how whenever Democrats do something... anything... it's "partisan politics". Have you ever described anything the republicans have done as partisan? Do you not see that both sides do this just as much? Bush was promising to be "the uniter" as well. He made all sorts of promises about working across the isle. They all say that.

[Wiskedjak]

The sky is still blue. Where's the change?

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

The fact is that people voted AGAINST him too. He got what..4% more votes? That would seem to mean that almost as many Americans were against his policy ideas as were for. That would seem to me to suggest that maybe he should take that faction, represented by people NOT of his party, into consideration if he's really the "post partisan" uniter he campaigned as. He wasn't going to play these power games and yet, just a few days into office and he's already trying to segregate all those who didn't vote for him to the "back of the bus" because "he won".

I agree that he doesn't have some sort of massive mandate that allows him to easily just override the dissenting opinion. But a majority of Americans agree(d) with his positions. This happens to be one of his positions that I most definitely do not agree with, but let's face it the Republicans aren't offering any better ideas. In fact they're offering the same ideas. What I can't believe is neither the audacity of Obama to suggest that his victory means anything nor the audacity of Republicans to bitch and moan about it. What I can't believe is that the Republicans aren't bitching and moaning that their own party is advocating the same sort of ridiculous, allegedly socialist bullshit that the Democrats are.

[turtle777]

Sounds like capitulation to me.

If that's Obama's best argument after three days in office, good luck...

-t

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

I agree that he doesn't have some sort of massive mandate that allows him to easily just override the dissenting opinion. But a majority of Americans agree(d) with his positions.

It's an assumption that a majority of Americans agreed with his stimulus plan. I'm pretty sure most doesn't even know what it entails, given that it seems as though even people in the media seem clueless about it. If you name any specific position of the two last candidates for President and polled Americans about them, I'll guarantee that the majority will not agree with the positions of either candidate 100%

There was a time when there was a Republican as President and Democrats where in minority in Congress. I believe that the President at the time never reacted in the manner which Obama is reacting, and Obama promised that he was different. It doesn't look like he's even making an "honest effort" to keep his promises.

This happens to be one of his positions that I most definitely do not agree with, but let's face it the Republicans aren't offering any better ideas. In fact they're offering the same ideas.

I'm not going to argue that the Republicans have any kind of real upper hand on what to do, but they have suggested different things, and have pointed out the complete failure of certain parts of Obama's plan to do any sort of "stimulus' to get us through the current recession when the money isn't spent for another couple of years.

The point is that Obama isn't doing what he promised he would do, and is in fact doing a worse job of even his predecessor in this regard. That should send warning bells to anyone who hoped Obama would be the character he portrayed in his campaign, instead of the partisan radical lefty he was before he decided to run for President.

What I can't believe is neither the audacity of Obama to suggest that his victory means anything nor the audacity of Republicans to bitch and moan about it.

Did the Republicans run on a campaign that they weren't going to bitch and moan about the other side's audacity if they won? Did Obama run on a campaign that he wasn't going to be an audacious partisan ass? Do you see the difference in the two comparisons?

Comparing the two parties stupid ideas for "stimulus" is for another thread!

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

It's an assumption that a majority of Americans agreed with his stimulus plan. I'm pretty sure most doesn't even know what it entails, given that it seems as though even people in the media seem clueless about it. If you name any specific position of the two last candidates for President and polled Americans about them, I'll guarantee that the majority will not agree with the positions of either candidate 100%

Of course not. But that's the whole point of a republican system: so that every person doesn't need to actually be intimately familiar with every detail of government and can instead offload that effort to elected representatives. We vote for people because we expect that they will use their best judgment and represent us to the best of their abilities, not because we're intimately familiar with all the issues and have determined that their positions are a perfect match for our own. This is not a direct democracy, and that's a good thing.

There was a time when there was a Republican as President and Democrats where in minority in Congress. I believe that the President at the time never reacted in the manner which Obama is reacting, and Obama promised that he was different. It doesn't look like he's even making an "honest effort" to keep his promises.

I'm pretty sure that one of his promises was to get this bailout crap passed as quickly as possible. The Republicans have been promising the same thing. They're both very much in the wrong here.

I'm not going to argue that the Republicans have any kind of real upper hand on what to do, but they have suggested different things, and have pointed out the complete failure of certain parts of Obama's plan to do any sort of "stimulus' to get us through the current recession when the money isn't spent for another couple of years.

