Obama addresses the GOP; Fox News cuts off broadcast 20 min. early

[Material Girl]

I really want to watch this... is there a link on YouTube?

[Xog]

I was entertained watching it. Not informed.

[gran guerrero]

down with gubment!

[404 Not Found]

Term limits may not be so bad when one considers that there are politicians sitting in both parties that have never held a job outside of D.C. in over 20+ years.

How "in touch" can these crooks be, when they never have experienced anything other than being a politician. How does such a person relate to the masses of unemployed or those that run manufacturing/industrial business's? These elected idiots have no clue as to how to run a business in most cases and will parade around their constituents come election years promising them the world and how they can share sympathy for those w/o insurance, a job, home....

There is nothing wrong with a term limit that would allow for a senator to have only 2 terms. Same for a Congressman.

On a local level, I always vote out the incumbent, as they are usually so corrupt and or did nothing, that why would I want them to be a part of my local government.

On a national level, people like Senator Byrd from WV should be forced to resign already and the same for that asswipe Murtha for being caught red handed taking lobbyists monies, but nothing happens to him. They all are corrupt. Byrd needs a full time nurse just to help him hold a pencil and turn a page in a book. Figures he is from WV and also a one time head of the KKK.

Let them pay there own health benefits! Why do the taxpayers pay for an elected millionaire and billionaires health coverage when most can barely afford it for their own families? I also like how they all collect a pension as well.

They all suck....Dem or Rep.

[Zerzera]

"yo, is that your crew?"

[Crescent Seal]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/0..._n_442331.html

President Obama traveled to a House Republican retreat in Baltimore on Friday and delivered a performance that was at once defiant, substantive and engaging. For roughly an hour and a half, Obama lectured GOP leaders and, in a protracted, nationally-televised question-and-answer session, deflected their policy critiques, corrected their misstatements and scolded them for playing petty politics. (Full video and transcript available HERE.)

White House officials told the Huffington Post they were absolutely ecstatic. MSNBC's Luke Russert, who was on the scene in Baltimore, relayed that a Republican official and other GOP aides had confided to him that allowing the "cameras to roll like that" was a "mistake."

So effective was the president that Fox News cut away from the broadcast 20 minutes before it ended.

Anybody with any interest in politics who hasn't seen this yet needs to see it. Hell, everyone should just watch it, period. Regardless of what side you fall on, it's a defining moment.

y obama on fire?

[Ephemeral]

... Your idea would lead to the most inept, ineffective, sitting-on-hands type of government anyone has ever seen (not to mention the quality of candidates would probably bottom out since politics would no longer be a career but instead a quick little hobby for people who have the time for that kind of thing, i.e. rich people like Mark fucking Cuban).

As opposed to?

It was meant to be a tongue-in-cheek suggestion that epitomized exactly what you said above.

[genocidal]

Your point about terms limits got me thinking. To be honest, it seems to me that even a new third party would eventually evolve into the same thing as the two current ones. I think what we all need to do is simply ALWAYS vote for anyone but the incumbents in every election. Throw all these people out every election and start over. Let none of them become 'Beltway Boys'.

There is no 3rd party because of the way the US government is set up. Structurally, it is not feasible for 3 parties to field competitive candidates for the Presidency; when a third party candidate is relatively competitive (by our lowly standards as in the case of Ross Perot in 1992) it simply hurts the closest ideological candidate. Thus, the incentive is always to be an inclusive party by building coalitions. Since money flows to the top the most any third party could hope for is a few Senate seats and perhaps a governorship or two in smaller states. Instead of parties based upon a single issue or two and coalitions built during the law-making process (as in the Parliamentary system), coalitions are forged before the process begins, which leads to more expediency and efficiency but less representation.

Having a 100% turnover in the House of Representatives and a 1/3 turnover in the Senate every 2 years would be disastrous for effective governing. I realize that people are frustrated with the stalemate at the moment but it's hardly unprecedented. Contrary to what some may think, governing is a learned skill. It's not just about getting your dick sucked by interns and sucking the dicks of rich people and corporations to gain reelection - there is a lot of protocol to negotiate, people to win over, deals to be made, reports to be digested and discerned (oftentimes 5 or more reports will be presented with completely different conclusions with regards to one bill), and relationships to be built. Nobody trusts people they don't know, and deal-brokering and coalitions are built on trust. Your idea would lead to the most inept, ineffective, sitting-on-hands type of government anyone has ever seen (not to mention the quality of candidates would probably bottom out since politics would no longer be a career but instead a quick little hobby for people who have the time for that kind of thing, i.e. rich people like Mark fucking Cuban).

[Ephemeral]

Well said. Not really all that much difference between an elected official in the Govt. and a criminal other than the politician is elected to the criminal position and usually holds a college degree.

Term limits for all elected government positions and let the elected criminal pay for their own health insurance...why should a tax payer pay for some billionaires medical coverage? Take away their pensions as well.

Your point about terms limits got me thinking. To be honest, it seems to me that even a new third party would eventually evolve into the same thing as the two current ones. I think what we all need to do is simply ALWAYS vote for anyone but the incumbents in every election. Throw all these people out every election and start over. Let none of them become 'Beltway Boys'.

[404 Not Found]

First Year of Obama Administration
Democrats – We have majority, we don’t care about bi-partisanship, we can pass whatever we want without the Republicans. We won’t even invite their input.
Republicans – Oh yeah, someday you will need us, in the meantime we are going to fight every single thing that comes our way. Plus, this works in our favor since we can blame everything on Democrats.

Second Year of Obama Administration
Democrats – We don’t have the majority, but we really have always cared about bi-partisanship, Republicans need to start caring too. If they don’t, we will say everything is the Republicans fault.
Republicans – You will need us and we still are going to fight you on every single thing that comes our way. Plus, that continues to make everything the Democrats fault.

Democrats are no different than Republicans. Obama is no different than Bush. They are all fat-cat ex-lawyers who put themselves and their careers ahead of the people whom they are supposed to represent.

Well said. Not really all that much difference between an elected official in the Govt. and a criminal other than the politician is elected to the criminal position and usually holds a college degree.

Term limits for all elected government positions and let the elected criminal pay for their own health insurance...why should a tax payer pay for some billionaires medical coverage? Take away their pensions as well.

[phata$$]

the british parlimentary debate style is one of the best i've seen. Gordon Brown could assume Gibbs' job the way he handles tough questions.

Yeah, I haven't really seen that type of debate before. Mind you, I haven't seen that many debates in my lifetime but that was really exciting. Did Bush do any debates similar to this? I'm in the mood of watching something funny right now.

[Ephemeral]

First Year of Obama Administration
Democrats – We have majority, we don’t care about bi-partisanship, we can pass whatever we want without the Republicans. We won’t even invite their input.
Republicans – Oh yeah, someday you will need us, in the meantime we are going to fight every single thing that comes our way. Plus, this works in our favor since we can blame everything on Democrats.

Second Year of Obama Administration
Democrats – We don’t have the majority, but we really have always cared about bi-partisanship, Republicans need to start caring too. If they don’t, we will say everything is the Republicans fault.
Republicans – You will need us and we still are going to fight you on every single thing that comes our way. Plus, that continues to make everything the Democrats fault.

Democrats are no different than Republicans. Obama is no different than Bush. They are all fat-cat ex-lawyers who put themselves and their careers ahead of the people whom they are supposed to represent.

[the_paul]

obama is a bad president

Fixed.

[Jedi DC]

obama is a badass president

[saetep]

I didn't watch it. What did he do? Come out and say "yo republicans, I kinda need you guys now so lets be bipartisan"