Hope for change!

Discussion in 'Politics & Law' started by SmilinSilhouette, Mar 30, 2010.

  1. SmilinSilhouette

    SmilinSilhouette Registered Member

    icegoat63 likes this.

  2. Raos

    Raos Registered Member

    It is a two way street. The Repubs have shown they have little desire to work in a bipartisan way.
     
  3. CaptainObvious

    CaptainObvious Son of Liberty V.I.P.

    How? Because they objected to the healthcare bill? Are Republicans forced now to go along with what Obama wants simply because it's bipartisan?

    The point is Obama ran as a uniter, this is the exact opposite of that. Taking the attitude of "I'm the President and I will pass what I want when I want" is fine by me, afterall the man won. But he ran on change, this is the same tactic Bush took towards the war. Hardly anything I'd consider change.
     
  4. Raos

    Raos Registered Member

    Of course not. I never mentioned anything of the sort.

    Wasn't it John McCain who basically just said that he would not be voting for anything D since healthcare was pushed through?
     
  5. CaptainObvious

    CaptainObvious Son of Liberty V.I.P.

    He said they should expect no cooperation at all, and I consider it a stupid thing to say and expect better from our representatives. I would expect him to vote for what he considered to be in the best interest of not just his constituents but the entire country as well.

    But John McCain isn't the president, and he didn't win on "Hope", "Change" and as a "Unifier".
     
  6. Raos

    Raos Registered Member

    I did not say he was. What I said was that it is a two way street. The president can not be a unifier if the other side refuses to be unified.
     
  7. SmilinSilhouette

    SmilinSilhouette Registered Member

  8. CaptainObvious

    CaptainObvious Son of Liberty V.I.P.

    To be fair, has he really tried? Hasn't he pretty much pushed through whatever he wants? Do you expect the other side to cooperate if what he is pushing is extreme (and let's be honest, especially his original healthcare bill was extreme compared to what we've had for years)?

    As the article correctly points out it is his duty to find common ground and he has failed to do so. And as I've pointed out that in and of itself I don't have much of a problem with. What I do have a problem with is he ran as something different.
    ------
    I read about this the other day. I would seriously consider saying, if called before the Committee "With all due respect Mr. Waxman, but kiss my ass. Maybe you flunked high school civics but I don't owe you an explanation of my numbers. I don't work for you, YOU work for me. YOU owe the American people an explanation for the horrible job you've done, I owe nothing. Now excuse me while I go back to work and contribute to this beautiful place we call the United States of America while you sit here and waste tax dollars".
     
    Last edited: Mar 30, 2010
  9. SmilinSilhouette

    SmilinSilhouette Registered Member

    Not to mention that as publically held companies they must make these disclosures. So what do you do? Run afoul of the SEC or the democrat administration?
     
  10. CaptainObvious

    CaptainObvious Son of Liberty V.I.P.

    I don't have a problem disclosing the documents, I mean hell you have to as you pointed out. What I have a problem with are the ridiculous hearings that will end up turing into a circus sideshow with people like Waxman posturing.

    The bill is what it is and does it what does.
     

Share This Page