[Wiskedjak]

Just pointing out the pointlessness of trying to debate politics with you.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

Just pointing out the pointlessness of trying to debate politics with you.

Where did you ever try to debate what I claimed wasn't true? I saw where lots of people tried to change the subject, or shift blame, but I couldn't really see any logical refutation that Obama was not engaging in course, partisan politics at the get-go when he promised to do things differently.

It is totally pointless to come into a thread, ignore the point of the post, then get frustrated when no one will take the bait. That isn't my fault, though.

[kobi]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

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

Would you disagree?

Correct me if I'm wrong but didn't Bush nationalize/socialize the banks, the auto industry, and all of Wall St, with his stimulus/bailout package?

You know the bailout, where all the money went straight into offshore accounts, or went straight into the pockets of GOP Congressman Cantor's pocket? Or or refusal to tell where the bailout money went?

So if Bush made the US a socialist country, how can President Obama plan on making the US into something that Bush accomplished before he left office?

Quote by the AP - Pressured by the Bush administration to approve the money quickly, Congress attached nearly no strings on the $700 billion bailout in October. And the Treasury Department, which doles out the money, never asked banks how it would be spent.

I guess it isn't socialism when the GOP and the then President do it and your buddies and their companies profit; but it is socialism when the Democratic President and the Democratic majority try and do something and the whole country will profit.

[turtle777]

Yes, Bush agreed to the first Stimulus, which goes down the Socialist path.

However, the extent that Obama is now proposing the new stimulus plans is, in comparison to Bush, straight communist.

-t

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

Yes, Bush agreed to the first Stimulus, which goes down the Socialist path.

He agreed to it? Wasn't it *proposed* by his administration?

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

He agreed to it? Wasn't it *proposed* by his administration?

Ah sh!t, stop the hypocrisy.

As if the Democrats were all against it.

-t

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

Ah sh!t, stop the hypocrisy.

As if the Democrats were all against it.

-t

Not saying they were. The hypocrisy is from those who suggest that America wasn't being socialized before Obama took office.

By saying Bush "agreed to it" you're making it sound like it wasn't his administration's idea and perhaps even suggesting his was a somewhat reluctant participant.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by kobi 

Correct me if I'm wrong but didn't Bush nationalize/socialize the banks, the auto industry, and all of Wall St, with his stimulus/bailout package?

As it's been explained, he was going in that direction, which I believe Rush opposed. Obama has plans to go even further. Rush hopes he fails. Just Yesterday Nancy Pelosi tried to justify free birth control as economic "stimulus". Fail on all counts...

None of which has anything to do with Obama making no effort to keep his promise to be "post-partisan" and in fact acting as partisan as possible. Just one in a long string of campaign promises I believe he's likely to break, since he wasn't truthful about his positions and past while on the campaign trail and didn't seem to even be a bit shameful about doing it.

[SpaceMonkey]

So far it seems like the person who is most trying to create a partisan brouhaha over Obama's remark is you.

[kobi]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

As it's been explained, he was going in that direction, which I believe Rush opposed. Obama has plans to go even further. Rush hopes he fails. Just Yesterday Nancy Pelosi tried to justify free birth control as economic "stimulus". Fail on all counts...

None of which has anything to do with Obama making no effort to keep his promise to be "post-partisan" and in fact acting as partisan as possible. Just one in a long string of campaign promises I believe he's likely to break, since he wasn't truthful about his positions and past while on the campaign trail and didn't seem to even be a bit shameful about doing it.

So by your logic, President Obama isn't being "post-partisan" by talking to Republican leaders and getting their input on the upcoming stimulus bill? I call that "crossing the isle". Just because the Republican's suggest something to be included in the stimulus bill, doesn't mean it's going to be put into the bill.

