|
|
On October 19 2012 07:18 ziggurat wrote:Show nested quote +On October 19 2012 06:36 Souma wrote:On October 19 2012 06:33 ziggurat wrote:On October 19 2012 06:24 Souma wrote:On October 19 2012 06:03 ziggurat wrote:On October 19 2012 05:01 Souma wrote:
How have the last 4 years been on an entirely different level? I am sincerely curious because I remember Republicans obstructing Clinton and Democrats obstructing Bush and I don't really see much difference between those eras and what we're seeing now. What exactly is it that makes you say this Republican congress is so different? On October 02 2012 22:09 Souma wrote:On October 02 2012 15:56 BluePanther wrote:On October 02 2012 13:42 Sanctimonius wrote:On October 02 2012 13:01 Kaitlin wrote:On October 02 2012 12:47 BlueBird. wrote:
The fact is Congress has an extremely low approval rating for what they are doing, so apparently that significant part of our country your talking bout is about 15% last time I heard. No, the significant part of the country I am speaking of, is enough to put a majority into the House of Representatives. Just because Congress' approval rating is shit, doesn't mean people are unhappy with what the people they voted for are doing. From my perspective, the Republicans standing firm and preventing as much Liberfail policies from being implemented is good. It doesn't mean I approve of the entire House and Senate. Two people can both be dissatisfied with Congress, yet disagree completely on what Congress should be doing. The Republican Congress has been the worst thing I've seen in politics in a long time. Seriously, if the policies Obama suggested were for the good of the country, hell even if the policies were identical to what a Republican president might suggest, they would vote it down, because it's more important that Obama fails than the country succeeds. And that, to me, is pathetic. Why would anyone support this childish behaviour, especially when it has quite literally threatened the US on a number of occasions - the one-up-manship of the debt ceiling, anyone? This Congress has one aim and one aim only, to try and make sure Obama is a one-term president - hell, arguments are already being made that Obama didn't do enough this presidency. I'm sure those arguments would be louder except they know the public will blame the Republicans at least as much as Obama. They aren't opposing his policies, they aren't disagreeing with his aims, they are taking a personal offence to his temerity in being the President of the US. Pretty sad, really, and certainly not doing anything worthwhile to earn their ridiculous tax breaks, salaries or pensions. Small wonder this has a 15% approval rating, people are getting angry that Congress is being paid to literally do nothing, and make damn sure nothing happens. Ummmmm.... the Democrats did the EXACT SAME THING to Bush. Oh OPEN YOUR EYES for once. It's one thing to agree with the policies of Republicanism, it's another thing to defend the current Republican party whose obstructionism is at an unprecedented all time high by FAR. ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/9EY57.png) Democrats did the exact same thing? Not even close. Republicans broke the all-time record for filibusters during the 111th Congress, of which the previous record held was by the 110th Congress which was also led by the Republican minority (filibusters doubled compared to the 109th!). To top it all off, it's taken them an average of 139 days to confirm Circuit Court nominees compared to the 29 days it took the Bush Administration, and 99 days for District Court nominees compared to 21 days for Bush. We have TONS of vacancies in the federal courts and the Republicans are pissing off even the judiciary! They're even doing the same with executive nominations. Once again it's one thing to believe in the ideals of Republicanism. It's also nice if you'd have the balls like a couple of other posters in this thread to actually praise Republican obstructionism. But don't even try to say Democrats did the same shit. It's not even close. Is this the only data that you're relying on? Because it doesn't seem very compelling to me. For instance, there is a lot of red in the chart during the last few years of the Bush presidency. Would that show that the republican minority in the senate was obstructing George Bush? Presumably not. So how do you go from a lot of filibusters in the senate to infer that the minority party is obstructing Obama today?
Further, the real criticism that I've heard is that it's the republican majority in the house that's been allegedly obstructing the president's agenda. But there is no filibuster in the house. Using a chart about filibusters in the senate to attack republicans in the house is misguided; you seem to be using this chart to prove something that it really doesn't have much to do with.
The other argument of course is that the republicans are resisting Obama because his policies are much more extreme and divisive than were the policies of Bush or Clinton. Thus the fact that there is more resistance to those policies shouldn't surprise anyone. Of course this is hard to establish objectively but I think it's reasonable to argue that Obama set the tone for his presidency with his massive stimulus bill and then Obamacare which were both purely partisan bills in which no effort was made to get any bipartisan buy-in.
