quote:

ORIGINAL: DaNewAgeViking
Our system of government is a bad joke concocted by people (the Founding Fathers) who had no real idea what they were doing, were venturing off into an uncharted La-La Land of 'government by the consent of the governed', and who were faced with the eminent collapse of the temporary system put forth during the Revolution. It's no surprise it works so poorly since it was deliberately designed not to work at all, but it's all we have.

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

quote:

Shall we compare apples to apples and only use the first 4 years of Bush, or how about we use the second 4 years, when the Dems had control of both houses of congress?

I pulled this from another thread. If the poster wishes to claim credit, then he/she can do so.

I have seen, often, how Obama had "control" of both houses for 2 years. I have also seen claims that he had a fillibuster proof control of the Senate.

I say you are wrong. Anyone want to prove he did have that kind of control?

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

Is Bush running?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Baroana

quote:

ORIGINAL: LookieNoNookie

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

quote:

ORIGINAL: LookieNoNookie

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

quote:

Shall we compare apples to apples and only use the first 4 years of Bush, or how about we use the second 4 years, when the Dems had control of both houses of congress?

I pulled this from another thread. If the poster wishes to claim credit, then he/she can do so.

I have seen, often, how Obama had "control" of both houses for 2 years. I have also seen claims that he had a fillibuster proof control of the Senate.

I say you are wrong. Anyone want to prove he did have that kind of control?

There's no need to.

A president can either take responsibility for his term or he (won't).

Why does it matter who had control?

He's the Prez.

Is that not one of the things the conservatives point out repeatedly? How he failed even with a fillibuster proof Senate?

Can't help you on that one but I, as the head of our multiple organizations, take full responsibility (and always will) when we fail, because whether I didn't lead well, didn't come up with inventive ideas, didn't guide my people to do all the above....it's my fault...and I hand out accolades to everyone who contributed when we win.

Failure is ALWAYS the CEO's responsibility. (It ain't as cushy a job as one might surmise).

Them ain't platitudes....it's governance fact. As a CEO, my job....his job...is to lead AND produce results that equal or exceed those we were anticipating or could realistically expect...as shareholders of America Inc.

Our firms grew our sales across all product lines (to date), in excess of 43% in 2012. (And I don't sell software or tech...so...it can be done).

He didn't get the job done. And I can't argue the point: Running America Incorporated is a smidge tougher than MY job.

But he asked for the job, which gives me the right to question his acumen.

Don't know if Romney is the logical replacement but....the other guy (Obama)....didn't do it.

He flat out didn't, hasn't and can't.

Good.

So, you must be conceding that George W. Bush's performance as President was abysmal beyond words. We had 9/11, which he failed to prevent. He also failed to catch Osama Bin Laden and bring him to justice. We had Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, the damage from which he failed to repair. We had invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan that went poorly and were initiated based on unreliable information. We had an awful recession, disasters in the banking industry, disasters in the auto industry..... and these are just his biggest fuckups.

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

Failure is ALWAYS the CEO's responsibility. (It ain't as cushy a job as one might surmise).

A false comparison. The President is not a CEO. The Executive is one of three coequal branches of US government. I'll bet you learned that somewhere. So, bullshit.

quote:

ORIGINAL: slvemike4u

someone failed civics 101.
Veto's can be overridden.
The war powers act constricts,seriously any Presidents arbitrary use of force.As a matter of fact only Congress can declare war .
The President is not ,as you suggested,above the law.
There is in fact a process in place called "impeachment" should a President be found guilty of "Treason,Bribery,or other high crimes and misdemeanors .
So once again you are factually challenged

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

quote:


I have seen, often, how Obama had "control" of both houses for 2 years. I have also seen claims that he had a fillibuster proof control of the Senate.

I say you are wrong. Anyone want to prove he did have that kind of control?

You're 100% right. The closest he ever came to a fillibuster proof vote  was a count of ONE. Since we are talking about neither horse shoes nor Hand grenades...It hardly counts for anything.