When President Obama told the GOP leadership "I won", they should have listened, it's obvious that they didn't and now have become the Grand Obstructionist Party. You see, we don't need the Republicans to get anything done, the Democrats have the votes and the power of the people. The voters spanked the GOP on election day by 8,000,000 votes and as a result the GOP party is in tatters. (Expect more Republican losses in the mid-term elections also.) After the last 8 years of raping the country the GOP party deserves to be in the shape they're in.

The quicker that Republican's learn that they're not in power and that they have no power, the better off the rest of the country will be.

So when President Obama invites the GOP leadership for input on a bill, or for tea or anything they should be grateful; not complaining that their part of the bill isn't included. The GOP had their chance for the past 8 years and they destroyed the country, now the Democrats will have to clean up the mess again, like we have had too after Nixon, Ford, Reagan, Bush and now Lil' Bush.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

He agreed to it? Wasn't it *proposed* by his administration?

The package that was passed was proposed by congress. Take a few moments to remember who controlled the House and senate.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

So far it seems like the person who is most trying to create a partisan brouhaha over Obama's remark is you.

I actually posted links to articles that made the point, which were not written by me. Though, seriously, do you really expect the mainstream media to make a "brouhaha" over anything Obama does other than maybe not going left enough?

Originally Posted by kobi 

So by your logic, President Obama isn't being "post-partisan" by talking to Republican leaders and getting their input on the upcoming stimulus bill? I call that "crossing the isle".

When it's all just for show, and when he's "talking to Republican leaders" he's telling them to pound sand and get over it, because he won, yes, I'm saying he isn't being "post-partisan". If he's not going to compromise and wants to do something that is damaging to the country, then I say that obstructionism is fine. The Democrats don't have enough votes to overide a fillibuster.

Could you please provide for me a quote where a Republican President told the Democrat minority in Congress that they weren't going to get anything they wanted simply because he and the Republicans won when they came to the table to discuss legislation? If you can't find anything really resembling that which shows that Obama is at the very least not engaging in MORE partisan behavior than past Presidents (which I think is what is happening) then you really don't have an argument.

Simply repeating or explaining the partisan rhetoric that the President has spewed forth doesn't excuse it from being partisan, divisive and against what he promised to uphold during the campaign. You know...where he pretended he was John McCain and not Barrack Obama, but people voted for him because he was a young, attractive, minority version of John McCain? I'm pretty sure McCain, even as cocky as he is, wouldn't have done that in similar circumstances. He's a guy actually known for working with the other side, unlike Obama who just pretends to.

[besson3c]

I'm just dropping in to see if you guys have figured anything out yet? Doesn't look like it

I know this is going to sound condescending, but I'll say it anyway...

Am I the only one that sees this as a waste of time? *If* Obama said that "he won" in a gloating "suck it up" context, and if this is rhetoric that he is sticking to and not something that he would take back if he could, than stupendousman obviously has a point. *If* Obama was pointing out in a polite and matter-of-fact sort of what that public support is with what he wants to do, than this is simply a legitimate argument and this thread has no real merit.

However, obviously none of us really know what the context was either way and are just left with our gut feelings. Don't we have enough to debate with regards to the actual stimulus package than wasting all of this energy speculating what these two words really mean?

McCain is also saying that the stimulus proposal has not included Republican recommendations, so we shall have to wait and see how it is revised. It could also be that the Republicans are given plenty of opportunity to make sound arguments for modifications to the stimulus bill and there is no way to wrap heads around how these would actually work. Compromising and being bipartisan isn't necessarily about incorporating other ideas just because they exist.

In short, whether Obama holds true to his promises to be bipartisan is simply too early to tell. These kinds of determinations are made with more data and pattern recognition, not in a little fragment of information and filling in the gaps with gut feelings.

[besson3c]

I will say this, this meeting should have been open and not closed door. Obama did promise more transparency. Obviously not every meeting should be open door, but perhaps you could make a case that this one should.

[subego]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

I'm just dropping in to see if you guys have figured anything out yet? Doesn't look like it

I know this is going to sound condescending, but I'll say it anyway...

