Skip to main content

View Diary: Obama to Congress in weekly address: End the sequester already (119 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  If you mean that, Mr. President, (29+ / 0-)

    veto the FAA exception bill and force Congress to override.

    The thing about quotes on the internet is you cannot confirm their validity. ~Abraham Lincoln

    by raboof on Sat Apr 27, 2013 at 07:08:26 AM PDT

    •  won't happen. he is beholded to the GOP (7+ / 0-)

      and will piss on the Democrats.

      Again.

      What we call god is merely a living creature with superior technology & understanding. If their fragile egos demand prayer, they lose that superiority.

      by agnostic on Sat Apr 27, 2013 at 07:54:32 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I thought it was Democrats voted for the FAA bill? (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        NedSparks

        So, by the True ProgressiveTM Logic, Obama is beholden to the GOP if he signs the FAA bill passed by Democrats in both houses (by unanimous consent, mind you), but he shits on Democrats if he vetoes their bill?

        I never thought I'd say this, but man, Rahm Emanuel was right.

        I repeatedly claimed that Obama would never propose cuts to social security. I was wrong. Then again, I also claimed, repeatedly, that Rick Perry would win the 2012 Election, and that The Supreme Court would overturn Health Care Reform.

        by NoFortunateSon on Sat Apr 27, 2013 at 08:03:20 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  no. (12+ / 0-)

          He pisses on democrats and progressive ideas. Repeatedly. He makes promises, then breaks them without breaking a sweat.
          he continues to reach out to the GOP, and promised to keep doing so, even if it hurts the rest of the country.

          I have no respect for what congress, both parties, both houses, did yesterday. But I have even less for this president.

          What we call god is merely a living creature with superior technology & understanding. If their fragile egos demand prayer, they lose that superiority.

          by agnostic on Sat Apr 27, 2013 at 08:06:29 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  The cognitive dissonance. It hurts. (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            TexasTom

            I'm talking about the weekly radio address, and how you've twisted yourself into a logical pretzel, arguing that the President "pisses" on Democrats by not vetoing this. Democratic bill.

            By all means, please explain how vetoing this bill, passed not only by Democrats, but a large portion of the progressive caucus, is prissiness on Democrats and Progressives.

            I understand you're angry. I'm skewering you for misplacing that anger here.

            I repeatedly claimed that Obama would never propose cuts to social security. I was wrong. Then again, I also claimed, repeatedly, that Rick Perry would win the 2012 Election, and that The Supreme Court would overturn Health Care Reform.

            by NoFortunateSon on Sat Apr 27, 2013 at 08:11:21 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  what hurts is your internal editing and adding (7+ / 1-)

              things I did not say. Amazing talent, that.

              There is no logical pretzel, except in your own bizarre little world. Go skewer yourself.

              What we call god is merely a living creature with superior technology & understanding. If their fragile egos demand prayer, they lose that superiority.

              by agnostic on Sat Apr 27, 2013 at 08:17:41 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Why can't you answer the question? (0+ / 0-)

                You said that Obama pisses on Democrats and is beholden to the GOP.

                But in the case of the FAA, Obama gave Democrats and progressives what they wanted.

                So how can what you originally said be true?

                I repeatedly claimed that Obama would never propose cuts to social security. I was wrong. Then again, I also claimed, repeatedly, that Rick Perry would win the 2012 Election, and that The Supreme Court would overturn Health Care Reform.

                by NoFortunateSon on Sat Apr 27, 2013 at 08:21:49 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Because you are asking if (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Klusterpuck

                  I still beat my wife. There is no fair way to answer your twisted question, not with the additional crap you added to the topic I raised. But, if you like to cheat and set people up, by all means do your thing.

                  A HR? I am proud.

                  What we call god is merely a living creature with superior technology & understanding. If their fragile egos demand prayer, they lose that superiority.

                  by agnostic on Sat Apr 27, 2013 at 11:07:43 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  The point is (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Klusterpuck

                    if obama stood up and vetoed the bill , EVERYONE !!!! WOULD TAKE NOTICE , and all dems would be on notice , and they would not have had time to fix it before the all went on their 4th vacation of the year

                    You obama defenders are becoming nauseating , defending his weak take on being president while he sinks 3 steps below even showing up for his job at all ( DOMESTICALLY )

                    Another fucking speech with out a veto helps about as much as another lame excuse

                    I like obama , and he stands up for the things I beleve in , but defending him and the dems when they cave is a joke

                    •  See my diarhee of today. (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      Klusterpuck

                      I think we  are in agreement.