Edit: quotes got screwed up If this isn't compelling evidence I don't know what is. You don't seem to understand how the American legislature works so let me brief you on it. The argument is that the Republicans are obstructing both Obama and all Democratic legislation (which is what you saw during the last two years of the Bush presidency). Policies are drafted in a committee then introduced through the House then the Senate. So if Obama has a policy he wants to introduce he first has to get it approved by the House (tough luck). If it passes the House then the Senate has to approve it, which is hard because of the filibusters. And yet, you still close your eyes to the one undeniable proof of Republican obstructionism: the federal judicial confirmations. It's nothing short of petty. So just to sum up, you claim that the Republican party has been more obstructionist of Obama in the last 4 years than any other party in modern history. Your evidence to support this is (i) that filibusters by the minority republicans are slightly higher under Obama then they were under Bush; and (ii) judicial appointments in the senate are taking longer. Interesting. Not slightly higher, two times higher than the previous minority-Democratic Senate. Minority Republicans in the Senate are not only obstructing Obama, they are being obstructive of all Democratic legislation. Do you still not understand how our legislature works? And not just longer, five times longer. When you manage to piss off the judiciary and put a wrench into the judicial process, I say you're doing a fine job! My point is that the metric you're using doesn't actually measure republican obstructionism at all. It doesn't matter if it's a million times higher because it's not measuring obstructionism! The reason we know this is that if it did it would show a high level of obstructionism by the republican senate while Bush was president, which obviously didn't exist. So whatever this chart shows, it does not show that republicans are obstructing Obama's policies, anymore than Republicans were obstructing Bush. The judges thing is interesting. I'd be interested in seeing the actual data if you have a link.
That's exactly what it's measuring. Do you know what filibustering is?
I'm absolutely speechless. What exactly do you think obstructionism is?
Conservatives. Get in here help me out.
|
On October 19 2012 07:14 Souma wrote:Show nested quote +On October 19 2012 07:13 ziggurat wrote:On October 19 2012 06:35 DoubleReed wrote:On October 19 2012 06:33 ziggurat wrote:On October 19 2012 06:24 Souma wrote:On October 19 2012 06:03 ziggurat wrote:On October 19 2012 05:01 Souma wrote:
How have the last 4 years been on an entirely different level? I am sincerely curious because I remember Republicans obstructing Clinton and Democrats obstructing Bush and I don't really see much difference between those eras and what we're seeing now. What exactly is it that makes you say this Republican congress is so different? On October 02 2012 22:09 Souma wrote:On October 02 2012 15:56 BluePanther wrote:On October 02 2012 13:42 Sanctimonius wrote:On October 02 2012 13:01 Kaitlin wrote:
[quote]
No, the significant part of the country I am speaking of, is enough to put a majority into the House of Representatives. Just because Congress' approval rating is shit, doesn't mean people are unhappy with what the people they voted for are doing. From my perspective, the Republicans standing firm and preventing as much Liberfail policies from being implemented is good. It doesn't mean I approve of the entire House and Senate. Two people can both be dissatisfied with Congress, yet disagree completely on what Congress should be doing. The Republican Congress has been the worst thing I've seen in politics in a long time. Seriously, if the policies Obama suggested were for the good of the country, hell even if the policies were identical to what a Republican president might suggest, they would vote it down, because it's more important that Obama fails than the country succeeds. And that, to me, is pathetic. Why would anyone support this childish behaviour, especially when it has quite literally threatened the US on a number of occasions - the one-up-manship of the debt ceiling, anyone? This Congress has one aim and one aim only, to try and make sure Obama is a one-term president - hell, arguments are already being made that Obama didn't do enough this presidency. I'm sure those arguments would be louder except they know the public will blame the Republicans at least as much as Obama. They aren't opposing his policies, they aren't disagreeing with his aims, they are taking a personal offence to his temerity in being the President of the US. Pretty sad, really, and certainly not doing anything worthwhile to earn their ridiculous tax breaks, salaries or pensions. Small wonder this has a 15% approval rating, people are getting angry that Congress is being paid to literally do nothing, and make damn sure nothing happens. Ummmmm.... the Democrats did the EXACT SAME THING to Bush. Oh OPEN YOUR EYES for once. It's one thing to agree with the policies of Republicanism, it's another thing to defend the current Republican party whose obstructionism is at an unprecedented all time high by FAR. Democrats did the exact same thing? Not even close. Republicans broke the all-time record for filibusters during the 111th Congress, of which the previous record held was by the 110th Congress which was also led by the Republican minority (filibusters doubled compared to the 109th!). To top it all off, it's taken them an average of 139 days to confirm Circuit Court nominees compared to the 29 days it took the Bush Administration, and 99 days for District Court nominees compared to 21 days for Bush. We have TONS of vacancies in the federal courts and the Republicans are pissing off even the judiciary! They're even doing the same with executive nominations. Once again it's one thing to believe in the ideals of Republicanism. It's also nice if you'd have the balls like a couple of other posters in this thread to actually praise Republican obstructionism. But don't even try to say Democrats did the same shit. It's not even close. Is this the only data that you're relying on? Because it doesn't seem very compelling to me. For instance, there is a lot of red in the chart during the last few years of the Bush presidency. Would that show that the republican minority in the senate was obstructing George Bush? Presumably not. So how do you go from a lot of filibusters in the senate to infer that the minority party is obstructing Obama today?
Further, the real criticism that I've heard is that it's the republican majority in the house that's been allegedly obstructing the president's agenda. But there is no filibuster in the house. Using a chart about filibusters in the senate to attack republicans in the house is misguided; you seem to be using this chart to prove something that it really doesn't have much to do with.
