A question for the Obama apologists

[spence]

Jim, it has very little to do with anything you just said.

The point is, Congress people will act like Congress people. They're concerned primarily with personal impact and one sided agendas. This is crystal clear with the current House behavior. Cruze's motivation is establishing himself on the National stage to run for President, House Republicans are generally terrified that more Tea Party candidates are going to back stab them in the primaries.

Obama simply said that as President he saw you need a broader perspective.

-spence

[buckman]

Originally Posted by spence

Jim, it has very little to do with anything you just said.

The point is, Congress people will act like Congress people. They're concerned primarily with personal impact and one sided agendas. This is crystal clear with the current House behavior. Cruze's motivation is establishing himself on the National stage to run for President, House Republicans are generally terrified that more Tea Party candidates are going to back stab them in the primaries.

Obama simply said that as President he saw you need a broader perspective.

-spence

You are unbelievable ! Literally .
You have a double standard about everything .
Clearly these idiots in congress and the senate have no business running any part of our life's , let alone deciding on my children's health care. I'm glad you are coming around
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[spence]

Originally Posted by buckman

You are unbelievable ! Literally .
You have a double standard about everything .
Clearly these idiots in congress and the senate have no business running any part of our life's , let alone deciding on my children's health care. I'm glad you are coming around
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

There's no double standard here, it's just reality.

Bush went through the exact same thing. All Presidents do, most just aren't as honest about it as Obama.

-spence

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

All Presidents do, most just aren't as honest about it as Obama.

-spence

What honesty has he showed? Did Obama go on TV and admit that Bush was right, and that he, Obama, was lying to our faces?
Has he begged forgiveness for his ill-conceived attacks of Bush? If Obama did that, I missed it.

Spence, Obama opposed raising the debt ceiliing. There are 2 explanations...

(1) Obama was too ignorant to understand that Bush had no choice, or

(2) Obama knew full well that Bush had no choice, but he attacked him to score political points.

Those are the only 2 choices, I don't see a third possibility. In either case, in my opinion, it means he's unqualified. He's either too stupid or too dishonest.

[buckman]

Originally Posted by spence

There's no double standard here, it's just reality.

Bush went through the exact same thing. All Presidents do, most just aren't as honest about it as Obama.

-spence

We have all heard that before... It's usually in regards to national security . Not basic economics .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

Jim, it has very little to do with anything you just said.

The point is, Congress people will act like Congress people. They're concerned primarily with personal impact and one sided agendas. This is crystal clear with the current House behavior. Cruze's motivation is establishing himself on the National stage to run for President, House Republicans are generally terrified that more Tea Party candidates are going to back stab them in the primaries.

Obama simply said that as President he saw you need a broader perspective.

-spence

OK. So when Obama was bashing Bush, it was just politcs as usual. Sounds like that's what you are saying, and I agree with that.

But if that's the case, where does Obama get off running on a promise to "end politics as usual". If Obama knew that Bush had to raise the debt ceiling, but bashed him anyway to score political points with his base, from where does Obama get the nerve to say he'll do things differently? Isn't that level of dishonesty a character flaw?

Here's the thing, Spence. That type of politics (attacking a proposal that you know is necessary) is dangerous. That's exactly what your side is doing when conservatives suggest necessary cuts to Social Security and Medicare (witness the ads showing Paul Ryan pushing a wheelchair-bound old lady off a cliff, boy that's honest). On some issues, that tactic is very dangerous.

How about we elect someone who is above that? Paul Ryan could have said during the campaign "elect me, and I'll give you all a blank check!". But he didn't. He said cuts were necessary, and your side attacked him for it. Congratulations.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

The point is, Congress people will act like Congress people. They're concerned primarily with personal impact and one sided agendas.

Oh? I never heard that before. Something new . . . or something you have observed by your more realistic understanding of contexts? I double checked the official guide on how and for what Congress people act--the Constitution. It lists 18 things in which Congress has the responsibility to act. None of the 18 says that members are to be concerned primarily with personal impact and one sided agendas. Each of the 18 are enumerated as duties not agendas. And they are very specific, not encumbered by conflicting or various "sides."

This is crystal clear with the current House behavior. Cruze's motivation is establishing himself on the National stage to run for President,

The House behavior to which you refer was about the funding of a law which was imperfectly written, and which itself has been an "agenda" of progressives for a century. An agenda that is not listed as one of the 18 ways on which Congress is supposed to act. And, yes, Congress can override Supreme Court decisions. It is actually the final arbiter of what is federal law, not the SCOTUS.

I understand, however, that you have no truck with such notions. The Constitution, for you, is an outdated document which was written in a different context than that in which we currently live. High sounding concepts such as liberty, especially individual liberty, no longer apply. We are all totally interdependent in such a way that individualism is an obstacle to efficient social order and good governance thereof. And it is through government, highly centralized and staffed with expert bureaucrats, that we must achieve what is good for all.

The "perception" that a Cruze could be acting honorably to perform his Constitutional duty to country and constituents is probably for you, naïve. Your reading of the relevant context, with its variables and relative agendas, is that what he is doing is only for a run at the presidency.

House Republicans are generally terrified that more Tea Party candidates are going to back stab them in the primaries.