Am I the only one that sees this as a waste of time?

FWIW, only these three lines are sound condescending. This may also sound condescending, but they weren't necessary.

Everything else in the post is well said, and on its own merit deserves a

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

I actually posted links to articles that made the point, which were not written by me. Though, seriously, do you really expect the mainstream media to make a "brouhaha" over anything Obama does other than maybe not going left enough?

Actually, neither of the articles you linked to called the remark "partisan." That was all you, and your interpretation, as Besson has pointed out above.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by subego 

FWIW, only these three lines are sound condescending. This may also sound condescending, but they weren't necessary.

Everything else in the post is well said, and on its own merit deserves a

You're right, they weren't... It just seems like sometimes people just absolutely cannot resist spinning their tires in here, but I guess I should find another way to point this out, or I should simply ignore this myself...

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

I will say this, this meeting should have been open and not closed door. Obama did promise more transparency. Obviously not every meeting should be open door, but perhaps you could make a case that this one should.

Although since some photos were taken maybe this was not closed door? Or, the press could have been dismissed as the meeting got underway.

[subego]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

You're right, they weren't... It just seems like sometimes people just absolutely cannot resist spinning their tires in here, but I guess I should find another way to point this out, or I should simply ignore this myself...

FWIW, I have to stop myself from starting a "WTF is wrong with you people?" thread a couple times a day.

By "you people" I pretty much mean everyone.

To put it another way, I'm in no place to pass judgement and was merely observing.

[subego]

I also predict that Obama supporters are going to cut him less slack than one might imagine, though I doubt it would ever be to the satisfaction of the Republicans.

I'm personally getting ready to grind an axe over his seeming continuation of the Bush warrantless wiretapping policy (though we're in the opening volley stage, so I'll wait to see). If he in fact does, and his supporters stay quiet for the sake of "ending the bickering", I'm going to have a serious problem with that.

As an aside, you think a lefty corporation like Apple would have put "warrantless" in the frigging spell check by now.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

Actually, neither of the articles you linked to called the remark "partisan." That was all you, and your interpretation, as Besson has pointed out above.

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

After less than a week in office, Mr Obama's presidency is already encountering the very partisan bickering he had pledged to stamp out during his first 100 days.

He faces mounting criticism over his $825 billion economic stimulus plan, from Republican leaders who say the legislation has been drawn up without the input which Mr Obama had promised to allow them.

The president responded with a clear signal that he is prepared to ram the bill through without the bipartisan consensus he promised to construct, telling Republican leaders from the House of Representatives: "I won. I'm the president."

You can spin it however you like, but it's clear that others view Obama's actions as partisan and the media has reported it. His "clear signal" that he wasn't going to find 'bipartisan consensus" was when he told Republican leaders "I won. I"m the president."

Either that's the kind of bi-partisanship he was talking about before the election or not. I'm saying it's pretty clear it's not, and showing that Obama was a phony during most of the campaign is not "a waste of time". It's a clear indication of his character (or lack of) that people warned of before the election when they said you couldn't trust what he says, unlike McCain who Obama tried to emulate in many ways.

This should serve as a "warning bell' to those who took Obama at his word during the campaign. Like Bill Clinton, Obama apparently intends to keep all the campaign promises he INTENDED to keep, which were likely the ones that didn't involve being moderate and bi-partisan. Hey..anything to win, eh?

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

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

You can spin it however you like, but it's clear that others view Obama's actions as partisan and the media has reported it. His "clear signal" that he wasn't going to find 'bipartisan consensus" was when he told Republican leaders "I won. I"m the president."

Either that's the kind of bi-partisanship he was talking about before the election or not. I'm saying it's pretty clear it's not, and showing that Obama was a phony during most of the campaign is not "a waste of time". It's a clear indication of his character (or lack of) that people warned of before the election when they said you couldn't trust what he says, unlike McCain who Obama tried to emulate in many ways.