The other argument of course is that the republicans are resisting Obama because his policies are much more extreme and divisive than were the policies of Bush or Clinton. Thus the fact that there is more resistance to those policies shouldn't surprise anyone. Of course this is hard to establish objectively but I think it's reasonable to argue that Obama set the tone for his presidency with his massive stimulus bill and then Obamacare which were both purely partisan bills in which no effort was made to get any bipartisan buy-in.
Edit: quotes got screwed up If this isn't compelling evidence I don't know what is. You don't seem to understand how the American legislature works so let me brief you on it. The argument is that the Republicans are obstructing both Obama and all Democratic legislation (which is what you saw during the last two years of the Bush presidency). Policies are drafted in a committee then introduced through the House then the Senate. So if Obama has a policy he wants to introduce he first has to get it approved by the House (tough luck). If it passes the House then the Senate has to approve it, which is hard because of the filibusters. And yet, you still close your eyes to the one undeniable proof of Republican obstructionism: the federal judicial confirmations. It's nothing short of petty. So just to sum up, you claim that the Republican party has been more obstructionist of Obama in the last 4 years than any other party in modern history. Your evidence to support this is (i) that filibusters by the minority republicans are slightly higher under Obama then they were under Bush; and (ii) judicial appointments in the senate are taking longer. Interesting. No. That is not his claim. Hell, the republicans themselves admitted obstructionism. They openly said that their number one goal was to prevent Obama from getting re-elected. I have no idea why you are defending them. It's not exactly news that they don't want obama re-elected. The question in my mind is whether they are doing anything significantly different from what every opposition party does. It seems to me that this is a matter of opinion, but Souma's provided this chart which he thinks proves it empirically. It doesn't, for reasons I've explained in my last few posts. Judicial. confirmations.
You mean these? Wanna make sure I'm reading up on what you're referring to.
|
On October 19 2012 05:20 turdburgler wrote:Show nested quote +On October 19 2012 05:09 Mysticesper wrote:On October 19 2012 05:01 Souma wrote:
THAT DOES NOT EXCUSE THE REPUBLICANS' PAST FOUR YEARS OF STONEWALLING. Until you understand that you are just another partisan hack.
Four years? Obama had a 59-41 democratic senate majority + 257-178 seat majority in the house for his first two years. Pretty sure they could pass almost anything they wanted in the first two years, but nothing happened because democrats themselves didn't blindly go with it either. he had a super majority for 27(?) days before kennedy died which they used to pass obamacare. so you are right that NEITHER party 100% blindly follows the group, yet not only do you phrase it in a partisan way (oohh some dems arent stupid, some come to the correct GOP side) but you are also wrong, even with all democratic members following the party line, a filibuster will stop them with everything. Show nested quote +On October 19 2012 05:13 Signet wrote:On October 19 2012 04:55 DrCooper wrote:On October 19 2012 04:37 Zaqwert wrote:
Obama has had 4 years in office and his entire campaign and all his supporters have to offer at this point are binder, Big Bird, trying to scare women into voting for them on the basis of manufactured fake controversy, and standard class warfare (OMG the evilz rich!).
In 2008 you didn't hear any of that, it was all just this wishy washy "hope and change" I'm the black Messiash, give me a peace prize for showing up, etc.
In 2008 Obama was asking people to vote FOR him, which a lot of people did because he was nothing but a rorschach blot, people saw what they wanted to see).
His entire 2012 campaign is basically "Romney sucks, vote against him" which says a lot about his failed administration.
The media has been in the tank for Obama since day 1 and is going nuts right now. You go to CNN and the word "binders" appears on their front page TEN TIMES. There are 10 different "stories" trying to manufacture up a phony controversy.
Are the liberals so bankrupt on ideas and embarassed by the failure of Obama that's all they have at this point?
Obama may still win this thing, heck he's probably stil the favorite based on how the electoral college look, but you people supporting him are a disgrace.
Don't get me a wrong, Romney isn't that great, but you people are so obsessed with your Obamessiah.
It's not that suprising though, the vast majority TL is either young people who know nothing about how the world works and are duped into voting for what they think are hand outs (I'm all of 28 btw) or foreigners outside the US who are typically much further left than your average American and have been brainwashed their whole lives into thinking "Oh Americans who are Republicans? They are evil!" Your press is even more corrupt than the United States.
Thank God for the internet though, people still form their own little echo chambers where they convince themselves their world view is the only one, but the media's stranglehold on information has been crushed. Just today Newsweek announced they are basically dying.
Sorry for the long rambling stream of rants. I'm a very frustrated libertarian who views the world going to shit because everyone wants a handout.
Kids want free college, women think they deserve more money just for being women (the gender pay gap is a total myth btw), free health care, guaranteed jobs, etc.
Romney was wrong about 47% of people being parasites, the actual number is way higher.
When a host gets enough parasites it dies. America is f'ing bankrupt, we are playing shell games with fake numbers at this point, we are Enron.