(in reply to tazzygirl)

quote:

The war powers act, you are quite right, does mandate that only Congress can declare war. Funny, how we got into Vietnam without Congress, Iraq (twice) and Afghanistan without Congress uttering a peep.

quote:

ORIGINAL: LookieNoNookie


...............go ask Al Gore, who got nearly 1,000,000 more votes from the U.S. citizenry than George Bush did, why he didn't become the President.

quote:

ORIGINAL: FMRFGOPGAL

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

quote:


I have seen, often, how Obama had "control" of both houses for 2 years. I have also seen claims that he had a fillibuster proof control of the Senate.

I say you are wrong. Anyone want to prove he did have that kind of control?

You're 100% right. The closest he ever came to a fillibuster proof vote  was a count of ONE. Since we are talking about neither horse shoes nor Hand grenades...It hardly counts for anything.

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

The war powers act, you are quite right, does mandate that only Congress can declare war. Funny, how we got into Vietnam without Congress, Iraq (twice) and Afghanistan without Congress uttering a peep.

Wrong again. Congress voted. Come on, you can do better if you try..

quote:

ORIGINAL: GreyStroke

Actually by registration ... the Dems had a majority in the house and senate ... voted in by the disgust of the previous administration and the appeal of a young politician. But ... as Will Rogers said: I don't belong to any organized political party ... I'm a democrat.

The Rs were able to pull off Ds from voting a straight party line by various ways ...

He's had a good four years with the an intractable minority party fighting him on EVERY issue. Romney offers nothing but Bush II's neo-con chicken hawks. I can find no fault in BHOs performance in the past 4 years.

I do think the Rs are headed to oblivion if they truly offer their platform as one a reasonable person could accept. It's nuts.

quote:


The 60th Senator, Al Franken of Minnesota, was locked up for months in recounts and legal challenges from a very close race with incumbent Norm Coleman. Finally, on July 8, 2009 after eight months of delays, Franken was sworn in as the 60th Democratic Senator (this includes the two independents who caucused with the Democrats). This was the first time Democrats had a filibuster proof majority since 1958.

But six weeks later on August 25, 2009, Massachusetts Senator Ted Kennedy passed away. Technically, it could be argued that the Democrats still had a filibuster proof majority since cloture involves 3/5 of sitting Senators (59 out of 99 is roughly 3/5). But the Senate was in summer recess at the time so it may not have mattered.

One month later on September 25, 2009 Paul Kirk was appointed to fill Kennedy’s vacancy while the special election was going on. Even then this was only because Kennedy himself had requested that the Governor of Massachusetts change the law a week before he died to allow an appointment so the seat wouldn’t be vacant for the remainder of the year. Had he not done so it could’ve been argued that the 60 seat Democratic supermajority would have lasted about six weeks.

In November of 2009 Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley, in a poorly run campaign, lost Ted Kennedy’s seat to Republican Scott Brown effectively ensuring the end of the filibuster proof Senate.

On Christmas Eve of 2009, the Senate voted to move forward with the Health Care Reform bill by 60 to 39 votes. As Vice-President Biden noted, it was a big deal.

quote:

So Obama had 48 D's 2 I's who voted with the D caucus, and 49 R's in the Senate plus the VP.
235 D's and 198 R's in the House

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

quote:

ORIGINAL: FMRFGOPGAL

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

quote:


I have seen, often, how Obama had "control" of both houses for 2 years. I have also seen claims that he had a fillibuster proof control of the Senate.

I say you are wrong. Anyone want to prove he did have that kind of control?

You're 100% right. The closest he ever came to a fillibuster proof vote  was a count of ONE. Since we are talking about neither horse shoes nor Hand grenades...It hardly counts for anything.

The Democrats held a filibuster proof Senate for.... a lil over 4 months... in session....72 days.

quote:

You can this about Obama

quote:

That's a lot of RINOS, perhaps if Obama offered some reasonable legislation he wouldn't have so many defections from the party he leads... Just sayin'