mr president

[Honu]

I know Im not as astute as most here in the political forum but these are the things I would like to see the president do.

Clean up all friviolous programs , Im sure I dont know all of them but Im also sure there are some that are just plain stupid.

Stop sending aid or food to countries who dont value the same things as we do , such as life liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Stop beating around the bush when it comes to countries who let terrorists live and reside in their countries , either kill them all or we will including and Im sorry to say anyone around them.

Welfare reform , when someone gets a job for the minimum wage dont cut off their food stamps , for crying out loud 7.25 an hour doesnt buy food , give them food stamps and no money until they are earning enough to buy all that they need.

Suggest a tax on all goods sold and do out with income tax , it just seems stupid for people to be taxed for working.

These are just a few things I woud like to see the president touch upon , I know he wont but maybe the next man or woman will.


Deny anyone of the Islamic faith access to this country until every background check that can be done is done , racial profiling yes, do I give a crap NO!!!

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Gander

I thought this thread was about Jimmy's horse Mr President or is that Mr Universe? And anybody know what happened to this horse? I bet him two back and he hung badly at 9/1 against a very beatable field.

you'd be looking for the paddock.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Riot

One might look back at how much the Dems did during those times ... they were absolutely not completely, stupidly obstructionist as is occuring now.

Weird thing today: Eric Cantor (minority whip) came out today, saying one couldn't and shouldn't blame only Obama on poor economy and no jobs. Gee, ya think?

if you really think that, then you're not using the same measuring stick. as for eric cantor, he's right. i blame more than the president. i blame congress as well, and we all know what party is in control of both places right now. but i'm sure that's pure coincidence. as for your mention of unemployment-i recall the stimulus billed as being necessary to keep unemployment from reaching 10 %. but, when you don't add and subtract correctly, i can see where mistakes can happen with math.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

Prove it

LOL - you're the one that's saying it's "fiction". You prove it's false. Maybe after you read section 2531. Not perfect, but a good start, and straight GOP input.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by SOREHOOF

What Bill was that troop funding attached to? Profiling? I guess that's better than a full cavity search. And please, PLEASE, stop bringing up Bush. He hasn't been President for well over a year and a half. Please. If you have to compare Obama to Bush to make him look good, you kind of prove my point for me. The dems were fillibustering judicial nominees. A big difference from legislative fillibustering. As far as the Republicans voting no on everything. Riot, I would have too.

The troop funding bill was separate, is normally a routine approval to keep the military paid, and was the week prior to the healthcare vote. The GOP frankly (and stupidly) admitted to reporters they were fillibustering that funding to try and delay a healthcare vote before Christmas. They caved on it (you can't withhold paychecks from our soldiers)

Bush is mentioned and brought up, as the people who are attacking Obama regarding his response to Crotchbomber are Republican, and completely hypocritical to not recall how Bush, in the exact same situation, did nothing. No press release, to discussion at all for a week, then only casually in passing. And that was pretty much it.

Okay, fine - let's just discuss what Obama has done. The day it happened, his office issued comment. For after that, I"ll quote Steve Benen:

The Abdulmutallab attempt was two weeks ago today. Over the course of these two weeks, President Obama has spoken publicly about the incident three times -- Dec. 29, Jan. 5, and Jan. 9. He also devoted his weekly address to the subject last weekend. Also, over the span of two weeks, the president's national security team prepared a relatively thorough security review of what transpired and a new directive on corrective actions.

Which President do I want to deal with this? Clearly Obama. He not only addressed it as soon as he had accurate information, clearly spoke aggressively against our enemy (Al Queda) and within two weeks changed procedures that tighten security and profile flights incoming from particular countries. I read the FBI is already in Ghana looking for the guys who trained this kid. Obama definitely gets a big old for that.

Regarding fillibustering: look at the numbers of legislative fillibusters in the past. It's gone way up. The use of it has changed. It used to be used only for important differences in major legislation.

The Dems have the votes, far more than enough majority, and our Senate works by majority rule. But the GOP are fillibustering virtually everything, forcing cloture votes for the simplist of measures to pass. That's absurd. For no other purpose than delay, obstruction and to make Obama look bad - which they have admitted in public, too.

There's talk about Reid should be forcing the GOP to actually fillibuster in person (not just notify the threat) and cause them to be present on C-span, standing at the podium, so the public can watch who is actually obstructing the progress of government here. They are discussing doing that rather than changing the fillibuster rules.

If the GOP wanted to vote no on everything, they just should have voted no and stood on their principles. Not fillibuster, delay, obstruct every darn thing in an attempt to circumvent the Constitution. Not put their party and their politics above country.

[SOREHOOF]

A lot of people think the Democrats agenda would be bad for the country, and should be strongly opposed by any and all measures.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Riot

LOL - you're the one that's saying it's "fiction". You prove it's false. Maybe after you read section 2531. Not perfect, but a good start, and straight GOP input.

