FLASHBACK: "Obama Tells GOP Over-The-Top Rhetoric Makes Negotiating Impossible"

[Underground906]

I'm not Liberal or a Democrat. But I love this guy. I hear a lot of criticism about him and wonder where it comes from. Everytime I see this man speak he is saying something that impresses me. Perhaps I just catch him on the right occasions. But he talks the truth. What has gone wrong in your politics is that irrational rhetoric has replaced reality. Reps becoming no different to Libs. I couldn't put my finger on it until I saw this.

[loon0493]

@Underground906 the press likes a good fight, but they know that basically President Obama vs the Republican party is like watching a consumate professional (obama) versus a bunch of ranked amatuers (Republicans). So they handicapp Obama with one sided coverage to keep it a fair fight. They did the same thing to Clinton. You have to understand Republicans do not have a real plan or vision for this country. their only purpose is to take us back to the robber baron era, period.

[Underground906]

@loon0493 I disagree. The Christian Right and it's attendent cotterie of nutbags are the one's that are most prominent of the US scene unfortunately. The sane, educated intelligent Classical Conservative are very much in the background. I don't trust your robber baron rhetoric. I've seen that thrown about a lot, mostly when conservatives block things liberals support. But Obama is a consumate professional for sure.

[DougDaCosta]

@michealati2 Do the research, or are you afraid of what you'll find? Don't take my word for it, and don't assume that I'm a Republican Party hack. I dislike the Democrats and the Republicans. If you don't at least read Hawaii Statute 338-17.8, then you have no leg to stand on with your comments.

[DougDaCosta]

@michealati2 Keep your head buried in the sand. Life will seem less threatening that way. However, I suggest you google Hawaii Statitute 338-17.8 and seriously consider the event which caused the Hawaii Dept. of Health Director to resign. She was asked to explain how that revised 2001 COLB could be issued with only a hand written note in file stating, "Obama was born in Hawaii." Did she pull the 338-17.8 form to cover for Obama? It's probable. However, you can believe what you will.

[DougDaCosta]

@michealati2 ...because they're all a bunch of typical idiot politicians who didn't want to be branded as racists and lose votes. The "News" Media is on Obama's side. Everything negative about Obama is withheld. And where do you get this KKK thing from? You're sounding like a Democrat Party hack when you lump them all together. Do the research...Obama continues to keep his background hidden, and definitely won't release any copy of his birth record. The question is....WHY?

[DougDaCosta]

@michealati2 How can you investigate his birth record when he's got three permanent legal teams fighting the release of that information in Civil Courts?

[DougDaCosta]

@michealati2 Honest and fair? Obama has created a new identity for himself in the form of a "Certificate of Live Birth," a form that was first used in the year 2001. His actual birth record, whatever it is, is still stored in the basement of the Hawaii Department of Health, but he refuses to release a copy of that actual birth record? Google Hawaii Statute 338-17.8 so that you can decide what type of birth record he probably has?

[DougDaCosta]

Obama is either delusional, or intentionally lying. "Bi-Partisan fashon," as in... see it my way ot it's the highway for you. Obama is intentionally destroying the economy.

[cisseshairdresser]

@DougDaCosta

That is just a complete joke.

He may not be getting things completely right but why the fuck would he want to "intentionally" destroy the economy? What good doe's it do him? Won't get him re-elected will it?

Also, where is the proof coz last time I looked, although very slowly, the economy was beginning to get back on its feet and unemployment, again although slowly, was falling.

More right wing idiocy. I feel sorry for the Dems having to come up against this nonsense daily!

[DougDaCosta]

@cisseshairdresser Considering your comment, I believe that you don't have a clue about what is happening in Big Government, and it would be a total waste of time to even respond back to you. I suggest that you do more research before making your comments.

[cisseshairdresser]

@DougDaCosta

Please respond to the concise points I made in my first comment rather than resulting to attacking my character and intelligence.

Big Government?! Hypocracy!! If what the Repubs and Schneider are doing in Michigan isn't the very definition of BIG government then I don't what is! They have taken away the Michigan people's civil liberties and democratic right and what they are doing is blatant fascism. THAT is big government my friend.

Stop watching Fox (Faux) 'News'.