This should serve as a "warning bell' to those who took Obama at his word during the campaign. Like Bill Clinton, Obama apparently intends to keep all the campaign promises he INTENDED to keep, which were likely the ones that didn't involve being moderate and bi-partisan. Hey..anything to win, eh?

Requiring clarity and specificity in language is not "spinning." In fact, it's the exact opposite, and it's essential in debate. Otherwise, what's the point? For example, the article you linked to here is all about the partisan reaction to Obama, not partisan statements by Obama. Is it even possible to have a debate with Rush Limbaugh that isn't partisan?

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

Requiring clarity and specificity in language is not "spinning." In fact, it's the exact opposite, and it's essential in debate. Otherwise, what's the point? For example, the article you linked to here is all about the partisan reaction to Obama, not partisan statements by Obama.

Sorry, you're factually incorrect. The quote I included above is about Obama's actions and how they are contrary to bipartisan cooperation. I'll re-quote the most important part in case it's just a matter of you just missing it ... in the interest of clarity and specificity.

The president responded with a clear signal that he is prepared to ram the bill through without the bipartisan consensus he promised to construct, telling Republican leaders from the House of Representatives: "I won. I'm the president."

As you can see, this has nothing to do with "reaction" to Obama and everything to do with his decision to not act in a bipartisan spirit the way McCain would have.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Sorry, you're factually incorrect. The quote I included above is about Obama's actions and how they are contrary to bipartisan cooperation. I'll re-quote the most important part in case it's just a matter of you just missing it ... in the interest of clarity and specificity.

As you can see, this has nothing to do with "reaction" to Obama and everything to do with his decision to not act in a bipartisan spirit the way McCain would have.

The fact is that Obama could take a dump and some group, somewhere, would send out a press release denouncing his actions. If your definition of "bipartisan" is "everyone is happy," that's never going to happen. My definition of bipartisanship tracks closely Webster's, which is "marked by involving cooperation, agreement, and compromise between two major political parties." To the extent that Republican initiatives are invited in the stimulus package (which is the case), that's bipartisanship. Some Republicans will always complain, and it's perfectly fair to ignore their complaints if their worldview is completely incompatible Obama's -- there will never be compromise in those cases.

The rest is drama.

[ort888]

Wait, Obama took a dump? Why don't we have a thread about this?

[besson3c]

stupendousman: if your motives here are to convince people of the inferiority of Obama and/or Democrats, I sincerely suggest that you exercise a little restraint. For starters, in this particular case, as has been said, you need a lot more data to prove your point (also accounting for the fact that no matter what the rhetoric any leader is going to make some mistakes), but in general you come across as a guy who is sort of trying to get inside the pants of some chick and making it pretty clear to her within 5 minutes of your first date.

You have the next 4 years to make the case that you are set on making. I don't know if I speak for everybody else, but already I've grown quite numb to your bludgeoning us with either what appears to me to be your gut feelings, or else simply your predictable interpretations. Patience, my friend! I want to have genuine discussions about the mistakes that Obama will inevitably make, but this will be nearly impossible if you think he has made a mistake worthy of this sort of discussion every other day.

If this ends up being the case, a little more data will strengthen your arguments.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by ort888 

Wait, Obama took a dump? Why don't we have a thread about this?

I'm sure Besson has thought about this more than once.

Actually, I'm certain he has dreamed about it, too.

-t

[besson3c]

I bet his turds are very hopeful to someday make it to a sewage treatment where they can be with other turds, and not get stuck in the pipes somewhere.... I bet his turds would remind us all of Mr. Hankey.

[ort888]

Obama's leavings smell like Pizzlicious Pringles and cure cancer.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

The fact is that Obama could take a dump and some group, somewhere, would send out a press release denouncing his actions.

I posted 2 news stories, neither of which was a "press release" by "some group". Either Obama did what these stories say, or he didn't. I haven't seen another story that refuted that he told the Republicans what I've reported.