Actually, the Tea Party has felt that it has been back stabbed by Republicans whom they helped to victory, and who have abandoned promises that helped them get elected. Any new candidates the Tea Party runs to replace back stabbing Congress people will be to right the ship.

Obama simply said that as President he saw you need a broader perspective.

-spence

Yes, yes, the "perspective" thing. I know, I know, the official guide to what the POTUS's perspective should be is irrelevant. That perspective is much narrower than what modern presidents must have. They are responsible for so much more, just about everything, so that one person couldn't actually handle it and do it well--that jack of all trades but master of none syndrome. So as a mere Senator, or regular person, one could not be "perceived" as being capable of understanding budgetary problems, especially involving trillions of dollars. But, being elected to the presidency, the master of all things, one evolves into a wider sphere of vision, of contexts, of variables, of relativities, of a massively broad perspective which encompasses the totality of the American nation.

Really?

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

So as a mere Senator, or regular person, one could not be "perceived" as being capable of understanding budgetary problems, especially involving trillions of dollars. But, being elected to the presidency, the master of all things, one evolves into a wider sphere of vision, of contexts, of variables, of relativities, of a massively broad perspective which encompasses the totality of the American nation.

Has nothing to do with understanding, it's about measurement.

-spence

[FormerUser]

From Spence's responses it is quite easy to answer your question Jim:Yes Obama and his followers Can Have IT Both Ways.Unfortunately its the American citizen taking it both ways.

[spence]

Originally Posted by basswipe

From Spence's responses it is quite easy to answer your question Jim:Yes Obama and his followers Can Have IT Both Ways.Unfortunately its the American citizen taking it both ways.

Should talk to Sen. Cruz about his doomsday mission then.

This is pretty telling...

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/1...753.html?hp=l7

I'm surprised actually. Ted Cruz is a really smart guy, too bad he can't see past his own arrogance.

-spence

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

Should talk to Sen. Cruz about his doomsday mission then.

"Doomsday mission"? Are you reneging on your devotion to "perspectives"? Cruz has a broader perspective than "Republican after Republican" who want to end the budget impasse. What budget? The continuing resolution is a means to AVOID a budget. Raising the debt ceiling is a means to spend, again, even more money than the government has.

And Obamacare does the same. And it is not popular or desired by a majority of citizens.

Anonymous quotes to the contrary, the mess republicans are in is the mess that everybody is in, and that mess includes obamacare, which Republicans didn't vote for. It is not Republicans who have not passed budgets, it is not Republicans who passed Obamacare, but it is Republicans who have also contributed to the debt and also maintained business as usual for the Federal Gvt.

Who cares if they believe they'll get blamed for it all. Most people, including me, don't give a rat's behind if they do. What tea partiers and constitutionalists care about is getting rid of debt, getting rid of oppressive tyrannical mandates (including Obamacare), restoring principled constitutional gvt. and making this, again, a country of free, responsible people, not a populace who must depend on government bureaucracy to sustain their lives.

Cruz's broader "perspective" includes all of that. I have heard him speak on talk shows and he says a lot more than is represented in the article you cite. And the perspective from which he speaks is not a "doomsday mission," but a restoration to sanity and a brighter, once again flourishing nation of individuals who can innovate and produce far more than herds and groups who are all prodded into one way by centralized regulations.

This is pretty telling...

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/1...753.html?hp=l7

I'm surprised actually. Ted Cruz is a really smart guy, too bad he can't see past his own arrogance.

-spence

It is that "arrogance" that allows him to see past the insular fear of timid Republicans who care for their image more than fighting for what is right. And it is that "arrogance" that gives him the courage not to care what Spence, or politico, or timid Republicans wish to brand him with snotty and irrelevant comments.

As for Obamacare and should it be repealed, read from the same issue of Politico that you cite this article by one of the progressive's favorite billionaires, Warren Buffet: http://moneymorning.com/ob-article/o...e=t-oc-buffett

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

It is that "arrogance" that allows him to see past the insular fear of timid Republicans who care for their image more than fighting for what is right. And it is that "arrogance" that gives him the courage not to care what Spence, or politico, or timid Republicans wish to brand him with snotty and irrelevant comments.

I watched the guy on MTP Sunday, he's all about Ted. His courage is driven by ego, his arrogance blinds him to the consequences of politics by anarchy.

A majority doesn't want the HCB de-funded by the way. Cruz's behavior isn't in any way backed by public opinion.

Nor is raising the debt ceiling a means to spend more, it's a means to pay the bills. Spending happens to be declining faster than anticipated right now. Perhaps the Tea Party should focus on reinforcing a positive than legislation through threats...it's not a long-term strategy.

As for Warren Buffet. Did you seriously mean to reference an article quoting him from nearly 3-1/2 years ago? It looks like Money Morning doesn't have a lot of editorial oversight.

-spence

[Sea Dangles]

Originally Posted by spence

Has nothing to do with understanding, it's about measurement.

-spence

Another detbutch beatdown has Spence grasping at straws.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[spence]

Originally Posted by Sea Dangles

Another detbutch beatdown has Spence grasping at straws.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Perhaps your drive by pot shots aren't conducive towards thinking.

-spence