[d3wdman]

Barry Soetoro... Epic fail.

[toptrichs]

zionist freak

[Weaseldog2001]

object and I know everyone I talk to object

[spoinklesprouts]

holy crap that was reasonable.

hooray, sanity!

[rocketman6464]

fucking lying prick piece of shit......god i hate this worthless fuck......fuck u obama!!

[ninuxy]

@rocketman6464 I think your response clearly highlights this segment of his speech. Way to go to represent some low buffoonery point of view. Keep up with your meritorious rhetorics.

[Weaseldog2001]

This is tough for Republicans. Obama is the greatest Republican President since Ronald Reagan. He's giving the Republicans everything they want. But they must be seen fighting with him, as though he's the enemy, to keep the support of their base.

They have to pretend to fight against the things they want, while at the same time, leaving themselves room to accept the things they wanted, after pretending they didn't want them.

It's a very tricky political game for them.

[Usmaman07]

But this also displays Obama's main problem. His rhetoric pas president just isn't built for soundbites.

He allowed the Republicans to demagogue everything as a Marxist government takeover, with no real pushback. So you had cases in both healthcare and the stimulus, where people polled approved of everything in the bills but hated the bills themselves. Because he allowed the message to get away from the reality of the bills and into rhetoric and ideology.

[ERAUPRCWA]

@Usmaman07 that's Obama, NO DRAMA OBAMA... he doesn't fight for anything, he just talks his way through everything. He could've won the healthcare debate but he allowed the message to get away, same thing with Cash for Clunkers, the stimulus and GITMO. Repubs say they want $30billion in cuts, Obama gives it to them and then they say NO we want $40billion and Obama gives in and then Repubs say they want $50... THAT'S why there's no agreement because Obama doesn't stand firm on anything.

[Usmaman07]

@ERAUPRCWA Obama did lose the message, and you're right that he could have done better. The President's biggest mistake was not fighting back against the outright lies peddled by Fox News & Co., who've held the mainstream media hostage for a decade. They tried for a day or two, but when Fox said "OBAMA HATES FREE SPEECH" the administration gave up. Rome wasn't built in a day, but it was destroyed in one.

[nabiji]

1st ... do away with tax loopholes and combat against international tax havens. 2nd Reduce Corporate Tax rate to 30%. 3. Increase taxation to take into account 'off balance sheet' incomes such as options and forwards. 4. Tax the rich. 5. Impose a tariff for foreign investment hedges. 6. Implement Basel 3 standard and tie in 10% mandatory US Fed bond covered requirement as assets.

feel free to continue on.

[EmpathyWorks]

This needed to be posted. GJ TPM.

[robinvan1983]

wow i can't believe Obama said: this is not only done on your side, but also done on the dem side... Hey obama... ony the republicans obstruct... you may have noticed that

[Usmaman07]

I remember this!

[ThePoliticalMoose]

ARE YOU F***ING KIDDING ME?!

They've offered 4 separate compromised budgets. What does he mean "not negotiating"?!?

This guys words are completely disconnected from reality

[kargenlewis]

Blah blah blah,

when are republican going to take responsibility for helping Bush murder millions and destroy america? clinging to the fact that there are some corrupt dems doesn't justify anything. you have to be one of the stupidest people on the planet to think illegal wars are ok. Becoming politically active after the worst president in american history leaves office shows your just a racist uneducated pig!

[shalcall]

This never got the press it deserved. Obama walked into a room of hostile Republican congressman ALONE, no teleprompter, no notes and allowed them to ask him any question they wanted. He EMBARRASSED them.

If you have never seen the whole video, I urge you to watch it. You clearly see the partisan hackery that is the entire Republican strategy.

[AshillaBeige]

@shalcall And the Demo strategy. Frankly, a Democrat referring to partisan tactics, dramatics or dishonesty from Reps is pretty hilarious.

Support either party and you are part of the problem. Two sides of the same coin. These guys are all friends.

[shalcall]

@AshillaBeige If you think Republicans and Democrats are 2 sides of the same coin, you either don't pay attention, or you're not too bright. To think Republicans would have even discussed reforming health care, repealing DADT, ending judicial defense of DOMA, allowing the EPA to start doing its job, etc, etc. etc. if they were in power is completely delusional.