[quote[If your definition of "bipartisan" is "everyone is happy," that's never going to happen.[/quote]

That's not my definition. My definition is that common ground is sought and at the least that there is no use of inflammatory rhetoric. It doesn't have to end is "everyone is happy" but it does need to end with the belief that the other side made an honest effort to find middle ground. You don't do that by telling the other side "I won" when they bring forth their concerns or tell them who or what they should listen to. That's why the story I quoted mentions this as a partisan failing on Obama's part.

Originally Posted by besson3c 

stupendousman: if your motives here are to convince people of the inferiority of Obama and/or Democrats, I sincerely suggest that you exercise a little restraint.

Generally speaking, no that's not my motive. My motive is exactly what I claimed; to point out that it appears that as many expected, Obama's campaign rhetoric was just that - rhetoric to get elected and that we can likely expect more of the same in coming months or years.

I mentioned an "honest effort" earlier in this post and that's the least I expect from someone regarding their campaign promises. If you can't go a couple of days in office without doing the opposite of what you've promised, I don't consider that an honest effort, and I think that draws suspicion to other campaign promises that sounded too good to be true (given Obama's history) as well.

[ort888]

Do you guys hear a loud buzzing sound? What is that?

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

I posted 2 news stories, neither of which was a "press release" by "some group". Either Obama did what these stories say, or he didn't. I haven't seen another story that refuted that he told the Republicans what I've reported.

No, what's being reported is that certain conservative segments are miffed. That's what I mean about the reaction being partisan. Not that your sources are press releases, but if some group cries foul, then the Washington press will probably report it. If we're talking about the Rush Limbaugh crowd, then Obama would have to be Republican to win over that group. It's not going to happen, no matter what Obama's rhetoric is.

That's why the story I quoted mentions this as a partisan failing on Obama's part.

No, that would have been an editorial.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

No, what's being reported is that certain conservative segments are miffed.

I provided a direct quote that shows what I claimed is true. That's all I can do. I've lead you to the water, now if you don't want to drink, there' not much more I can do and their isn't much more to debate with you. You can only show someone a blue sky only so many times after hearing it's pink and no just give up.

Now, to clarify my statements in this thread, I'm saying that his actions don't give me much hope for his ability to keep campaign promises based on the evidence. That DOES NOT mean that he won't realize that he's screwing/screwed up and start to do what he should to keep his promises in the future. That's assuming that his brain isn't bigger than his ego, and that's not a very good assumption when you are dealing with Republicans or Democrats in Washington.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

I provided a direct quote that shows what I claimed is true. That's all I can do. I've lead you to the water, now if you don't want to drink, there' not much more I can do and their isn't much more to debate with you. You can only show someone a blue sky only so many times after hearing it's pink and no just give up.

Now, to clarify my statements in this thread, I'm saying that his actions don't give me much hope for his ability to keep campaign promises based on the evidence. That DOES NOT mean that he won't realize that he's screwing/screwed up and start to do what he should to keep his promises in the future. That's assuming that his brain isn't bigger than his ego, and that's not a very good assumption when you are dealing with Republicans or Democrats in Washington.

I just completed a logic exercise, so I'm feeling pedantic today.

The direct quote is "I won. I'm the president." The interpretation in the article you quoted (that you apparently share) is "The president responded with a clear signal that he is prepared to ram the bill through without the bipartisan consensus he promised to construct." The evidence for this interpretation, from what I gather, is that Republicans are complaining.

There are other explanations for the evidence in question. Namely, that the Republicans who are complaining are ones who would be complaining no matter what Obama said. That is my point. You can't argue evidence, interpretation, and fact as if they are the same thing.

Peace out.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Generally speaking, no that's not my motive. My motive is exactly what I claimed; to point out that it appears that as many expected, Obama's campaign rhetoric was just that - rhetoric to get elected and that we can likely expect more of the same in coming months or years.

