Everyone knows what you meant. The argument that the executive branch does not have legislative powers is hella lame.
Rant? :hihi: Personal? :insane: Get over yourself. There was neither a rant nor personal remark in anything I said. You got called out and I shattered your bs, point by point. If you can't take it, get out of the kitchen or don't respond. Don't cry to me. As usual, the only thing you can respond with is turning the page back to Bush and laying blame on him while accepting none for Obama. What you made an effort to ignore, but everyone else sees, is that I laid blame on Bush, Congress(dems and repubs) AND Obama. You are only able to lay blame on Bush and republicans. Last I checked, Obama got elected for being different. I have yet to see it. Careful Red...your moderate colors are showing yet again. :rofl::rofl: As to my calmness? You are about as qualified to judge mine, as Barney Frank is to be a judge in a wet t-shirt contest.
Well, the public wants a lot of things that have proven legally and politically difficult to achieve. From stopping illegal aliens to Social Security reform to killing bin Ladin. I know what you suggest and I agree that Obama has public opinion on his side. What I suggest is that this effort will take many months and involve much politics and haggling with Congress, which is a complex creature and has much invested in the existing system. Obama can't just flip a switch. Almost 600 Congressmen have to be convinced to change the earmark system, almost half of whom are going to resist for partisan reasons. And then Congress is going to argue among themselves about how to do it for heaven knows how long before acting. I just hope it can be done before next year's budget. I think Obama needed to sign this budget, and he did so reluctantly, but perhaps he could have demonstrated more unwillingness, short of a veto, which would force a delay of many months. Clearly, making hard compromises can sometimes give others the impression of taking the easy road.
Which I responded to point by point. And I make my points without having to proclaim them as "shattering" anybody else's "bs". Take 'em or leave 'em, I noticed that you mostly leave them. I'll blame either one for their failures. I'll not Blame Obama until he fails at something. It's fine to criticize his plans and his style, but his failures at this point, compared to his predecessors, are non-existent. Comparing 8 years of Bush failures with eight week of Obama plans makes little sense. You cannot speak for "everyone else." I admit to taking the contrary argument here a lot. But it's not just pulling your chain. I am often critical of Congress in general. But most of this discussion HAS been about Obama and there must be two sides to have a debate. So I have defended him against what I consider to be unfair and partisan criticism. When he starts failing--and it's bound to happen for every president suffers failures--you will see me be critical. Right now I want to give him the opportunity to succeed by doing things his way. I did the same for George Bush, who I voted for in 2000, until he started making one major blunder after another. I will not be defending his failures, but I think I will defend his efforts to succeed, especially if I feel that it is a logical plan. If it sometimes seems that I'm being a devils advocate just to bring out some commentary . . . that is possible too. Why be outraged that someone has an argument to offer? FSA is a forum for political debate, after all. It's what we do here. So make your points and don't get so upset that I also make mine.
