WorldTraveller

Of course not, forging relationships with those across the other side of the aisle and working towards bipartisan solutions don't lead to positive economic results /JA

I can't justify it, because I don't agree with it. Yes, accepted

Ok, try to keep up meathead. Let me explain it to you like I do when talking to my three year old, maybe then you'll understand. Ready? You see hun, when two people get along, and they both work together, they sometimes can get things done. When they fight and call each other names and not talk to each other, sometimes things don't get done. It's really really really important that they get along, or at least try. It's good for everyone when they talk to each other.

You feel "bad" for these people, because from your POV, they are backward looking. They feel "sorry" for you, because the more rigid viewpoints, see you as misguided. I on the otherhand, do believe as you do that it will become less of an issue moving forward, but understand where both positions are coming from.

And I can tell you with near certitude, that they feel sorry for you. And that's where we are

You frame it as "equality" they frame it as a religious belief. Let's not pretend that this is a one-sided issue. Both Views should be respected

Let's not pretend that you were actually ever going to consider voting for Mitt, just like I would never consider voting for O. You believe in moderately left policies, and I staunchly believe in Fiscal conservative positions. I happen to be pro gay marriage, pro choice and a **** load of other socially liberal positions, but the idea that I would disparage people who believe in the bible and believe that marriage is between a man and a woman is something I can respect. The difference between you and I regarding this position is that I'm not rigidly opposed or as callous as you are in your characterization to disparage their beliefs by stating that they are on "dancing to the wrong side of history is alarming".

I never claimed that he was, just pointing out the hypocrisy.

Did you really just go there? Specially considering that the President was for it, then against it, then for it again. So he was originally a fully evolved man. Then he de evolved. Then he evolved again. Not really the best topic to bring up. just sayin'

I admire principled men. Ya know, the kind of men that are for gay marriage, then before an important election to become president of the US, decides that he isn't for gay marriage, then suddenly before the next election decides that he is for gay marriage. So I guess he was completely evolved, then he de evolved, then he evolved again, ya know, because he has a spine.

This is for the over reactionary twit http://www.nytimes.c...?pagewanted=all http://www.huffingto..._n_1847947.html Read more: http://www.politico....l#ixzz25hdcqzHr With the president taking charge, though, Obama found that he had little history with members of Congress to draw on. His administration's early decision to forego bipartisanship for the sake of speed around the stimulus bill was encapsulated by his then-chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel: "We have the votes. F--- 'em," he's quoted in the book as saying. Obama phoned in to deliver a "high-minded message," he writes. Obama went on so long that Pelosi "reached over and pressed the mute button on her phone," so they could continue to work without the president hearing that they weren't paying attention. As debt negotiations progressed, Democrats complained of being out of the loop, not knowing where the White House stood on major points. Rep. Chris Van Hollen, D-Md., the ranking Democrat on the House Budget Committee, is described as having a "growing feeling of incredulity" as negotiations meandered. "The administration didn't seem to have a strategy. It was unbelievable. There didn't seem to be any core principles," Woodward writes in describing Van Hollen's thinking. Larry Summers, a top economic adviser to Obama who also served as Treasury Secretary under President Clinton, identified a key distinction that he said impacted budget and spending talks. "Obama doesn't really have the joy of the game. Clinton basically loved negotiating with a bunch of pols, about anything," Summers said. "Whereas, Obama, he really didn't like these guys." Woodward portrays a president who remained a supreme believer in his own powers of persuasion, even as he faltered in efforts to coax congressional leaders in both parties toward compromise. Boehner told Woodward that at one point, when Boehner voiced concern about passing the deal they were working out, the president reached out and touched his forearm. "John, I've got great confidence in my ability to sway the American people," Boehner quotes the president as having told him. http://abcnews.go.co...=4#.UEjJAKD329s So I guess, NY Times Jody Kantor, HuffPo's Sam Stein, WAPO's Bob Woodward and Politico's Glenn Thrush are all Mitt "Kool-aid" drinkers.

your butt still hurting from yesterday? Get over it bro, time to move on

It's not that he doesn't want to "fix" things, it's that he is beholden to his extreme leftist base, afterall, he is one of them. Also, I want to push back on this notion that he is some sort of center left Liberal, that's just hilarious, the only reason why he made some decision that appear to be center left is because reality forced him to move more towards the middle on some policy initiatives, not because he wanted to.

So you propose lower taxes, yet you advocate for a massive expansion of tax payer funded health care. Okey dokey

My guess, so far, is that they will get a modest bounce of 3-5% as well. Sure there were some distractions, and of course we still have the main event to go, but I would say they achieved what it was that they were looking for, which was a good speech from Michelle to deliver the "caring" side of Obama, and an embrace, literally of Clinton and Obama, even though they are nothing alike.

It's not that Obama is just completely out of his depth when it comes to economic policies, it's that he had no interest or desire to forge relationships with those from the other side of the aisle. Reagan and Clinton were masters at this, and as a result, they got things done. Obama on the other hand is seen from almost all accounts as egotistical, self-indulging and overtly partisan, and as a result, we have this ****ty economy and nothing gets done. Which is the main reason why he doesn't deserve reelection.

"excited" about what? The weakest recovery since the great depression? If that excites you guys ( which all polling shows otherwise) then you guys would be celebrating mediocrity. They won't be more excited

I thought his speech was effective, just that it could of been even more effective if he tightened it up and made it a bit shorter.

"really not sure why you are on this board if that's how you feel" Translation: I don't like what you said, you should leave, waaaaaa

No, you're sensitive, or else you wouldn't of made the school girl comment of "I didn't like your answer, so you should leave"

No need to be so sensitive Sally . Edit: make that four

I've already heard two commentators from two different networks that used adjectives such as "long" and "rambling" Pretty much what I thought. Would of been more effective if he shortened it to half hour Edit: make that three

Or even better yet, have everyone believe that his same policies and style of governing are similar to that of obamas.

It's going on 50 minutes

You mean the talking point defense? It's no different than what many other effective speakers do, except his speech is now running on almost 45 minutes which is waaaaay too long.