If nothing else, had a Republican been president, we'd have 2 more corporatist on the Supreme Court and abortion would be illegal.

[valgehiir]

@shalcall that meeting with Obama and Rs got tons of press. He walked in ALONE? why is that some sort of accomplishment? He embarrased them that one time, agreed. But GOP is embarrasing Obama almost every day. Obama is incompetent and weak every day, that never gets the press it deserves.

[shalcall]

@valgehiir Walking in alone - meaning without a crowd in the audience to support his statements - and still embarrassing a conservative crowd IS and accomplishment. Most Presidents never do that in front of a camera.

And yes, the GOP is embarrassing Obama among the Democratic base. I can't deny that. But most Democrats and most liberals don't see that to be the case (according to the majority of polling).

[loon0493]

@shalcall the press likes a good fight, but they know that basically President Obama vs the Republican party is like watching a consumate professional (obama) versus a bunch of ranked amatuers (Republicans). So they handicapp Obama with one sided coverage to keep it a fair fight. They did the same thing to Clinton. You have to understand Republicans do not have a real plan or vision for this country. their only purpose is to take us back to the robber baron era, period.

[SYNICtheAtheist]

Awww look he's so in the middle... what a joke our corporate president is.

[mark200]

@SYNICtheAtheist Yeah because being a hardcore liberal would make getting a budget passed so much easier...

[kargenlewis]

@SYNICtheAtheist Blah blah blah,

when are republican going to take responsibility for helping Bush murder millions and destroy america? clinging to the fact that there are some corrupt dems doesn't justify anything. you have to be one of the stupidest people on the planet to think illegal wars are ok. Becoming politically active after the worst president in american history leaves office shows your just a racist uneducated pig!

[SYNICtheAtheist]

@kargenlewis I'm 28 and have had an interest in politics since the beginging of the Clinton administration you dumb fuck. Racsist? My great grandmother is black. Again you are a dumb fuck. illegal wars? No fucking shit sherlock.

I'm a progressive you idiot. Just because he's black doesn't mean he gets a pass on continuing bush jr's federal and Foriegn policies. Now that would be racist wouldn't it. The fact of the matter is, is that the president has reneged on his campaign promises. dumbass

[cooperbry]

The budget needs to be cut by 1.6 trillion.

[politicochris]

@cooperbry Or taxes need to be raised by 1.6 trillion or some combination thereof. We have very low taxes compared to the rest of the world.

[cooperbry]

@politicochris I'm pretty sure that I pay enough. I'm pretty sure you feel that way too. We don't need giant government. We have states too. Enough already.

[dudev]

@cooperbry

Corporations need to pay their taxes.

[cooperbry]

@dudev Corporations don't pay taxes, people do. If we take an honest look at corporations and how they pay their taxes, it's clear they already pay nothing even if they in theory pay 35%. They pay these taxes one of the two ways. Lower wages to employees, or less profit on the products or services they provide. If we subscribe to capitalism as we profess to, then corporate taxes should be zero. More wages for employees, more profit for capital expenditure. Only people pay taxes.

[robinvan1983]

@cooperbry lets get an real example. Exonmobile Get subsidy, have record profits in 2010, they don't pay royalties for the oil they are getting from the US and they sell the oil what they got on the global market, not the US. if they pay less taxes. do you think they would raise wages? There is a reason why clothes produceres use sweatshops. because they get more profit for themselves. if you start a company and you get profit? will you remove you profit to pay higher wages or buy a second house

[cooperbry]

@robinvan1983 Regardless of what is done with the additional profit, the facts are the facts.

Some wages may rise. For a corporation where do profits go? Capital expenses (they buy equipment or what they need to make a product or service). They keep the profit as retained earnings (save it). They return the money to investors through dividends or stock buy backs. So, just as they don't pay taxes, they don't keep profits either. So, just like taxes, only people benefit from the profit.