Sure, but their suggestions aren't obviously any better, and they're just as willing as the Democrats to throw caution to the wind and do something right to maintain the appearance of usefulness.

The point is that Obama isn't doing what he promised he would do, and is in fact doing a worse job of even his predecessor in this regard. That should send warning bells to anyone who hoped Obama would be the character he portrayed in his campaign, instead of the partisan radical lefty he was before he decided to run for President.

You can hardly judge his performance based on a single issue. Especially this issue. Especially when he hasn't even been in office for a full week. Everything else he's done seems to be totally in accord with the promises he made and the character he portrayed.

Did the Republicans run on a campaign that they weren't going to bitch and moan about the other side's audacity if they won? Did Obama run on a campaign that he wasn't going to be an audacious partisan ass? Do you see the difference in the two comparisons?

I don't really recall the Republican running much of a presidential campaign at all.

Seriously though, the Republicans are right to bitch and moan. But the personality of the President is hardly something worth their time. They should be providing substantive criticisms and alternatives.

Comparing the two parties stupid ideas for "stimulus" is for another thread!

Agreed.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Thanks.

There are lot of quotes there pertaining to him thinking he's the only one who should make the decisions. He also stated that he shouldn't have to explain himself to anyone for making those decisions. That alienates the entire Congress, not just one party.

[BadKosh]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

The economy is in turmoil and we need the stimulus package as soon as possible.

Should Pres. Obama get this stimulus package passed as soon as possible?

Or spend weeks upon weeks listening to Republican opponents whine and cry, just so they can feel special, while Americans suffer?

yeah, go ahead and piss the money away on stupid stuff. No input, just do it. Just ASSUME it will work.


What if the Dems big spending plans DON'T WORK hmmmmmmm......?

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

yeah, go ahead and piss the money away on stupid stuff. No input, just do it. Just ASSUME it will work.


What if the Dems big spending plans DON'T WORK hmmmmmmm......?

Because we all know how well Republican policies work with a Republican President for the past 8 years and a Republican controlled controlled congress for most of the last 8 years.

What sort of useful input are you getting from the Republicans? Tax cuts, tax cuts, tax cuts. Anything new?

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

Because we all know how well Republican policies work with a Republican President for the past 8 years and a Republican controlled controlled congress for most of the last 8 years.

What sort of useful input are you getting from the Republicans? Tax cuts, tax cuts, tax cuts. Anything new?

That's irrelevant. Just because the Republicans can't govern worth a damn doesn't mean the Democrats are going to be any better.

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

That's irrelevant. Just because the Republicans can't govern worth a damn doesn't mean the Democrats are going to be any better.

Hey, when you are heading the wrong direction about to go off the cliff, it's better the change direction and not listen to the people, the Republicans, who lead you off the cliff to begin with.

Maybe that's just me.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

There are lot of quotes there pertaining to him thinking he's the only one who should make the decisions.

....of the "Commander in Chief"? Yeah, that might be because that's his job.

It's not the President's job to appropriate money for regular budgetary spending, which is what Obama wants to do and call it a "stimulus package". His job is to work with Congress (which includes Republicans) and pass a budget when the time comes. Otherwise, one side can veto or the other side can filibuster if people aren't being reasonable.

He also stated that he shouldn't have to explain himself to anyone for making those decisions. That alienates the entire Congress, not just one party.

True, but he's wrong on all counts, and just days into office. Sad

[hyteckit]

I love how Republican conservatives just a few months ago, use to complain and bitch about how congress is moving too slow and can't get anything done, and point their fingers and laugh.

Now they complain and bitch how congress is moving too fast and trying to do things without listening to all the Republicans in congress whine, bitch, and moan about not getting enough tax cuts.


Republican tactics before: filibuster, filibuster, filibuster

Republican tactics now: whine, whine, whine

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

Hey, when you are heading the wrong direction about to go off the cliff, it's better the change direction and not listen to the people, the Republicans, who lead you off the cliff to begin with.

Maybe that's just me.

I never said we should stick with the Republicans. Just that, having discovered that the Republicans don't know their asses from a hole in the ground, we shouldn't be giving the Democrats a free pass just for not being Republicans.

if we're not critical of our government, we're never going to get the government we want.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

I love how Republican conservatives just a few months ago, use to complain and bitch about how congress is moving too slow and can't get anything done, and point their fingers and laugh.

Now they complain and bitch how congress is moving too fast and trying to do things without listening to all the Republicans in congress whine, bitch, and moan about not getting enough tax cuts.

