It's funny to read the complaints of those who say that no matter what the president does Congress goes against it. Were they making the same complaints when the Democrat-run House of Representatives under Nancy Pelosi refused to go along with anything former President Bush said or did? Where were they then?

And by the way, maybe the House Republicans are against President Obama's policies because they disagree with his left-wing agenda of European-style socialism, punishing fines for those who don't want to purchase health insurance, businesses cutting hours for employees to 29 1/2 hours from 40 because of his Affordable Care Act, abortion extremism, and a foolish foreign policy that appeases Islamism.

For the record, that wasn't a complaint. For once this do nothing congress has done what it's doing best: Doing nothing.

The fact is, congress has never been this useless, and if republicans are really the party of small government and individual responsibility, they shouldn't have restricted abortion like never before or have gone against Affordable Care Act, which holds individuals responsible for their own healthcare. They are full of themselves to call themselves republicans, it's obvious what they are.

Well they were right to be concerned about the ACA, it's a very flawed piece of legislation that should not have been passed without some major loopholes being addressed first.

Oh, yeah, they were right to try to repeal ACA 40 times or so already. Nice use of time and money. At this point, this is not concern. It's childish tantrum.

For the record, that wasn't a complaint. For once this do nothing congress has done what it's doing best: Doing nothing.

The fact is, congress has never been this useless, and if republicans are really the party of small government and individual responsibility, they shouldn't have restricted abortion like never before or have gone against Affordable Care Act, which holds individuals responsible for their own healthcare. They are full of themselves to call themselves republicans, it's obvious what they are.

Not saying it was right, but what I am saying is that they're right in thinking that the bill itself would cause problems if not properly fixed which it wasn't. Now it's law and what we will see in the coming years does not bode well. I'm not completely anti-ACA it was a good concept. It needed and still needs to be fine tuned. I hate to break everyone's bubble but it won't be the end all solution to the health care problems in the U.S.

Obama didn't exactly achieve much during his first 2 years either when he controlled both the House and the Senate. The fact is he can blame the repubs in Congress, but at the end of the day getting Republicans to work with him is part of his job, Clinton did it well. I just think Obama was to inexperienced for this job to begin with. Even though Clinton was about the same age he had ran a state for a decade or so while Obama had been a Senator for a very short period.

Blame the GOP all you want but democrats and the president are just as stubborn and just as unwilling to meet halfway. Both sides are to blame

Not when the senate minority leader says it is their "job" not to let this president get anything done. Notice that he doesn't think his job is to pass laws that are good for people. Clinton was a white Southerner who knew the language to GOP base and signed DOMA for pete's sake. Obama made Hillary who dragged him through the mud his SoS. That's how much he is willing to work with others. If republicans were remotely up for it, he would've worked with them. They shot down their own bills when he went for those bills. Case in point: Simpson-Bowles. Look it up. And then NSA, and now Syria. They couldn't be more obvious as to why they hate this president so much.

also it's mainly Obamas fault the Simpson-Bowles plan didn't go through. It was a brilliant solution, but in the end he didn't endorse the damn thing that he commissioned!

First that was said once the Republicans got the majority in the house, Obama had already had 2 full years with full Democrat control of the Congress. Secondly i don't think it's fair to pull a random line out of a full interview.

NJ: You’ve been studying the history of presidents who lost part or all of Congress in their first term. Why?
McConnell: In the last 100 years, three presidents suffered big defeats in Congress in their first term and then won reelection: Harry Truman, Dwight Eisenhower, and the most recent example, Bill Clinton. I read a lot of history anyway, but I am trying to apply those lessons to current situations in hopes of not making the same mistakes.
NJ: What have you learned?
McConnell: After 1994, the public had the impression we Republicans overpromised and underdelivered. We suffered from some degree of hubris and acted as if the president was irrelevant and we would roll over him. By the summer of 1995, he was already on the way to being reelected, and we were hanging on for our lives.
NJ: What does this mean now?
McConnell: We need to be honest with the public. This election is about them, not us. And we need to treat this election as the first step in retaking the government. We need to say to everyone on Election Day, “Those of you who helped make this a good day, you need to go out and help us finish the job.”
NJ: What’s the job?
McConnell: The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president.
NJ: Does that mean endless, or at least frequent, confrontation with the president?
McConnell: If President Obama does a Clintonian backflip, if he’s willing to meet us halfway on some of the biggest issues, it’s not inappropriate for us to do business with him.
NJ: What are the big issues?
McConnell: It is possible the president’s advisers will tell him he has to do something to get right with the public on his levels of spending and [on] lowering the national debt. If he were to heed that advice, he would, I imagine, find more support among our conference than he would among some in the Senate in his own party. I don’t want the president to fail; I want him to change. So, we’ll see. The next move is going to be up to him.
NJ: What will you seek from the president on the tax issue?
McConnell: At the very least, I believe we should extend all of the Bush tax cuts. And I prefer to describe this as keeping current tax policy. It’s been on the books for 10 years. Now, how long that [extension] is, is something we can discuss. It was clear his position was not [favored] among all Senate Democrats. They had their own divisions. I don’t think those divisions are going to be any less in November and December.