                      What we call god is merely a living creature with superior technology & understanding. If their fragile egos demand prayer, they lose that superiority.

                      by agnostic on Sat Apr 27, 2013 at 11:59:51 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                    •  I love the strategery here (0+ / 0-)

                      Obama vetoes a bill passed by democrats and progressives in numbers to override his veto, at which point, they override his veto and blame him for the sequester. Smart.

                      I repeatedly claimed that Obama would never propose cuts to social security. I was wrong. Then again, I also claimed, repeatedly, that Rick Perry would win the 2012 Election, and that The Supreme Court would overturn Health Care Reform.

                      by NoFortunateSon on Sat Apr 27, 2013 at 03:58:02 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                •  It's easy (0+ / 0-)

                  The Democrats he's pissing off are not the Democrats in Congress who for whatever reason wanted to cave here.  It's the Democratic voters who thought they elected one of their own President but instead find a guy who won't seriously get into the pits and fight the GOP's ideas.  We don't need austerity.  Paul Krugman says so twice a week but you'll never hear Obama say that and it needs to be said.  We should be gearing up for an epic battle in 2014.  Instead we keep giving away reasons to vote Democratic and we'll wind up with 2010 again.

                  sTiVo's rule: Just because YOU "wouldn't put it past 'em" doesn't prove that THEY did it.

                  by stivo on Sat Apr 27, 2013 at 11:06:00 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

            •  Where do you want the anger? (6+ / 0-)

              I think most of us are disgusted with the White House and both House of Congress and both parties.  At long last the left is in accord with middle America.

              •  The progressive caucus voted for this. (0+ / 0-)

                I repeatedly claimed that Obama would never propose cuts to social security. I was wrong. Then again, I also claimed, repeatedly, that Rick Perry would win the 2012 Election, and that The Supreme Court would overturn Health Care Reform.

                by NoFortunateSon on Sat Apr 27, 2013 at 08:22:45 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Did I say I believe the Progressive Caucus (3+ / 0-)

                  is progressive?  And it sure isn't left, liberal, or even old school New Deal.  

                  •  Exactly. (5+ / 0-)

                    Outside of GLBT rights, our progressive representation is limited to 3-5 representatives.

                    And that does not make the President's staunchly counter-productive neoliberalism acceptable.

                    Ditto for that of his supporters.

                    He will NEVER be an effective leader for the goals he claims to have in this speech until he effectively confronts and denounces those aspects of modern neoliberalism that enhance the lawless, corrupt concentration of income and wealth. And he shows no credibly genuine interest in doing so.

                    Frankly, I'd rather take down Exxon or Goldman Sachs, the way we're taking down RushBeckistan, than elect another "better" Democrat who's going to wind up singing for the bankster choir.

                    by Words In Action on Sat Apr 27, 2013 at 08:37:58 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Only 3 to 5? (0+ / 0-)

                      Sounds like there aren't enough progressives to vote for them. And which 3 to 5 would that be? Bernie Sanders voted for this too, you know?

                      I repeatedly claimed that Obama would never propose cuts to social security. I was wrong. Then again, I also claimed, repeatedly, that Rick Perry would win the 2012 Election, and that The Supreme Court would overturn Health Care Reform.

                      by NoFortunateSon on Sat Apr 27, 2013 at 03:59:28 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                •  Yes. The entire Democratic Party, with perhaps (5+ / 0-)

                  3-5 exceptions, is broken. We agree. But you say this as if that excuses the President from representing the 98% in action as well as words (and in the case of the latter, he is not consistent, except that he consistently gives credence to the corrupt form of neoliberalism knowable as supply-side economics, which directly undermines the words--such as the ones he spoke this morning--that intimate he would like to do something for the 98%.

                  The widespread corruption and deliberate ineffectiveness of the Democratic Party does not absolve the President from also being almost completely counter-productive to pursuing the Democratic Party platform.

                  See my comment here.