The problem isn't taxes, it's spending. Romeny will spend a ton of money, Obama will spent a ton more, it's a sad situation we are in. You're 28 ( not that old). Romney might spend less money than Obama, but for what? More military? Really? Oh btw. you're voting for someone, who, with all seriousness asked, why the windows in airplanes won't open. You want someone that stupid as your president? Have you americans learned nothing from Bush? Either you are really wealthy, or stupid. For the environment, Romney would be a disaster. Heck, for everybody in the world Romney would be a disaster. I think the windows comment was just a joke. The reporter who was interviewing him even said it was, when asked about it. Romney is not the stereotypical idiot conservative. That would be Perry, Bachmann, Santorum, etc. I think a lot of what he claims about how his tax cut would work, or balancing the budget without cutting the big programs we actually spend loads of money on, or NA energy independence, are a bunch if hooey. But he's really just doing the same thing he did to win the primary nomination -- saying the right combination of words to get people to vote for him. If he wins, then we'll know what his real ideas are (which, yes, should be concerning if you don't trust him or Congress). suppose for a second that romney is actually a great guy, he knows whats best for the US and he also knows he just needs to parrot a bit for a while to get elected by the bible thumpers. on that basis, you would vote for absolutely anyone, anyone at all. because you believe its ok to parrot on the national stage just to get elected, and only after that yell suprise and finally reveal your plans. how can you use that logic to back romney over obama? you could make the exact same point, that obama is actually just a GOP candidate in disguise, waiting for his second term to reveal himself.
I thought it was common knowledge that Obama's policies are basically those of a 1990s Republican? 
As for me, I'm voting 3rd party but I'd prefer for Obama to beat Romney (my electoral district is completely noncompetitive). However, it just seems really really obvious to me that the airplane line was a joke, and somebody who was a pretty successful businessman and a decent/good governor isn't a total idiot.
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
On October 19 2012 07:18 ziggurat wrote:Show nested quote +On October 19 2012 06:36 Souma wrote:On October 19 2012 06:33 ziggurat wrote:On October 19 2012 06:24 Souma wrote:On October 19 2012 06:03 ziggurat wrote:On October 19 2012 05:01 Souma wrote:
How have the last 4 years been on an entirely different level? I am sincerely curious because I remember Republicans obstructing Clinton and Democrats obstructing Bush and I don't really see much difference between those eras and what we're seeing now. What exactly is it that makes you say this Republican congress is so different? On October 02 2012 22:09 Souma wrote:On October 02 2012 15:56 BluePanther wrote:On October 02 2012 13:42 Sanctimonius wrote:On October 02 2012 13:01 Kaitlin wrote:On October 02 2012 12:47 BlueBird. wrote:
The fact is Congress has an extremely low approval rating for what they are doing, so apparently that significant part of our country your talking bout is about 15% last time I heard. No, the significant part of the country I am speaking of, is enough to put a majority into the House of Representatives. Just because Congress' approval rating is shit, doesn't mean people are unhappy with what the people they voted for are doing. From my perspective, the Republicans standing firm and preventing as much Liberfail policies from being implemented is good. It doesn't mean I approve of the entire House and Senate. Two people can both be dissatisfied with Congress, yet disagree completely on what Congress should be doing. The Republican Congress has been the worst thing I've seen in politics in a long time. Seriously, if the policies Obama suggested were for the good of the country, hell even if the policies were identical to what a Republican president might suggest, they would vote it down, because it's more important that Obama fails than the country succeeds. And that, to me, is pathetic. Why would anyone support this childish behaviour, especially when it has quite literally threatened the US on a number of occasions - the one-up-manship of the debt ceiling, anyone? This Congress has one aim and one aim only, to try and make sure Obama is a one-term president - hell, arguments are already being made that Obama didn't do enough this presidency. I'm sure those arguments would be louder except they know the public will blame the Republicans at least as much as Obama. They aren't opposing his policies, they aren't disagreeing with his aims, they are taking a personal offence to his temerity in being the President of the US. Pretty sad, really, and certainly not doing anything worthwhile to earn their ridiculous tax breaks, salaries or pensions. Small wonder this has a 15% approval rating, people are getting angry that Congress is being paid to literally do nothing, and make damn sure nothing happens. Ummmmm.... the Democrats did the EXACT SAME THING to Bush. Oh OPEN YOUR EYES for once. It's one thing to agree with the policies of Republicanism, it's another thing to defend the current Republican party whose obstructionism is at an unprecedented all time high by FAR. Democrats did the exact same thing? Not even close. Republicans broke the all-time record for filibusters during the 111th Congress, of which the previous record held was by the 110th Congress which was also led by the Republican minority (filibusters doubled compared to the 109th!). To top it all off, it's taken them an average of 139 days to confirm Circuit Court nominees compared to the 29 days it took the Bush Administration, and 99 days for District Court nominees compared to 21 days for Bush. We have TONS of vacancies in the federal courts and the Republicans are pissing off even the judiciary! They're even doing the same with executive nominations. Once again it's one thing to believe in the ideals of Republicanism. It's also nice if you'd have the balls like a couple of other posters in this thread to actually praise Republican obstructionism. But don't even try to say Democrats did the same shit. It's not even close. Is this the only data that you're relying on? Because it doesn't seem very compelling to me. For instance, there is a lot of red in the chart during the last few years of the Bush presidency. Would that show that the republican minority in the senate was obstructing George Bush? Presumably not. So how do you go from a lot of filibusters in the senate to infer that the minority party is obstructing Obama today?