I think that if there is ever an award given out for the thread that contains the most strawmen and diversions from the original topic, this thread should be nominated.

No one said anything about Obama moving "too fast'. What is being said is that Obama promised to be inclusive, non-partisan and find common ground when everything he says is doing just the opposite.

Barack Obama picks a fight with Rush Limbaugh as bipartisan spirit crumbles - Telegraph

Obama promised to set a positive example. He's doing just the opposite.

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

I think that if there is ever an award given out for the thread that contains the most strawmen and diversions from the original topic, this thread should be nominated.

No one said anything about Obama moving "too fast'. What is being said is that Obama promised to be inclusive, non-partisan and find common ground when everything he says is doing just the opposite.

Barack Obama picks a fight with Rush Limbaugh as bipartisan spirit crumbles - Telegraph

Obama promised to set a positive example. He's doing just the opposite.

Obama told Republicans not the listen to Rush Limbaugh.

Why?

Because Rush Linbaugh said he wishes and hopes Obama fails.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

True, but he's wrong on all counts, and just days into office. Sad

From your perspective, the only way he could be right on *any* accounts is if he were Republican. It's amazing how much you sound like liberals did 4 and 8 years years ago.

[vmarks]

Good news. Rush is not a Republican. He's a Conservative.

Although you should have a clear understanding:

Rush has said that he supports President Obama, but he doesn't support his socialist policies because they're bad for Americans.


Unity! Dissent is Patriotic!


Is this any less absurd than those who said they "support the troops, but not the policy" the last eight years?

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by vmarks 

Good news. Rush is not a Republican. He's a Conservative.

Although you should have a clear understanding:

Rush has said that he supports President Obama, but he doesn't support his socialist policies because they're bad for Americans.


Unity! Dissent is Patriotic!


Is this any less absurd than those who said they "support the troops, but not the policy" the last eight years?

Rush Limbaugh does not support President Obama. Rush Limbaugh said he wants Pres. Obama to fail.

There are many in America who don't support the Iraq War. Who here in America wants our troops to fail in Iraq?

Nothing wrong with dissent.

What's absurd is those who want to see President Obama fail just because they don't agree with his policies. Limbaugh wants to economy to fail, wants us to be under attack by terrorist, just to see Obama fail.

Rush has lots of money, he can sustain a long term depression, just so he can get the satisfaction of seeing Obama failed. Most Americans can't afford a long term depression.

That's not dissent. That's lunacy.

http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Daily_...a_on_0123.html

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

Obama told Republicans not the listen to Rush Limbaugh.

Why?

Because Rush Linbaugh said he wishes and hopes Obama fails.

...if Obama plans on making the U.S. a socialist country.

Would you disagree?

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

From your perspective, the only way he could be right on *any* accounts is if he were Republican. It's amazing how much you sound like liberals did 4 and 8 years years ago.

BZZT. fail.

Thanks for totally disegarding what's being said and simply inserting your knee-jerk reply.

It's amazing the lengths some will go to when it's clear that there's really no credible rebuttal to a point that makes "your guy" look bad. Really. Either he's doing what I said or not. It has nothing to do with what party he's a part of.

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

...if Obama plans on making the U.S. a socialist country.

Would you disagree?

If Obama plans to torture terrorist babies, would you disagree?

Obama is trying to pass a stimulus package. Do you keep insisting on throwing out the word "socialist" just out of bad habit?

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

BZZT. fail.

Thanks for totally disegarding what's being said and simply inserting your knee-jerk reply.

It's amazing the lengths some will go to when it's clear that there's really no credible rebuttal to a point that makes "your guy" look bad. Really. Either he's doing what I said or not. It has nothing to do with what party he's a part of.

It's equally amazing the lengths some will go to make "the other guy" look bad. For them, it has *everything* to do with what party he's a part of.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

If Obama plans to torture terrorist babies, would you disagree?

Has Obama signaled that he would like to do this? He's made numerous overtures to socializing the banking system and going to a 'wealth redistribution' economy. That's what Limbaugh wants to see him fail at.

Obama is trying to pass a stimulus package.

Obama wants to pass budgetary items which advance his socialistic agenda disguised as a "stimulus package". Half of it isn't spent for years, and can hardly stimulate us out of our current recession.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

It's equally amazing the lengths some will go to make "the other guy" look bad. For them, it has *everything* to do with what party he's a part of.

All I had to do was quote him. Some effort, heh?