[robinvan1983]

@cooperbry actually most expenses aren't in equipment but personnel. Usually it is around 50% of profit goes to wages. There is NO incentive to actually invest in higher wages. So if i have a company that is successful and i get a taxbreak, that gives me more money in my pocket. Now if the rich is a smaller group that spend money than any other, so their expenditure effects a smaller range of companies. If the middle class have more money to spend, it effects a lot more business

[cooperbry]

@robinvan1983 Not sure I'm following your logic, but, let me try. You're OK if middle class people have more money, but, not successful business owners. Who is "rich"? Is the line at 200k or 500k? Who decides? Shouldn't all people be entitled to keep their earnings? People you consider rich pay half the taxes the US collects. It's still not fair? How much is enough? The fact is that for the progressive agenda, it's never enough.

[robinvan1983]

@cooperbry i should have said people who are employed cause middle class doesn't cut it but it didn't fit in the comment. and the rich pay less in income taxes than other classes. Warren Buffett is an example. No taxes is even worse. Cause regulatory agencies can't even function and can cause inflation. an example is china, today yet again companies poisoned milk to make a quick buck. and i would like to have a well maintained infrastructure and not only toll systems.

[SevenSixTwoNato]

@cooperbry And yet, taxes can never be slashed enough for GOP-types, despite corporate income taxes having hit a 60-year low.

Even with a flat tax, given the income distribution in the United States, the top 10% of earners will foot more than half of the tax burden regardless.

Adam Smith--arguably the founder of modern capitalism--was an outspoken proponent of a progressive tax for a reason, namely that the rich need no government assistance and can provide more tax revenue with little risk.

[Weaseldog2001]

@cooperbry You mean like GE, that pays no taxes and gets $billions if free public welfare money?

[cooperbry]

@Weaseldog2001 I object and I know everyone I talk to object to GE receiving any federal funds regardless of the reason. So, you wont find any disagreement from me on that one. I suppose it should call into question unwavering support for a President who engages in this objectionable behavior right?

[Weaseldog2001]

@cooperbry I agree. But Americans put more value on words than actions. Obama was a staunch supporter of Bus while he was Senator. We worked very hard to promote Bush's policies. While he was doing this behind the scenes, he was giving speeches to the public about how he opposed Bush's policies.

Now that bribery is free speech, our gov will openly work to give our tax dollars away to whomever pays big bribes. And Welfare Queen Corporations, have a lot bribery money.

[cooperbry]

@robinvan1983 Now lets look at your case. Exxon shouldn't get any subsidy at all. If I start a company and earn profits, should I just give all that money to the government? Shouldn't I be entitled to enjoy the profits and buy a house if I want? If I do, that employs people who build the house. I'm sure you would want the freedom to keep and do with your profits what you want, wouldn't you? What's unfair about what we've described? Nothing, that's what built America.

[dudev]

@cooperbry

Businesses and coporations actually use more of our infrastructure than do average citizens. Yet, it's the middle class that pays for water, power, roads, bridges, emergency services, etc. Example, 85% of the water in California goes to corporate agriculture and 10% goes to industry. The middle class pays full price for water while agri-business is subsidized. And corporations hide their profits in foriegn banks, so even if they pay zero tax that doesn't mean US wages will go up.

[shalcall]

@cooperbry Why?

[Tenac1ous]

Very, very true.

[OpenInsanity]

Back when Obama showed a hint of strength. What a let down.

[TamirylAuvahn]

Anyone who likes Obama hates American

[katey1dog]

Obama, you declared war on a nation which did not pose ANY threat to the United States. You entered into this war without a plan to end hostilities.

You are owned by the UN and the Banksters.

Congress, you need to impeach this man.

[shalcall]

@katey1dog Let me guess, you're only for using the military if our actual mainland is attacked. . .

[katey1dog]

@shalcall

Yes. In a word, yes. Go to war only upon being attacked.

Oh, and allow Congress under Article 1, Section 8 to declare and conclude war.

[shalcall]

@katey1dog So I take it, you would not have intervened in Europe during WW2, or Korea several years later. If so, that's a pretty extreme position.

[MrGnarus]

@shalcall congress declared war during WW2 we won. Korea was a huge disaster.

[shalcall]

@MrGnarus Katey1dog said she only supported going to war upon being attacked. We were not attacked by Europe during WW2, so I wonder if she would have been against it.

And to be clear, if Congress had made a declaration of war against Iraq in 2003, I still would have been against that war - because it was a very very stupid and immoral war.