Further, the real criticism that I've heard is that it's the republican majority in the house that's been allegedly obstructing the president's agenda. But there is no filibuster in the house. Using a chart about filibusters in the senate to attack republicans in the house is misguided; you seem to be using this chart to prove something that it really doesn't have much to do with.
The other argument of course is that the republicans are resisting Obama because his policies are much more extreme and divisive than were the policies of Bush or Clinton. Thus the fact that there is more resistance to those policies shouldn't surprise anyone. Of course this is hard to establish objectively but I think it's reasonable to argue that Obama set the tone for his presidency with his massive stimulus bill and then Obamacare which were both purely partisan bills in which no effort was made to get any bipartisan buy-in.
Edit: quotes got screwed up If this isn't compelling evidence I don't know what is. You don't seem to understand how the American legislature works so let me brief you on it. The argument is that the Republicans are obstructing both Obama and all Democratic legislation (which is what you saw during the last two years of the Bush presidency). Policies are drafted in a committee then introduced through the House then the Senate. So if Obama has a policy he wants to introduce he first has to get it approved by the House (tough luck). If it passes the House then the Senate has to approve it, which is hard because of the filibusters. And yet, you still close your eyes to the one undeniable proof of Republican obstructionism: the federal judicial confirmations. It's nothing short of petty. So just to sum up, you claim that the Republican party has been more obstructionist of Obama in the last 4 years than any other party in modern history. Your evidence to support this is (i) that filibusters by the minority republicans are slightly higher under Obama then they were under Bush; and (ii) judicial appointments in the senate are taking longer. Interesting. Not slightly higher, two times higher than the previous minority-Democratic Senate. Minority Republicans in the Senate are not only obstructing Obama, they are being obstructive of all Democratic legislation. Do you still not understand how our legislature works? And not just longer, five times longer. When you manage to piss off the judiciary and put a wrench into the judicial process, I say you're doing a fine job! My point is that the metric you're using doesn't actually measure republican obstructionism at all. It doesn't matter if it's a million times higher because it's not measuring obstructionism! The reason we know this is that if it did it would show a high level of obstructionism by the republican senate while Bush was president, which obviously didn't exist. So whatever this chart shows, it does not show that republicans are obstructing Obama's policies, anymore than Republicans were obstructing Bush. The judges thing is interesting. I'd be interested in seeing the actual data if you have a link.
"it doesn't matter if it's a million times higher"...
"The reason we know this is that if it did it would show a high level of obstructionism by the republican senate while Bush was president, which obviously didn't exist." This is you failing to understand how our legislature works yet again. Bush had a Republican-majority in the Senate for the 107th-109th Congresses. Of course you didn't see nearly as many filibusters, because the Democratic minority wasn't so petty. The 110th Congress was obstructing Democratic legislation even though Bush was still president. The President is not the only person that can introduce policies, the Congressional committees introduce the bulk of all legislation. Republicans, since the 110th Congress, have been obstructing all Democratic legislation.
I'll have to find a link for the judicial confirmations. The numbers are something I pulled from Obama's 2012 State of the Union and is all the proof you need of obstructionism. No one has gone that far to date.
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
|
On October 19 2012 07:20 ziggurat wrote:Show nested quote +On October 19 2012 06:42 Focuspants wrote:
"The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president."
-Mitch Mcconnell
You dont need any more proof about them being obstructionists. Their entire goal is for him to fail. They are holding the country hostage for political gain. Look at the spending cut/revenue increase discussions. An agreement couldnt be reached because the republicans refused to allow the rich to be taxed, even if they would get many things they want in return. What the hell kind of policy is that during a recession where the middle and lower classes are being railed? Theyre a bullshit party. I guess I just don't see how this is different from every other presidency. When Bush was president Democrats wanted him to be a one-term president too.
You're very obviously leaving out the critical point. According to Mitch McConnell, the SINGLE MOST IMPORTANT THING they want to achieve is for Obama to be a 1-term president. Sure Democrats wouldn't want Bush to be in for a second term, but they never said they were willing to put that goal ahead of the well-being of Americans.
I'm going to repeat it here so you wont leave it out next time. The single most important thing they want to achieve is to make sure Obama isn't re-elected. This means if it were a choice between helping Americans or making Obama look bad, they'd choose making Obama look bad.
|
On October 19 2012 07:40 Supamang wrote:Show nested quote +On October 19 2012 07:20 ziggurat wrote:On October 19 2012 06:42 Focuspants wrote:
"The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president."
-Mitch Mcconnell
You dont need any more proof about them being obstructionists. Their entire goal is for him to fail. They are holding the country hostage for political gain. Look at the spending cut/revenue increase discussions. An agreement couldnt be reached because the republicans refused to allow the rich to be taxed, even if they would get many things they want in return. What the hell kind of policy is that during a recession where the middle and lower classes are being railed? Theyre a bullshit party. I guess I just don't see how this is different from every other presidency. When Bush was president Democrats wanted him to be a one-term president too. You're very obviously leaving out the critical point. According to Mitch McConnell, the SINGLE MOST IMPORTANT THING they want to achieve is for Obama to be a 1-term president. Sure Democrats wouldn't want Bush to be in for a second term, but they never said they were willing to put that goal ahead of the well-being of Americans. I'm going to repeat it here so you wont leave it out next time. The single most important thing they want to achieve is to make sure Obama isn't re-elected. This means if it were a choice between helping Americans or making Obama look bad, they'd choose making Obama look bad.
