Hope and Change leads to the same old thing

[MarchHare]

Originally Posted by Displaced Flames fan

Why is it ironic? Because Republicans are Christians and Democrats aren't?

How naive.

The irony is that Republicans have actively chosen to brand themselves as the party of Jesus regardless of whether it has any basis in reality or not.

If Jesus were living in America today, he'd be more at home with AIDS patients and prostitutes living on the street than he would in the mega churches popular with the religious right. What would the typical Tea Partier think about Jesus's "render unto Caesar..." message on taxation? Would the "tough on crime" Republicans support Jesus's teachings about forgiveness and turning the other cheek?

[Calgaryborn]

Originally Posted by Flames Fan, Ph.D.

JFK, Lyndon Johnson and Carter all had house and senate majorities during the lengths of their tenure. I cited the Roosevelt one of 12 unopposed years just to show how ludicrous your "i believes" usually are. You could simply check these things yourself and make a more meaningful claim in support of your position. But rather, you just let your narrative do the talking.

So as you noted, Obama had more "political muscle than any president in modern times." So for accuracy, just do us a favour and post the dates that Obama had his iron grip on the senate and the house.

We want the facts right, not some left or right wing narrative? Thank you in advance for backing up your initial claim.


===

For the record, I agree with you that Obama has made many, many mistakes on many fronts. He's been especially bad on one front that I think is the most important of all, and I've posted this multiple times. However, that displeasure doesn't give me latitude to make other stuff up about the man.

Obama had a little over 5 months to draft legistation or rather have the Congress and Senate draft legistation before Franken was sworn in. There were 48 days with a super-majority before the day of Kennedy died. Of course Kennedy was not available for all of these. Then there was another 31 days where laws could have been drafted or debated but, no super-majority existed. Obama then had the next 132 days before Brown was sworn in.

Basically Obama had a little over a year to accomplish his mandate without the help of the Republicans. It's not like he couldn't get out of bed and go to work without a super-majority. Everything short of voting to end debate in the Senate could be accomplished without his Super-majority. Obama could have had a budget as well as health care and cap & trade voted on in the Congress and debated in the Senate before Franken was sworn in. Instead he accomplished nothing until Fall and then pushed through Obamacare without giving Congress and the Senate enough time to read it let alone debate it.

Obama promised that he would change how things were done in Washington and he certainly has. As you pointed out the last 4 Presidents before him had no super-majority but, still managed to pass budgets and find compromises to get things done.

I think the reason why Newt Gingrich has risen in the polls is because he is living proof you can get things done if your willing to share power and compromise. He also insisted on balanced budgets and got them.

[Hemi-Cuda]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

I think the reason why Newt Gingrich has risen in the polls is because he is living proof you can get things done if your willing to share power and compromise. He also insisted on balanced budgets and got them.

you can't honestly support Gingrich can you CB? this is a man who preaches family values while at the same time has been married 3 times, cheated on 2 of his wives and left 1 who had cancer. he campaigned the cause to have Bill Clinton impeached while at the same time continuing his own affair. he is the definition of slimeball politician

[Calgaryborn]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

The irony is that Republicans have actively chosen to brand themselves as the party of Jesus regardless of whether it has any basis in reality or not.

If Jesus were living in America today, he'd be more at home with AIDS patients and prostitutes living on the street than he would in the mega churches popular with the religious right. What would the typical Tea Partier think about Jesus's "render unto Caesar..." message on taxation? Would the "tough on crime" Republicans support Jesus's teachings about forgiveness and turning the other cheek?

Jesus didn't just accept sin as part of the human condition but, rather called people to repent. "Repent" means to change your mind or change your course. Certainly he would of reached out to prostitutes and the ill. He also reached out to the educated and the rich. His message was the same to all: Repent of your sins.

Jesus instructing his disciples to give unto Caesar what is Caesar's wasn't a call to pay higher taxes. He was simply instructing them to obey the law regarding taxation. I don't think the Tea party would have a problem with that.

I also don't think most Republicans have any trouble reconciling Jesus' teachings on forgiveness and turning the other cheek with his teaching on justice and personal responsibility. You, on the other hand, seem to be ignorant of the later two.

[Calgaryborn]

Originally Posted by Hemi-Cuda

you can't honestly support Gingrich can you CB? this is a man who preaches family values while at the same time has been married 3 times, cheated on 2 of his wives and left 1 who had cancer. he campaigned the cause to have Bill Clinton impeached while at the same time continuing his own affair. he is the definition of slimeball politician

Clinton's impeachment wasn't on the grounds of adultery but, rather lying under oath. His fellow Democrats prevented him from being impeached but, he was disbarred for a time over it. Impeachment was the right action for Congress to take. The President shouldn't be above the law. Also, remember the reason he was under oath was because of a sexual harrassment accusation which Clinton ended up settling out of court.

Newt has apologized for his past transgressions and although I don't like his track record morally I'm not overly worried he will repeat offend in office. He is getting pretty old and has apparently behaved himself for many years.

What I like about him is that he has a lot of intelligent ideas and has a track record of getting things done by working with both parties. He also is willing to break ranks with other Republicans when he sees a greater good. His stance on illegal aliens is a case in point.

I'm truly concerned for the future of America as an economic and world power. I think Newt is their best chance of getting Washington moving again. He has got the experience which I suppose also makes him an insider but, I don't know if America can afford another President learning on the job.

Romney I could stand if he got the nomination but, I don't trust him. He seems to say whatever is safe. I don't know what his real convictions are. The only apparent one is that he wants to be President.

[Azure]

The hell of it is Newt has some good ideas. Particularly with how he would deal with illegal immigration.

I haven't paid to much attention to his campaign, but at this point he seems much better than Cain or Romney.

The candidate I WOULD vote for is never going to win anyways. Huntsman.

[troutman]

Originally Posted by Azure

The hell of it is Newt has some good ideas. Particularly with how he would deal with illegal immigration.

I haven't paid to much attention to his campaign, but at this point he seems much better than Cain or Romney.

The candidate I WOULD vote for is never going to win anyways. Huntsman.

Looks like Herman and Mitt are done. Is Newt going to be the nominee?

cnnbrk CNN Breaking News
Herman Cain "reassessing" presidential campaign after affair allegation. on.cnn.com/snjH8U

owillis Oliver Willis
Romney Favorability Plummets As Voters Get To Know Him bit.ly/sg5QHm #p2 #tcot

[Hemi-Cuda]

Originally Posted by troutman

Looks like Herman and Mitt are done. Is Newt going to be the nominee?

cnnbrk CNN Breaking News
Herman Cain "reassessing" presidential campaign after affair allegation. on.cnn.com/snjH8U

owillis Oliver Willis
Romney Favorability Plummets As Voters Get To Know Him bit.ly/sg5QHm #p2 #tcot

if Romney bows out i think the nomination will go to Perry. Gingrich just doesn't seem like a real leader to me, and reformed or not his past would bury him in a general election

[Azure]

The media could easily bury Perry too, but that would mean they would actually have to do their job, and do some fact finding instead of just manipulating everything like they usually do.

[Itse]

Originally Posted by troutman

Looks like Herman and Mitt are done. Is Newt going to be the nominee?

Haven't most of the candidates been declared "done" at one point or the other already?