Obama vows to play offense

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015...-led-congress/

Now who is obstructing?

Who really was the entire time?

When both parties refuse to discuss in good faith just because "the other side" initiated an idea, then they are both obstructionist. That did not change based upon the election. Before the election the dems held two of the three key pieces. Now the reps do. Still a split power situation. Before, the reps were fight in a guerilla war of stalling. Now I expect the dems will be equally disruptive. The only real difference is in this case the disruptive individual is just that--an individual. Previously it was the collective reps in the House--less an individual face.

Previously it was the collective reps in the House--less an individual face. Originally Posted by Old-T

Really? How's that?

Oh, wait. You mean they wouldn't go along with everything Obaminable wanted.

Unbelievable they wouldn't let him have his way all the time. Uncompromising assholes!

What I mean is very simple. Last two years the House republican majority worked very hard to oppose, slow, not confirm, etc., etc., a lot of things solely because the Senate and WH dems were pushing for something.

Now I expect the dem president will oppose, slow, not enforce, etc., etc., a lot of things solely because the Senate and House reps are pushing for something

In my mind neither party is trying to seek middle ground in most cases. They are both trying to seek political advantage, and their concern for the good of the country is a far distant second concern.

Look at the first week of the new congress. Numerous pieces of legislation put forth at various levels that are nothing more than spite. Just as I expect to see a number of vetos that are equally bad intentioned.

When I first started spending significant time in DC political swamp I was naieve about how badly "winning votes" is really all any politician on the top rung actually cares about (OK, maybe not all of them, but 80+% of them).

Example with no names or parties--because I've seen it both ways far too often:

The President is from Part A. He is working to pass a measure. I get asked to brief a subcommittee about some aspect of the measure. All the members of Party A ask me softball questions if I have analysis that supports the measure. The subcommitte reps of Party B accuse me of being Papa Joe incarnate, even though all I present is simple data. My org almost never makes a "recommendation" either way. I had a Party B type even say I was biasing the analysis because I was using 9.8 m/sec/sec as the estimate of gravity instead of 9.81. In the fidelity of the question, it made ZERO difference. Biting my lip I refrained from either ridiculing or laughing at the congressman. Neither would have worked out well.

A couple years later, with a new president now from Party B I was brought back. Many of the actual people were the same. The new president also supported the measure (it was quite straight forward and should have had near unanimous bi-lateral support). But this time, all the subcommittee members from Party B completely supported the analysis, and the soft tossers of Pary A had become zealots with knives sharpened. It was almost as if the two parties trades sheets of questions (an in a couple cases the exact same questions WERE now asked by the other side).

None of it was about the actual bill. In both cases it was about making the president look good or bad, passing it or obstructing it.

So quit trying to pretend "your" side are driven by high ideals of public service. A few are, but you have unprincipled, uncompromising assholes in the majority of both parties. If you think otherwise you are a bumpkin.

What I mean is very simple. Last two years the House republican majority worked very hard to oppose, slow, not confirm, etc., etc., a lot of things solely because the Senate and WH dems were pushing for something.

Now I expect the dem president will oppose, slow, not enforce, etc., etc., a lot of things solely because the Senate and House reps are pushing for something

In my mind neither party is trying to seek middle ground in most cases. They are both trying to seek political advantage, and their concern for the good of the country is a far distant second concern.

Look at the first week of the new congress. Numerous pieces of legislation put forth at various levels that are nothing more than spite. Just as I expect to see a number of vetos that are equally bad intentioned.

When I first started spending significant time in DC political swamp I was naieve about how badly "winning votes" is really all any politician on the top rung actually cares about (OK, maybe not all of them, but 80+% of them).

Example with no names or parties--because I've seen it both ways far too often:

The President is from Part A. He is working to pass a measure. I get asked to brief a subcommittee about some aspect of the measure. All the members of Party A ask me softball questions if I have analysis that supports the measure. The subcommitte reps of Party B accuse me of being Papa Joe incarnate, even though all I present is simple data. My org almost never makes a "recommendation" either way. I had a Party B type even say I was biasing the analysis because I was using 9.8 m/sec/sec as the estimate of gravity instead of 9.81. In the fidelity of the question, it made ZERO difference. Biting my lip I refrained from either ridiculing or laughing at the congressman. Neither would have worked out well.

A couple years later, with a new president now from Party B I was brought back. Many of the actual people were the same. The new president also supported the measure (it was quite straight forward and should have had near unanimous bi-lateral support). But this time, all the subcommittee members from Party B completely supported the analysis, and the soft tossers of Pary A had become zealots with knives sharpened. It was almost as if the two parties trades sheets of questions (an in a couple cases the exact same questions WERE now asked by the other side).

None of it was about the actual bill. In both cases it was about making the president look good or bad, passing it or obstructing it.

So quit trying to pretend "your" side are driven by high ideals of public service. A few are, but you have unprincipled, uncompromising assholes in the majority of both parties. If you think otherwise you are a bumpkin. Originally Posted by Old-T

You finally admitted you are a Ozombie... Thanks

Barely made the varsity, never started. Offensive skills highly overrated as evidence by his phone and pen skills.

You finally admitted you are a Ozombie... Thanks Originally Posted by IIFFOFRDB

You are as bad as your mentor in seeing things that were never said.

In my mind neither party is trying to seek middle ground in most cases. They are both trying to seek political advantage, and their concern for the good of the country is a far distant second concern.

Look at the first week of the new congress. Numerous pieces of legislation put forth at various levels that are nothing more than spite. Just as I expect to see a number of vetos that are equally bad intentioned. Originally Posted by Old-T

Not certain as to which House Bill you refer, but it has been my understanding that the House Bills were passed in the past recent years that were never allowed "on the floor" for a Senate vote. Consequently, our Emperor In Chief was not called upon to Veto them ... (that was his cover from HIS MAN in the Senate). Now that the Senate is controlled by the Republicans (in so far as getting votes on bills) then Bills ("good" or "bad") will get an up or down vote.

Example: The pipeline was delayed by the administration on "environmental" grounds ONLY ... it was not "stopped" for "lack of need" .... "physical danger" ... OR "anemic" job growth .... as is being publicized NOW! In fact each "factual" objection was proven to be bullshit. Texas is crisscrossed with pipelines ... daily I pass by rights of way adjacent to commercial and residential areas .... just look at the opposition to the Alaskan Pipeline!

Obaminable's ONLY "legitimate" OBJECTION can be that it will take revenues away from his Buddy the "train wreck" guy, Warren Buffet (made BILLIONS hauling oil). BTW Bill Clinton did the same damn thing in Arkansas with the "Arkansas Clean Water Act" he engineered when Governor. He would ONLY SIGN the bill if it had an EXEMPTION in it for CHICKEN PARTS being dumped into the "clean water" of Arkansas. (Look up Tyson chicken re Bill Clinton.)

The list can be endless:
Obaminable Care
Immigration
.................
Major decisions for the country well into the future. And all he can do ...

is put good money after bad by pissing off money and doubling our national debt.

Nothing to show for it.

Barely made the varsity, never started. Offensive skills highly overrated as evidence by his phone and pen skills. Originally Posted by gnadfly

The younger version of a dick smoking muslim !