It's true. That's just the shortened version, but I doubt the context would change what one can infer from his statement.
On the flip side, it felt to me like not only Congress and the Senate, but all of the media and plenty of the populace wanted to make sure George W. didn't get another four years either. I was surprised he succeeded in nabbing a second term, what with all the negativity aimed at him.
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
On October 19 2012 07:50 cLAN.Anax wrote:Show nested quote +On October 19 2012 07:40 Supamang wrote:On October 19 2012 07:20 ziggurat wrote:On October 19 2012 06:42 Focuspants wrote:
"The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president."
-Mitch Mcconnell
You dont need any more proof about them being obstructionists. Their entire goal is for him to fail. They are holding the country hostage for political gain. Look at the spending cut/revenue increase discussions. An agreement couldnt be reached because the republicans refused to allow the rich to be taxed, even if they would get many things they want in return. What the hell kind of policy is that during a recession where the middle and lower classes are being railed? Theyre a bullshit party. I guess I just don't see how this is different from every other presidency. When Bush was president Democrats wanted him to be a one-term president too. You're very obviously leaving out the critical point. According to Mitch McConnell, the SINGLE MOST IMPORTANT THING they want to achieve is for Obama to be a 1-term president. Sure Democrats wouldn't want Bush to be in for a second term, but they never said they were willing to put that goal ahead of the well-being of Americans. I'm going to repeat it here so you wont leave it out next time. The single most important thing they want to achieve is to make sure Obama isn't re-elected. This means if it were a choice between helping Americans or making Obama look bad, they'd choose making Obama look bad. It's true. That's just the shortened version, but I doubt the context would change what one can infer from his statement. On the flip side, it felt to me like not only Congress and the Senate, but all of the media and plenty of the populace wanted to make sure George W. didn't get another four years either. I was surprised he succeeded in nabbing a second term, what with all the negativity aimed at him.
I was a bit surprised Bush got a second term too. What's even more surprising is that I actually wanted him for a second term.
|
Ruh, roh.
A new poll shows Republican Mitt Romney leading in Pennsylvania, a state that Republicans had all but written off just weeks ago but which is now listed as a toss up by the Real Clear Politics website.
Susquehanna Polling and Research provided The Washington Examiner with a poll it conducted for state party officials that shows Romney with a 49 percent to 45 percent lead over President Obama.
It's the first poll to show Romney leading among likely voters in the Keystone State.
"The polling is very clear that the race is certainly up for grabs and Republicans have a tendency to never believe it," Susquehanna President James Lee told The Examiner.
Source.
|
On October 19 2012 07:52 Souma wrote:Show nested quote +On October 19 2012 07:50 cLAN.Anax wrote:On October 19 2012 07:40 Supamang wrote:On October 19 2012 07:20 ziggurat wrote:On October 19 2012 06:42 Focuspants wrote:
"The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president."
-Mitch Mcconnell
You dont need any more proof about them being obstructionists. Their entire goal is for him to fail. They are holding the country hostage for political gain. Look at the spending cut/revenue increase discussions. An agreement couldnt be reached because the republicans refused to allow the rich to be taxed, even if they would get many things they want in return. What the hell kind of policy is that during a recession where the middle and lower classes are being railed? Theyre a bullshit party. I guess I just don't see how this is different from every other presidency. When Bush was president Democrats wanted him to be a one-term president too. You're very obviously leaving out the critical point. According to Mitch McConnell, the SINGLE MOST IMPORTANT THING they want to achieve is for Obama to be a 1-term president. Sure Democrats wouldn't want Bush to be in for a second term, but they never said they were willing to put that goal ahead of the well-being of Americans. I'm going to repeat it here so you wont leave it out next time. The single most important thing they want to achieve is to make sure Obama isn't re-elected. This means if it were a choice between helping Americans or making Obama look bad, they'd choose making Obama look bad. It's true. That's just the shortened version, but I doubt the context would change what one can infer from his statement. On the flip side, it felt to me like not only Congress and the Senate, but all of the media and plenty of the populace wanted to make sure George W. didn't get another four years either. I was surprised he succeeded in nabbing a second term, what with all the negativity aimed at him. I was a bit surprised Bush got a second term too. What's even more surprising is that I actually wanted him for a second term.
Lolwut?? I wanna hear this. X-D (PM if you'd prefer it)
By the way, I have no opinion on the judicial nominations. Again, I can see where you and the others are coming from, as evidence that Republicans earnestly tried impeding any-thing the Dems wanted to get done.
|
On October 19 2012 07:52 Souma wrote:Show nested quote +On October 19 2012 07:50 cLAN.Anax wrote:On October 19 2012 07:40 Supamang wrote:On October 19 2012 07:20 ziggurat wrote:On October 19 2012 06:42 Focuspants wrote:
"The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president."