I mentioned an "honest effort" earlier in this post and that's the least I expect from someone regarding their campaign promises. If you can't go a couple of days in office without doing the opposite of what you've promised, I don't consider that an honest effort, and I think that draws suspicion to other campaign promises that sounded too good to be true (given Obama's history) as well.

And like we've hashed out, it appears that we need more info to make this determination, so where does this leave us? Where can discussion go from here?

[ort888]

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/01/...ngs/index.html

[besson3c]

One thing that I have to say about Republicans: they are snappy dressers!

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

I just completed a logic exercise, so I'm feeling pedantic today.

I think maybe you need more exercise. Your logic looks a little flabby here.

The direct quote is "I won. I'm the president." The interpretation in the article you quoted (that you apparently share) is "The president responded with a clear signal that he is prepared to ram the bill through without the bipartisan consensus he promised to construct." The evidence for this interpretation, from what I gather, is that Republicans are complaining.

I believe if you look at the quote, THEY SAID the evidence was the "clear signal that he is prepared to ram the bill through without the bipartisan consensus he promised to construct." They said nothing about Republicans "complaining" or quoted any Republicans. They simply pointed out what Obama said and did.

There's no way to logically deduce their analysis had anything to do with anything a Republican said since the only information given was what Obama did, and no one is refuting what he said or did.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

I believe if you look at the quote, THEY SAID the evidence was the "clear signal that he is prepared to ram the bill through without the bipartisan consensus he promised to construct."

Yes, that is the author's interpretation. The "direct quote," or what one might call the "primary source," was Obama's specific quote, which came with much less context.

There's no way to logically deduce their analysis had anything to do with anything a Republican said since the only information given was what Obama did, and no one is refuting what he said or did.

You need to read the rest of your own articles. They are full of Republican quotes.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

I just completed a logic exercise, so I'm feeling pedantic today.

The direct quote is "I won. I'm the president." The interpretation in the article you quoted (that you apparently share) is "The president responded with a clear signal that he is prepared to ram the bill through without the bipartisan consensus he promised to construct." The evidence for this interpretation, from what I gather, is that Republicans are complaining.

There are other explanations for the evidence in question. Namely, that the Republicans who are complaining are ones who would be complaining no matter what Obama said. That is my point. You can't argue evidence, interpretation, and fact as if they are the same thing.

Peace out.

But, no one refutes that pigs are pink, therefore the sky *must* be green.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

That's not my definition. My definition is that common ground is sought and at the least that there is no use of inflammatory rhetoric. It doesn't have to end is "everyone is happy" ...

Just so long as it's *your* side that's the happy one.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

Yes, that is the author's interpretation.

Wait a minute. I thought you said that I was the only one who thought that Obama's actions where not bipartisan and that it was only ME who was making an issue of this? Now you're claiming that the author of the article I posted believes that Obama's actions were partisan as well.

Pick an argument and stick with it, please! At least if you want to be taken seriously. I'm willing to cut you some slack though because I absolutely LOVE Robinson Crusoe on Mars (one of my favorite movies). I'd gotten a bootleg DVD version of the Criterion laserdisc a couple of years before the "official" version came out a year or so ago.

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

Just so long as it's *your* side that's the happy one.

Nope. A "side" does not have to be happy. An attempt at consensus involving give and take must be involved. If you do that and one side still isn't happy, it's not because you at least didn't give it an honest effort. Just telling the other side that you "won" doesn't count in just about anyone's book, I'm afraid.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Wait a minute. I thought you said that I was the only one who thought that Obama's actions where not bipartisan and that it was only ME who was making an issue of this? Now you're claiming that the author of the article I posted believes that Obama's actions were partisan as well.

Pick an argument and stick with it, please! At least if you want to be taken seriously. I'm willing to cut you some slack though because I absolutely LOVE Robinson Crusoe on Mars (one of my favorite movies). I'd gotten a bootleg DVD version of the Criterion laserdisc a couple of years before the "official" version came out a year or so ago.