Here’s how McConnell explained his remarks in a speech after the election, when Republicans had taken over the House of Representatives and made huge gains in the Senate:
“Let’s start with the big picture. Over the past week, some have said it was indelicate of me to suggest that our top political priority over the next two years should be to deny President Obama a second term in office. But the fact is, if our primary legislative goals are to repeal and replace the health spending bill; to end the bailouts; cut spending; and shrink the size and scope of government, the only way to do all these things it is to put someone in the White House who won’t veto any of these things. We can hope the President will start listening to the electorate after Tuesday’s election. But we can’t plan on it. And it would be foolish to expect that Republicans will be able to completely reverse the damage Democrats have done as long as a Democrat holds the veto pen.”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact...a83bf_blog.html

So when it's seen in full context, he's talking about Obama cooperating with the Republicans just as Clinton did. Everything else you said is correct, but it's ridiculous when Obama supporters blame it 100% on the Republicans, as has already been said in this thread both sides are to blame.

90% of republicans that hate Obama hated him before he opened his fucking mouth

that's a fact

Would you explain your point instead of just saying it was his fault? How possibly could that be his fault that once he is for something GOPers proposed, then suddenly they are against it? You could deny it all you want, but Obama's fault with GOP is being black and his middle name and heritage of his father pretty much. Damn shame, he is a great man.

Jesus Christ is that how it is with every liberal on here?? That the GOP and every person against Obama doesn't like him because they think he's a Muslim and he's black??

Let me clue you in. It's policy. Not race or religion. Policy, the GOP think many things, but they aren't dumb enough to question his citizenship, loyalty and skin color. He is the President, an ineffective one, but the President. They must show respect.

Republicans do not like Obama due to policy. The same reason Democrats don't like them: policy. Their stupid, maddening idealistic views (both sides) are what is bringing this country to ruin rather than finding common ground. And for the last time, IT'S BOTH SIDES. Not just the Republicans.

Obama commissioned Alan Simpson and Erskin Bowles, two very different people on the political spectrum to come up with a solution to our budget problems. What they came up with was absolutely what we needed to do. But what does Obama do when it comes to the floor? Nothing. Ultimately it's up to him to come up with bipartisan support for a bill of that magnitude and he doesn't even endorse it! He needed to be compromising but firm, he needed to talk to Republicans and Democrats about this. But he sat back and did nothing. And now a perfectly good plan is down the shitter.

And lastly, do not call Barack Obama a "great man". That title is reserved is for people who DO things of a great magnitude and significance to this nation. Like Washington or Lincoln or Roosevelt or Truman closely followed by Eisenhower, Kennedy, and Teddy. But do us the favor of sparing us the Obama Kool-Aid and do not refer to President Obama as great. He has done absolutely nothing to earn that title.

For the record, that wasn't a complaint. For once this do nothing congress has done what it's doing best: Doing nothing.

The fact is, congress has never been this useless, and if republicans are really the party of small government and individual responsibility, they shouldn't have restricted abortion like never before or have gone against Affordable Care Act, which holds individuals responsible for their own healthcare. They are full of themselves to call themselves republicans, it's obvious what they are.

You could disagree with him, but when he says okay you are right, let's go with your plan and then you say, "Oh, no, that's an awful policy, such a debacle, why are you all over the place," then you are racist.

Too bad the Democratic Congress from 2006 to 2010 didn't do nothing. Instead it did a lot of damage.

Your assertions about abortion and Obamacare are pretty laughable. First, legislating against abortion isn't legislating against personal responsibility. If there was personal responsibility involved it would have happened before the child was conceived. The legislation is about protecting a defenseless human being. By your logic if a mother kills her 7-year-old that shouldn't be a crime either. She took the personal responsibility of terminating a life that she could not care for.