-Mitch Mcconnell
You dont need any more proof about them being obstructionists. Their entire goal is for him to fail. They are holding the country hostage for political gain. Look at the spending cut/revenue increase discussions. An agreement couldnt be reached because the republicans refused to allow the rich to be taxed, even if they would get many things they want in return. What the hell kind of policy is that during a recession where the middle and lower classes are being railed? Theyre a bullshit party. I guess I just don't see how this is different from every other presidency. When Bush was president Democrats wanted him to be a one-term president too. You're very obviously leaving out the critical point. According to Mitch McConnell, the SINGLE MOST IMPORTANT THING they want to achieve is for Obama to be a 1-term president. Sure Democrats wouldn't want Bush to be in for a second term, but they never said they were willing to put that goal ahead of the well-being of Americans. I'm going to repeat it here so you wont leave it out next time. The single most important thing they want to achieve is to make sure Obama isn't re-elected. This means if it were a choice between helping Americans or making Obama look bad, they'd choose making Obama look bad. It's true. That's just the shortened version, but I doubt the context would change what one can infer from his statement. On the flip side, it felt to me like not only Congress and the Senate, but all of the media and plenty of the populace wanted to make sure George W. didn't get another four years either. I was surprised he succeeded in nabbing a second term, what with all the negativity aimed at him. I was a bit surprised Bush got a second term too. What's even more surprising is that I actually wanted him for a second term.
Why would you be surprised? Kerry was a horrible candidate, and Bush had a good record to run on at that point.
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
On October 19 2012 07:56 cLAN.Anax wrote:Show nested quote +On October 19 2012 07:52 Souma wrote:On October 19 2012 07:50 cLAN.Anax wrote:On October 19 2012 07:40 Supamang wrote:On October 19 2012 07:20 ziggurat wrote:On October 19 2012 06:42 Focuspants wrote:
"The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president."
-Mitch Mcconnell
You dont need any more proof about them being obstructionists. Their entire goal is for him to fail. They are holding the country hostage for political gain. Look at the spending cut/revenue increase discussions. An agreement couldnt be reached because the republicans refused to allow the rich to be taxed, even if they would get many things they want in return. What the hell kind of policy is that during a recession where the middle and lower classes are being railed? Theyre a bullshit party. I guess I just don't see how this is different from every other presidency. When Bush was president Democrats wanted him to be a one-term president too. You're very obviously leaving out the critical point. According to Mitch McConnell, the SINGLE MOST IMPORTANT THING they want to achieve is for Obama to be a 1-term president. Sure Democrats wouldn't want Bush to be in for a second term, but they never said they were willing to put that goal ahead of the well-being of Americans. I'm going to repeat it here so you wont leave it out next time. The single most important thing they want to achieve is to make sure Obama isn't re-elected. This means if it were a choice between helping Americans or making Obama look bad, they'd choose making Obama look bad. It's true. That's just the shortened version, but I doubt the context would change what one can infer from his statement. On the flip side, it felt to me like not only Congress and the Senate, but all of the media and plenty of the populace wanted to make sure George W. didn't get another four years either. I was surprised he succeeded in nabbing a second term, what with all the negativity aimed at him. I was a bit surprised Bush got a second term too. What's even more surprising is that I actually wanted him for a second term. Lolwut?? I wanna hear this. X-D (PM if you'd prefer it) By the way, I have no opinion on the judicial nominations. Again, I can see where you and the others are coming from, as evidence that Republicans earnestly tried impeding any-thing the Dems wanted to get done.
Oh, it's nothing. I just grew up in a conservative family and was extremely conservative myself for a very long time. I first started falling to the left after reading up on Thomas Jefferson. My baptism was complete after I studied abroad in Japan for a year.
On October 19 2012 07:56 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On October 19 2012 07:52 Souma wrote:On October 19 2012 07:50 cLAN.Anax wrote:On October 19 2012 07:40 Supamang wrote:On October 19 2012 07:20 ziggurat wrote:On October 19 2012 06:42 Focuspants wrote:
"The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president."
-Mitch Mcconnell
You dont need any more proof about them being obstructionists. Their entire goal is for him to fail. They are holding the country hostage for political gain. Look at the spending cut/revenue increase discussions. An agreement couldnt be reached because the republicans refused to allow the rich to be taxed, even if they would get many things they want in return. What the hell kind of policy is that during a recession where the middle and lower classes are being railed? Theyre a bullshit party. I guess I just don't see how this is different from every other presidency. When Bush was president Democrats wanted him to be a one-term president too. You're very obviously leaving out the critical point. According to Mitch McConnell, the SINGLE MOST IMPORTANT THING they want to achieve is for Obama to be a 1-term president. Sure Democrats wouldn't want Bush to be in for a second term, but they never said they were willing to put that goal ahead of the well-being of Americans. I'm going to repeat it here so you wont leave it out next time. The single most important thing they want to achieve is to make sure Obama isn't re-elected. This means if it were a choice between helping Americans or making Obama look bad, they'd choose making Obama look bad. It's true. That's just the shortened version, but I doubt the context would change what one can infer from his statement. On the flip side, it felt to me like not only Congress and the Senate, but all of the media and plenty of the populace wanted to make sure George W. didn't get another four years either. I was surprised he succeeded in nabbing a second term, what with all the negativity aimed at him. I was a bit surprised Bush got a second term too. What's even more surprising is that I actually wanted him for a second term. Why would you be surprised? Kerry was a horrible candidate, and Bush had a good record to run on at that point.