Well, this will be lengthy, but you did ask for it. Ignore it if you like. Really? Sure about that? I didn't bother since you were basically non responsive, but I certainly can do a point by point if you like. It's just the same crap said a different way anyhow. Nice attempt at a sidestep, but you clearly said he got elected and the economy tanked. Implying his promises during the campaign were invalid once in office, because now everything is so different. Your attempt is clear. Your success, not so much. I can almost ignore everything you say now. Yes, he has hired lobbyists: http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2009/03/obama-white-hou.html But I am sure you will discount them as they are not now lobbyists. Now they are govt. officials? :lol: I can add. Can you? What? No problem with the spiraling deficits now that Obama is kicking in? Bush does it = bad. Obama does it = versatile. Yes, you have made your stance clear. Point of fact, everything has gotten significantly worse since he took office. Don't bother blaming Bush much longer. You love to say the "buck stops here". I have a feeling you won't be saying it about this guy. By all means, continue to look as foolish as everyone else that spouts the doomsday line. Even Obama is now changing his tune. Now that he squeezed the money he wanted out of us, my children and my grandchildren. "Now, things are not so bad as we might have thought." - Don't bother asking for a source to his quote. We all heard him say it last week. Ignore it and continue with your depression talk. Enlightening. I can't believe I didn't respond to this earlier. Epic fail. Continue to pretend that everyone(yes, many have spoken up but I will summarize for them) didn't see you squirm and attempt to avoid what was being discussed. You are forced to fall back in to a position of semantics in order to save face, which is apparently the most important thing. Good luck with that. Illuminating. How could I let this one go? Perhaps you are now being honest, but I doubt it. A banner day to be sure. I will be sure to alert the media on that day. You already have. By what statements of mine do you deduce outrage? Fatigue I'll give you, but not outrage. Really? You sure it's me getting upset here? I discredited you by disputing your statements. If taking note of your lack of "moderation" is discrediting you, than consider yourself discredited. Didn't you just accuse me of this very thing? Getting personal? Is about time for you to bring out the "yes, you have made your point, it's on top of your head" line? Or how about neo-con, or goose stepping fascist? You throw zingers around here all the time but when one comes your way, you take great umbrage. It is puzzling to say the least. You preach rules to everyone here Red, and in the same thread, same post, in some cases the same sentence break the very rules you invoke. It seems to really bother you when I claim to have disputed your statements, yet I see you do it to posters here all the time. I have not gotten personal with you, nor have I ranted, nor thrown a "hissy fit", nor done anything but dispute you in a calm, lucid, albeit sarcastic manner. I don't preach rules of debate to you every time you disagree with me. Rules of which I am well aware of, btw. Maybe you should just relax and stick to what you do best - arguing the liberal side.
I implied nothing of the kind. I already stated that changing circumstances can require a changing plan and that a "stay-the-course mentality has failed. Why do you continually find it necessary to pimp your own remarks?. But I don't suppose that you will . . . Now you answer for me, too? :dis: No, you did the research and found some exceptions. Point for you. That is a non-response to the question, sir. Well, that's the idea, I'm glad you got it clearly. Are you really surprised that I'm opinionated? What the hell do you think we are here for? I know your stance very well, too. Anything republican is good and anything democratic is bad. I get it. Only I don't get all worked up simply because you disagree with me. I blame Bush for what is Bush's failure. I'll blame Obama when he fails. How many times do I have to say this? Are you really suggesting that the mere election of Obama was supposed to make the recession go away and start a Wall Street rally? That the stimulus would work overnight? :huh: This is going to take a while. Chill, Dude. Cheap shot. :dis: When did the money squeezing start? Who bailed out the banks? Who bailed out AIG? Still, you only find fault with Obama. :dis: Amazingly blatant pimping for your side of the argument. Speaking for others, attempting to discredit me personally. You make my point. More of the same. Why can't you just make your points and let me make mine without all the insults. There! Sarcasm, is a far better retort than denigration, isn't it. "It is merely something you are forced to defend, and have tried to make look like some intellectual strength, when instead it shows a glaring weakness." "Your apologies for this guy and what he has done are both inexcusable and entirely predictable." "Your success, not so much." "By all means, continue to look as foolish as everyone else that spouts the doomsday line." "You are forced to fall back in to a position of semantics in order to save face, which is apparently the most important thing." These cheap shots make you sound indignant. Now, I'm not deeply offended, but I do know when you set upon my comments and when you set upon me personally. Come on, my differing opinion is inexcusable? Outraged at this, are you? Well, I'm pushing all your buttons . . . :grin: You seem to confuse being a political moderate with being temperamentally moderate. Actually, I'm quite opinionated. What rules? The only rules are in the User Agreement. I have made requests that people attack someones idea's and not them personally. If I also step over the line, then call me on it and ask me to refrain. I'm only human. I could argue your side, if y'all needed any help. Sometimes the liberals here do. But I point out once again -- a position way out in right field doesn't have good perspective for discerning the moderates from the liberals. All it can see are positions to the left of it.
Moderates don't have to be centrists, as you know, and the moderate range is broader than both left and right ranges. I am a left-of-center moderate. You are very much a right-of-center moderate and the ideas you profess are well right of center. So what is your point?