No you prove it is true. If you make a unsubstantiated remark and dont provide any proof or backing then why would anyone believe it?

[dellinger63]

Two simple questions

1. Did Obama have to go to Napolitano to tell her their system didn't work or does she still believe it does?

2. What are her reasons for believing such and why does she still have a job?

[dellinger63]

Originally Posted by Riot

Not fillibuster, delay, obstruct every darn thing in an attempt to circumvent the Constitution. Not put their party and their politics above country.

Funny considering Dems have outlawed owning a gun (even inside your home) in Chicago and not one peep about the constitution from them. THEY not only ATTEMPTED to circumvent but did. Similar to what happend to Obama's senate seat. Wonder if a small town put say 'women's right to vote' to a test or is it just certain parts of the constitution Dems don't like?

[hoovesupsideyourhead]

Originally Posted by dellinger63

Funny considering Dems have outlawed owning a gun (even inside your home) in Chicago and not one peep about the constitution from them. THEY not only ATTEMPTED to circumvent but did. Similar to what happend to Obama's senate seat. Wonder if a small town put say 'women's right to vote' to a test or is it just certain parts of the constitution Dems don't like?

[SOREHOOF]

Originally Posted by dellinger63

Funny considering Dems have outlawed owning a gun (even inside your home) in Chicago and not one peep about the constitution from them. THEY not only ATTEMPTED to circumvent but did. Similar to what happend to Obama's senate seat. Wonder if a small town put say 'women's right to vote' to a test or is it just certain parts of the constitution Dems don't like?

Kind of like the ACLU deciding which civil rights are worth fighting for and which ones aren't. There won't be enough of the Constitution left to wipe your @ss with by the time Obama, his Administration, and Democrat held Congress get done "fundamentally transforming" it.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

No you prove it is true. If you make a unsubstantiated remark and dont provide any proof or backing then why would anyone believe it?

I just did. Guess you didn't bother to read it.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by SOREHOOF

A lot of people think the Democrats agenda would be bad for the country, and should be strongly opposed by any and all measures.

I understand that point. The question becomes, then, is it abuse or misuse of the rules, or clever playing within them, to change the way the Senate is supposed to work constitutionally?

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Honu

I know Im not as astute as most here in the political forum but these are the things I would like to see the president do.!

I would like everyone to have a pony

[Riot]

Originally Posted by dellinger63

Two simple questions

1. Did Obama have to go to Napolitano to tell her their system didn't work or does she still believe it does?

2. What are her reasons for believing such and why does she still have a job?

If you had watched any of the news <vbg>, the President came right out and said, "the system didn't work".

The reason she still has her job is that she was, if you re-watch the Sunday morning shows were she said it, referring to what happened after the guy lit his pants on fire (getting off the plane, etc). She wasn't saying "the system worked" in reference to the guy being able to get on the plane. That was taken out of context. But she shouldn't have gone there knowing there would be sound bites. Most of the major news orgs did point that out - eventually - by Tuesday or Wednesday.

[timmgirvan]

Originally Posted by Riot

I understand that point. The question becomes, then, is it abuse or misuse of the rules, or clever playing within them, to change the way the Senate is supposed to work constitutionally?

IF YOU are honest with yourself, you know this is fundamentally wrong.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by dellinger63

Funny considering Dems have outlawed owning a gun (even inside your home) in Chicago and not one peep about the constitution from them. THEY not only ATTEMPTED to circumvent but did. Similar to what happend to Obama's senate seat. Wonder if a small town put say 'women's right to vote' to a test or is it just certain parts of the constitution Dems don't like?

Because that's not unconstitutional. There have been many legal discussions and cases regarding the second amendment (and the fourteenth), and the judicial findings have always been clear on the interpretation of what it encompasses.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by timmgirvan

IF YOU are honest with yourself, you know this is fundamentally wrong.

What is fundamentally wrong? I don't understand what you are referring to.

Originally Posted by Sorehoof
A lot of people think the Democrats agenda would be bad for the country, and should be strongly opposed by any and all measures.

Originally Posted by Riot
I understand that point. The question becomes, then, is it abuse or misuse of the rules, or clever playing within them, to change the way the Senate is supposed to work constitutionally?

[timmgirvan]

Originally Posted by Riot

What is fundamentally wrong? I don't understand what you are referring to.

the answer to your post to Sorehoof! Either option you give in the answer is WRONG! This isn't some game(although politics is probably considered sport in D.C.) You appear to be OK with this.

[SOREHOOF]

Originally Posted by Riot

What is fundamentally wrong? I don't understand what you are referring to.

Ya gotta do what'cha gotta do. Anything the dems do is o.k. Evertything the repubs do isn't, even if it is the same thing?