UnAffordable Healthcare Act making people responsible for their own healthcare? R u serious? It makes people purchase healthcare at ever-increasing costs under the threat of massive fines and prison. It takes away free market competition and adds new taxes on medical devices while increasing overall costs. Many insurers are now leaving states where there are exchanges because they can't survive without making any profit. Doctors are quitting in numbers higher than ever before. Worst of all, employers are taking full-time employees and making them part-timers at 29 1/2 hours a week, making Americans poorer. For those who are still full-time the employee contribution is increasing.

Obamacare isn't responsibility, it's European-style socialism, and bad one at that. It increases waiting times before appointments and turns the IRS into the enforcing agency. You really want the IRS knowing all your healthcare information and making life and death decisions? I don't.

Maybe you're a racist for calling people who disagree with you racists.

BTW, when did Obama ever say, "okay you are right, let's go with your plan"?

And for the record, Republicans disagreed with Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter too. I guess that means they are anti-White racists.

I don't remember that congress ever shutting down Bush administration. If they did any damage, it was by standing aside and let the Bush administration start two wars without paying for them.

Now as for abortion, a 7 year old can live on his own. His or her needs can be met by anyone. You cannot be saddled with a 7 year old against your will. Otherwise, that would pretty much be slavery.

As for ACA, and how affordable it is, the price of buying healthcare in California is dropping, since the companies have to compete now to lower their prices. It doesn't take away free market at all, on the contrary. I suppose it depends if governors want to implement it as they should or not. And it's your personal responsibility not to be a burden when you get sick.

Then read some history on the Reid-Pelosi Congress during the last two years of the Bush presidency. They undermined and fought with everything he did, including trying to rein in the housing crisis in 2006 and 2007. As for those wars, it was ONE war, the war on terror, and almost all the Democrats voted for it, included Clinton and Kerry. It must be convenient to forget recent history when it doesn't support our arguments.

So living on their own is your criteria? Then I guess everyone in hospitals and nursing homes should be killed since they need help and can't live on their own. For that matter, babies and young children can't live on their own either, so I guess it's okay to kill them too. It's funny how Democrats use the same or similar arguments for abortion that were used to support slavery almost 200 years ago. Some things never change.

Where do you get your facts on the ACA? I work in health care in California and your claims have no connection to reality. Costs are going up, choice is going down, waiting times are increasing as is unemployment and underemployment. You got to turn off MSNBC once in a while and read the papers. Even the Los Angeles Times has covered these stories.

You could disagree with him, but when he says okay you are right, let's go with your plan and then you say, "Oh, no, that's an awful policy, such a debacle, why are you all over the place," then you are racist.

War on terror? Are you kidding me? And when was Iraq part of terror?

I said a 7 year old's need can be met by anyone. No one is forced to take care of him/her. Just as those working in nursing homes. They choose to do that job. They get paid. They can change their job any time they want. They are not forced to take care of anyone. And so a woman cannot be forced to do anything she doesn't want to, cause after all, she isn't a slave.

I searched LA times, I didn't find anything close to dramatic picture you are drawing. Would you mind giving me a couple of links?

Not necessarily. Even if that was the case, it just means they're backstabbers not racism. Don't be so simple on this subject. Democrats are not the good and pure statesman you think they are.

And your opinion is unfounded. What in the hell has Obama done to earn the title of "great?" How has he bettered this country, which still struggles even to this day. It's ridiculous, you're drunk off the Kool-Aid. And because I'm not in full swing with his policies I'm a racist? How many times are people going to get the same crap just because they disagree with Obama?

That's what it was called, the War on Terror. I know facts are funny, but not as funny as people making up history cuz they feel like it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_on_Terror

Your pro-abortion argument jumped the shark because it makes no sense and has no relationship to what I wrote. Anyone can get a job to take care of someone else. Uh, so? What does that have to do with abortion? Taking care of one's own children is slavery? Really? As a father I take care of my children out of love, same with my wife. Calling that slavery is an insult to all mothers and slaves.

Here's some links I plucked off Google. It took me a whole second to find them. They are different sources and one used the Times as a source:

http://www.californiahealthline.org/arti...er-of-providers

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-09-16/obamacare-doctor-rationing-begins-in-california.html

http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecar...iums-by-64-146/

Backstabbers? I call them pure evil. I mean, I'm willing to give up my label of racism only for that.

As for you, I never called you racist. I said all these GOPers who flip just when Obama changes his position are racists. Are you finally confessing you are a republican? And did you change your position on this war just when Obama did? So please don't change the argument. Nice try!