Nope, my words were "So far it seems like the person who is most trying to create a partisan brouhaha over Obama's remark is you" (emphasis added). It's fine that you've found a source that agrees with your interpretation, but it doesn't make the underlying logic any better.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by ort888 

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/01/...ngs/index.html

Versus: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/28/us...l?ref=politics

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

Nope, my words were "So far it seems like the person who is most trying to create a partisan brouhaha over Obama's remark is you" (emphasis added). It's fine that you've found a source that agrees with your interpretation, but it doesn't make the underlying logic any better.

Stop attacking the messenger when you can't refute the message and you'll get farther. It doesn't matter WHO points something out. If you can't refute it, the source is mostly irrelevant.

There's been several links here where reporters have stated that Obama has said partisan things or has shown an unwillingness to compromise. You can spin it however you want, but that's not the tact he promised to take before the election. Hopefully someone on his staff has pointed this out to him and he's going to stop acting like an idiot. Right now he seems to vacillate between arrogant and stubborn to conceding and polite. I'm guessing the latter is all show.

Given that the current stimulus package is mostly just normal budgetary items and has nothing to do with stimulus, they are going to need Republican votes for CYA if for nothing else. Without that, they will only have themselves to blame if in 2 years the economy is still in the sh**ter. The thing about "winning" that Obama apparently forgets is that while the "winner" gets an upper hand on how the prize is spent, he gets the majority of the blame if it's blown and there's nothing to show for it. Especially when "the losers" had nothing to do with it.

[ort888]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

Versus: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/28/us...l?ref=politics

Our articles point out the exact same thing. That he is working with the Republicans. But hey, he said "I won", so blah blah wah wah wah business as usual

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by ort888 

Our articles point out the exact same thing. That he is working with the Republicans. But hey, he said "I won", so blah blah wah wah wah business as usual

Right, I just thought it was an interesting example of how the media's framing of it can influence perceptions. Even just in the headlines: "Obama tells GOP no compromise on tax rebates" versus "Obama, Visiting G.O.P. Lawmakers, Is Open to Some Compromise on Stimulus."

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Stop attacking the messenger when you can't refute the message and you'll get farther. It doesn't matter WHO points something out. If you can't refute it, the source is mostly irrelevant.

There's been several links here where reporters have stated that Obama has said partisan things or has shown an unwillingness to compromise. You can spin it however you want, but that's not the tact he promised to take before the election. Hopefully someone on his staff has pointed this out to him and he's going to stop acting like an idiot. Right now he seems to vacillate between arrogant and stubborn to conceding and polite. I'm guessing the latter is all show.

I'm sorry if you took it as an "attack."

Again, you need to be specific. Does a "bipartisan" approach demand that Obama compromise on everything? Of course not. That would be ridiculous, and counter to the entire purpose of holding national elections. That's what was meant, I believe, when he said "I won." Some people (primarily in the House) will complain no matter what. There have also been numerous statements by Republicans (primarily in the Senate) in the articles linked to in this thread that express appreciation for how far Obama has gone to reach out to the opposition. This is all about perception, and for that reason, "WHO points something out" is crucially important. If you can't admit that, then there's no point in discussing it with you further.

[Monique]

First there is nothing wrong in being socialist like Sweden for example.

As for the rest it is politics as usual.

The one who are for the stimilus package did you really read what it is inside like 750 million for afterschool snacks (sorry but there is already a program for this); 650 million for conversion to digital tv (very usuful for people who are losing their jobs.

And that is what I know about it imagine the little details about million and million of dollars being wasted.

Obama said that he was going to close Gitmo in one year what is wrong with now if he really means it. In one year mean I will change my mind.

[ebuddy]

$335 million of stimulus going to sexually transmitted disease education and prevention programs at the CDC.

I'm not sure this is an effective way to get us out of Obama's recession.