                  Frankly, I'd rather take down Exxon or Goldman Sachs, the way we're taking down RushBeckistan, than elect another "better" Democrat who's going to wind up singing for the bankster choir.

                  by Words In Action on Sat Apr 27, 2013 at 08:32:28 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                •  It is obvious that the progressive caucus has no (4+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  maryabein, Words In Action, Patango, GwenM

                  sense of strategy at all.  This piecemeal move is only going to encourage sequester cherry picking and we all know who will win that game.
                  The progressive caucus should let the people that have the money to fly around spewing jet fuel suffer from lack of regulation of the air space.
                  Gawd, what a bullshit issue to choose as the poster child for the suffering inflected by sequestration.
                  Fuck those planes, let them crash.  Regulation is bad because "freedom".

                •  The progressive caucus (4+ / 0-)

                  repeatedly falls in line with the Third Way party machine in power and folds like a tent when push comes to shove. They are not willing to go up against a so called Democratic administration. Talk about pretzel logic. Your really twisting what is clear as a bell as far as the choices we face into a blaming game. Seems those of us who reject the whole DC political non-partisan bamboozle are to blame. Calling this a Democratic bill is exactly what's wrong with this administration. Whose freaking budget is this anyway hummmm? So if we don't buy this whole cooked up anti-democratic austerity grand betrayal were F'ing Re****s?          

                  •  It's all an OFA conspiracy (0+ / 0-)

                    Does Obama have some secret info on them? I can't think of a good reason why they won't stand up to him, other than that they agree with him. They have nothing to lose.

                    I repeatedly claimed that Obama would never propose cuts to social security. I was wrong. Then again, I also claimed, repeatedly, that Rick Perry would win the 2012 Election, and that The Supreme Court would overturn Health Care Reform.

                    by NoFortunateSon on Sat Apr 27, 2013 at 04:01:36 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  lame deflection (0+ / 0-)

                      and blame. The progressive caucus proposed a great budget did they purpose any of this austerity deficit debit farce? No. They may not have any power but they certainly are not the villains in this piece. Who knows why, does Bernie fold? They excuse they often give is that the alternative is usually worse so they get what they can. They are Democrat's and this administration is Democratic, I guess many do not want to turn against their own party leader. Then again maybe they don't want to wake up with a horses head in their bed. Sorry but your deflection and blaming of the progressive caucus from the presidents double speak does not let Obama off the hook this is his set up and his grand Betrayal.        

            •  I think I understand what you are writing ... (3+ / 0-)

              ... and yes I am angry with Democrats and  the GOP. I understand the value of the air traffic controllers in this country and I do not, for one minute, begrudge them relief from furloughs. I am not even angry with the travelling public.
              I am cynical about a Congress putting a Band_Aid on a gaping wound that at this moment in time, affects them and putting that Band_Aid on with all due haste. It is unlikely to me, any member of Congress is faced with the dilemma of trying to find chemo for cancer, relying on a Meals on Wheels for their daily meal or even wondering how to get their pre-schooler in Head Start.
              The "cognitive dissonance" is a Congress listening to the public only on election day. And perhaps President Obama is following the same course. I dunno but I am getting cynical.

              “I'd rather have a bottle in front of me than a frontal lobotomy.” ― Dorothy Parker

              by Bozmo2 on Sat Apr 27, 2013 at 09:06:42 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

      •  The president is not beholden to the Republicans. (8+ / 0-)

        He is beholden to the 1%.

    •  Again, the difference between what (11+ / 0-)

      he says and what he does. As with Reid.

      It's a huge gap. And it makes all the difference in the world.

      Frankly, I'd rather take down Exxon or Goldman Sachs, the way we're taking down RushBeckistan, than elect another "better" Democrat who's going to wind up singing for the bankster choir.

      by Words In Action on Sat Apr 27, 2013 at 07:57:21 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Stupid strategy move (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Involuntary Exile, Klusterpuck

      Sorry, but vetoing that FAA exception bill would be a dumb and pointless move.  It passed so overwhelmingly that it any veto will get overriden, and doesn't really make for a good place to draw a line in the sand.

      He may as well just let it become law without his signature -- or sign it and issue a signing statement regarding his objections to the piecemeal approach to eliminating the sequester.

      Political Compass: -6.75, -3.08

      by TexasTom on Sat Apr 27, 2013 at 09:17:05 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site