[Llepsdog]

@shalcall You guys know USA didn't enter into the European theater until Germany declared war on us a week after pearl harbor right? We didnt just get attacked and said f hitler we waited.. And Korea... a massive failure of a war thats STILL GOING ON.. ya that went well. Man people should read up on their history.

[katey1dog]

@shalcall

Firstly, we were attacked by the Japanese which caused the Germans to declare war on the United States.

Secondly, WW2 had it's beginnings in the First World War. A war which the United States had no vested interest in, yet fought on the side of the Allies to preserver the British Empire and French territorial possessions.

If so, that's a pretty extreme position.

It's a position created by the Founders, particularly Washington. It kept the peace.

[shalcall]

@katey1dog But here are my hypotheticals. Had Hitler not declared war on the U.S., would you have been against us intervening in Europe? Would you have been against sending troops to the South during the Civil War?

[katey1dog]

@shalcall

First, understand Hitler had already been attacking US shipping. And by International Law, Hitler was free to attack any ship providing aid to his enemies in international waters, particularly the British and the Russians.

Secondly, when the Nazi Congress by treaty, declared war on the United States, U-Boats began sinking shipping within US territorial waters, an act of war.

Thirdly, it is morally justifiable for a formal Declaration of War to be ratified.

[shalcall]

@katey1dog So it was only the act of war on U.S. property that would prompt you to act? Not the willful destruction of innocents and invasion of allies?

We simply disagree on this. I'm as liberal as they come, but I do not think it's in our interest to allow things like that to occur without intervening if it's feasible.

[katey1dog]

@shalcall Would you have been against sending troops to the South during the Civil War?

Yes. Remember that ALL wars are unnecessary. Lincoln failed to bargain for a peaceful outcome. And in the end 630,000 Americans were killed to forcefully return the South into the Union and replace slavery with Apartheid.

Remember, ending slavery was NEVER his intention. When he realized that it would benefit the North militarily, by ending any European involvement, the South's fate was sealed.

[shalcall]

@katey1dog And here I really disagree with you, but I'm biased (I'm black). Now I'm not fool enough to think that if Lincoln could have won the war without emancipation that he wouldn't have done that. But the war pretty much guaranteed the end of slavery. It could not really end without that. I'm also a believer that sovereign republics with equal representation have every right to put down rebellions. Otherwise you encourage anarchy.

[katey1dog]

@shalcall

Now I'm not fool enough to think that if Lincoln could have won the war without emancipation that he wouldn't have done that. But the war pretty much guaranteed the end of slavery.

That it all did, in fact, that's my argument. But the Emancipation Proclamation was a weapon which ended all hopes of foreign intervention. That was it's goal. It completely isolated the South.

Lincoln wanted to unite the Republic even at the expense of keeping slavery. That's on record.

[shalcall]

@katey1dog I know this. However, I still think it was worth fighting. If slavery had not ended, it may not have been worth the sacrifice. Indeed, had the North lost, it would not have been worth the sacrifice.

However, I think the moral cost of an economy to the south of us run by slave labor, the ability for any state to simply secede, the future wars that would have occurred over western territories made the war a worthwhile effort.

[katey1dog]

@shalcall

Brother against brother is never a good idea. The British had a better plan to end slavery. The Brits bought them and freed them.

[shalcall]

@katey1dog The South would not have sold their slaves to freedom, and it would not have ended the practice of slavery. I'm sorry, but sometime wars are necessary in order to prevent the continued oppression or extermination of people. I think war should be a last resort and I agree it should be formally declared by congress, but I don't believe in isolationism.

[katey1dog]

@shalcall The South would not have sold their slaves to freedom,

We don't know that. It was never tried. But in that era, the United States was still on the Gold and Silver Standard.

There are no necessary wars.

[shalcall]

@katey1dog Well good luck with that. I will never vote for someone who feels that all wars are unnecessary. That's an extreme statement because it also applies to invasion.

[katey1dog]

@shalcall

All wars are unnecessary. However, most wars are done by choice.

[DrLZRDMN]

@katey1dog

no war but class war

[katey1dog]

@shalcall

Remember what I said earlier.

Go to war only upon being attacked.

