Today, President Obama, in speaking of the deal he struck with Republicans on the tax cuts and extended benefits, etal...he referred to the Republican Party as "hostage takers"....he said

""It's tempting not to negoitate with hostage takers unless the hostage gets harmed," President Obama said at his Tuesday press conference.

"In this case, the hostage was the American people," Obama said."


I think that is lousy way to speak of a deal he struck and is patently unfair.

Does anyone else see the choice of words as POOR ! Wonder what would be the definition of the Democratic congress actions...hmmmmm

Last night when he talked about the "deal" he was very snarky. He kept saying, over and over again, about the tax cuts for the rich. If I had something handy I would have thrown it through the TV.

Virtually all the pathetic talking heads in the liberal media referred to the retention of the tax rates Americans have paid for the last 10 years as "tax cuts".

Class warfare has ever been the agenda of progressive Democrats and has been a useful weapon for a long time. The last election cycle shows that more and more people have, and are, waking up from their political stupor and starting to pay attention to what is happening. This is a good thing, and the beginning of "hope and change" I can get behind.

President Obama had the opportunity to extol a bipartisan deal. He could have made the speech in the company of Democratic and Republican leaders and thanked them publicly for coming to a compromise. He could have noted that neither party got all they wanted, but in the end compromised for the good of the American people. It would have set a great tone for working together in the years ahead.

Unfortunately, he did not do this. Instead he complained about and attacked the Republicans for not fully agreeing with him. There are and will continue to be disagreements about how this country should go forward. Compromise can be found, but only if both sides are willing to work together. President Obama instead of trying to build such a situation, threw a hissy fit on national television.There was no graciousness in his words, only pettiness. We need better.

"Hostage takers" is the language he should have used BEFORE the deal. (From the point of view of many Democrats)

AFTER the deal, you graciously accept the points you won and lost. If necessary, you point out why you had to compromise and make the best of it.

Bill Maher has been constantly ridiculing the Democrats as the equivalent of spineless jellyfish - and then taking that back because even jellyfish have stingers.

Originally Posted by djplong

"Hostage takers" is the language he should have used BEFORE the deal. (From the point of view of many Democrats)

AFTER the deal, you graciously accept the points you won and lost. If necessary, you point out why you had to compromise and make the best of it.

Bill Maher has been constantly ridiculing the Democrats as the equivalent of spineless jellyfish - and then taking that back because even jellyfish have stingers.

Bill Maher is a comedian who thinks he is smart and not someone who I would ever take political advice from.

How President Obama can call anyone "hostage takers" after the Health bill "debate" is simply amazing !

founded on compromise..."

to be offensive to those who gave their lives to make this country what it is.

Obama sets the tone and the pace for his lemmings that if you disagree with him or the party there is something wrong with you or your position.

He exudes brain washing....telling a lie often enough and long enough it soon is accepted as truth.

He is a wind up performer with pre-canned material and position. Very robotic.

He is doing nothing more in the presentation than hoping to elevate his own position of see what I/me/Obama have done for you.

And I totally agree he completely missed a golden opportunity to present a united bi-party resolution. Which only confirms once again his priority is Obama, Obama's election/re-election/then the party.

Everytime time he states he is in it or did it or does it for we the people I have to fight a gag reflex (.....sorry I could not resist.....again!).

btk

I read an column that analyzed the Presidents speech after signing on to the extension of the current tax rates as saying that the evil Republicans forced him do it, and Democrats are stupid for not understanding why he did it.

In other words, he's moral and wise, and you're not.

He's an idiot. His only claim to fame is that he makes Jimmy Carter look like the second worst president in history!!

Strictly speaking, the country WAS founded on compromise. Remember - if the slavery issue hadn't been negotiated, we never would have unanimously seceeded from Great Britain.

Also remember that it was Great Britain's refusal to negotiate that forced the colonies hand in declaring independence.

Did compromise play a role in the founding of our nation? Most likely. To say that our country was founded on compromise is a statement heretofore not heard heard by me in all my years. That alone is not the qualifier. The founding of our nation was not relegated to a single event as you portray the slavery issue.

I venture to say you could ask 100 people what they think this country was founded on and I would bet not one would say "compromise".

My commentary was focused on Obama's flip use of terms to accentuate his issue....which he does quite regularly. And it seems when some of us choose to criticize or not side with what Obama says we always are treated to a dialogue defending what he said or did.

As one poster asked previously....is there no wrong Obama can do? (rhetorical reference not requiring an answer).

btk

Originally Posted by djplong

Strictly speaking, the country WAS founded on compromise. Remember - if the slavery issue hadn't been negotiated, we never would have unanimously seceeded from Great Britain.

Also remember that it was Great Britain's refusal to negotiate that forced the colonies hand in declaring independence.

Dp, I have the greatest of respect for you consistently using facts, rather than opinions in your posting. In this case I believe you to be wrong. Slavery was not an issue at the time of the Declaration of Independence nor was it an issue when The Articles of Confederacy were adopted in 1777. The issue of slavery first came up in The Constitutional Convention in 1787. It was at this meeting when the famous/infamous 3/5ths idea was adopted, meaning that slaves were counted as 3/5ths of a person.

This was done to preserve the voting power of the northern state in relation to the voting power of the southern states was adopted. It is important to realize that slavery was at that time, not repugnant to the northern states. It was General Robert E. Lee who had freed his slaves prior to the war and General Grant that maintained his ownership. We have become far too much accepting the politically correct view of slavery rather than the historical accuracy.

Obama was right. The Repubs did hold the middle class hostage for their position, and so did the Democrats for theirs. In fact, the Dems would not even allow a vote on the Repub position.
That said I am very very angry at the Repubs. They said no more new deficit spending, and all new spending had to be paid for. Now they buy the signature of the President and the votes of Democtrats by loading up a tax bill with PORK. How dare they. I will never vote for the lying Repubs again.
Time for Rick Santelli to run on the REAL Tea Party ballot. Kick em all out including the Repubs.
JJ

BBQ: Ok, just to let you know, what I was referencing was the debate concerning the Declaration of Independence. Jefferson was forced to remove the passage concerning slavery in order to get the south to vote. I am less sure of whatever debates happened on that issue surrounding the Constitution.

The Democratic party now threatens to hold back the bill on the tax cuts AND THE EXTENSION OF UE BENEFITS.

Are they now the party that would be considered "hostage takers" ?