[TamirylAuvahn]

1.7 TRILLION deficit every year is the "best he can" IMPEACH IMPEACH IMPEACH

[rundatrack]

@TamirylAuvahn First year was fiscally still bush....remember that

[Yababoos123]

@rundatrack

No it wasn't dipshit. Democrats including Senator Obama had control of the MONEY and ALL SPENDING since they took the CONGRESS in 2006 . The President alone doesn't spend a dime

After Obama took the Whitehouse, the spending skyrocketed, they spent spent spent without anyone to stop them

[mrbhave]

@Yababoos123 Nearly $11 trillion of our $14.4 trillion dollar debt was created by republicans. It was $900B before Reagan, who tripled it to $2.7T. Bush I nearly doubled it to $4.5T. Clinton spent a bit more than $1T. Bush II doubled it again from $5.6T to nearly $11T. Now it's at $14.4T:

treasurydirect(.)gov/govt/repo­rts/pd/histdebt/histdebt.htm

Congress rights bills. With the exception of a congressional veto, no bill becomes law until the President signs it. Otherwise, he can VETO.

[CliveSinclairZX]

@mrbhave Obama increased spending even after the recession in 2008 and still now it is even greater.

[wretcherwretch]

@CliveSinclairZX

Are you implying that the stimulus wasn't necessary? O.o

[rundatrack]

@Yababoos123 Believe what you want...the name calling is pretty entertaining as well. So they just spent spent spent on nothing. Not like there wasnt the worst recession in years...that took the global economy with them. No they just spent spent spent....it wasnt because shit was horrible and they were not trying to not create a depression...and create stability. Your a joke....

[shalcall]

@Yababoos123 Wait, wait, the president doesn't have veto power?  Tarp wasn't a Bush administration idea? You are delusional.

[nalani005]

@TamirylAuvahn Why do republicans blame Obama for the shape of this country?Why?It's OK to blame Bush, you guys don't claim him anymore anyway.Seriously,why or how do you want to blame Obama?Were you with Bush on his bailout?

[j0hnwi11iams]

@TamirylAuvahn "We refuse to pass tax cuts unless they go to the wealthiest". All before the so called fiscal crisis. We know where your priorities are, scumbags.

[NoXoNaToR]

@j0hnwi11iams agreed

[nalani005]

I CANNOT TAKE REPUBLICANS CRAP ANY LONGER.OBAMA IS DOING THE BEST HE CAN THROUGH THIS BULLSHIT.WHEN ARE PEOPLE GOING TO REALIZE, THAT DISAGREEING ON EVERY ISSUE FOR THE SAKE OF DOING SO, ISN'T REPRESENTING THE PEOPLE.WE VOTED THESE PEOPLE IN OFFICE, IF THEY DON'T DO WHATS RIGHT ANYMORE, THEY HAVE TO GO.

[wimscheers]

@nalani005

"OBAMA IS DOING THE BEST HE CAN" No he's not.

[philly1537]

@wimscheers dont blame obama blame bush

[wimscheers]

@philly1537

"dont blame obama blame bush"

Guantanamo ...

[commandolam]

@wimscheers

Hey guys, enlighten me here. What's the big deal with closing gitmo? I am a hardcore liberal. I want to see it closed, but it's not exactly a hot button issue with me. If it doesn't close, so what? I really don't give a crap.

[shalcall]

@wimscheers Yes, the man wanted to close gitmo. He tried to close gitmo. A DEMOCRATIC congress tagged onto an omnibus spending bill (that passed by only 6 votes) a measure making it illegal for the president to transfer ANY gitmo detainee to the U.S. for trial or incarceration. They literally made it impossible to close gitmo. Democratic congressmen did that - not Obama.

[nalani005]

@wimscheers OK,lets hear it.

[wimscheers]

@nalani005

"OK,lets hear it." His sentiment is right, the republicans do try to split the country and diabolize Obama. But let’s face it, he doesn’t get politics. Why did democrats vote for the war in Iraq? Principle? Voter Base? No because Bush pulled some muscle and they got scared. Obama could have got us out of Iraq, kicked Private healthcare butt, laid down some financial laws and be the most popular president since Washington. But change my very disappointed ass.

[jopaddy81]

@wimscheers He is a pussy. You know, perhaps thats what we need, a broker rather than an imposer

[CalexanderJ]

Nailed it!