I live in California. The political landscape really made it seem like Bush was done for at the time.
|
On October 19 2012 07:55 xDaunt wrote:Ruh, roh. Show nested quote +A new poll shows Republican Mitt Romney leading in Pennsylvania, a state that Republicans had all but written off just weeks ago but which is now listed as a toss up by the Real Clear Politics website.
Susquehanna Polling and Research provided The Washington Examiner with a poll it conducted for state party officials that shows Romney with a 49 percent to 45 percent lead over President Obama.
It's the first poll to show Romney leading among likely voters in the Keystone State.
"The polling is very clear that the race is certainly up for grabs and Republicans have a tendency to never believe it," Susquehanna President James Lee told The Examiner. Source.
Wiki:
The Examiner's editorial page is heavily conservative; it is headed by Mark Tapscott, with American Spectator senior editor Quin Hillyer serving as its associate editor. The paper's national political coverage, which also appears in Examiner papers in Baltimore and San Francisco, was previously headed by Bill Sammon, a former Washington Times reporter who has written several books praising George W. Bush. (Sammon is now the deputy managing editor for Fox News Channel's Washington bureau.[1]) Chris Stirewalt, who has been described as "a true conservative voice"[2], is the Examiner's political editor. Mary Katherine Ham, former managing editor of the conservative Townhall.com, briefly served as the Examiner's online editor for a few months in 2008 [3] before joining the Weekly Standard.[4] Matthew Sheffield, executive editor of the Media Research Center blog NewsBusters, is in charge of the Examiner's website.[5] Byron York, formerly of National Review, joined the paper in February 2009.[6]
Oh nos! A clearly conservative paper reports polls favoring Romney!
And right before the latest debate too!
|
On October 19 2012 08:02 mynameisgreat11 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 19 2012 07:55 xDaunt wrote:Ruh, roh. A new poll shows Republican Mitt Romney leading in Pennsylvania, a state that Republicans had all but written off just weeks ago but which is now listed as a toss up by the Real Clear Politics website.
Susquehanna Polling and Research provided The Washington Examiner with a poll it conducted for state party officials that shows Romney with a 49 percent to 45 percent lead over President Obama.
It's the first poll to show Romney leading among likely voters in the Keystone State.
"The polling is very clear that the race is certainly up for grabs and Republicans have a tendency to never believe it," Susquehanna President James Lee told The Examiner. Source. Wiki: The Examiner's editorial page is heavily conservative; it is headed by Mark Tapscott, with American Spectator senior editor Quin Hillyer serving as its associate editor. The paper's national political coverage, which also appears in Examiner papers in Baltimore and San Francisco, was previously headed by Bill Sammon, a former Washington Times reporter who has written several books praising George W. Bush. (Sammon is now the deputy managing editor for Fox News Channel's Washington bureau.[1]) Chris Stirewalt, who has been described as "a true conservative voice"[2], is the Examiner's political editor. Mary Katherine Ham, former managing editor of the conservative Townhall.com, briefly served as the Examiner's online editor for a few months in 2008 [3] before joining the Weekly Standard.[4] Matthew Sheffield, executive editor of the Media Research Center blog NewsBusters, is in charge of the Examiner's website.[5] Byron York, formerly of National Review, joined the paper in February 2009.[6] Oh nos! A clearly conservative paper reports polls favoring Romney! And right before the latest debate too!
You forgot to mention the part where even the poll that was sampled is highly biased. Susquehanna Polling & Research has been the Republican pollster of choice in Pennsylvania for many years now.
Source
|
On October 19 2012 08:05 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On October 19 2012 08:02 mynameisgreat11 wrote:On October 19 2012 07:55 xDaunt wrote:Ruh, roh. A new poll shows Republican Mitt Romney leading in Pennsylvania, a state that Republicans had all but written off just weeks ago but which is now listed as a toss up by the Real Clear Politics website.
Susquehanna Polling and Research provided The Washington Examiner with a poll it conducted for state party officials that shows Romney with a 49 percent to 45 percent lead over President Obama.
It's the first poll to show Romney leading among likely voters in the Keystone State.
"The polling is very clear that the race is certainly up for grabs and Republicans have a tendency to never believe it," Susquehanna President James Lee told The Examiner. Source. Wiki: The Examiner's editorial page is heavily conservative; it is headed by Mark Tapscott, with American Spectator senior editor Quin Hillyer serving as its associate editor. The paper's national political coverage, which also appears in Examiner papers in Baltimore and San Francisco, was previously headed by Bill Sammon, a former Washington Times reporter who has written several books praising George W. Bush. (Sammon is now the deputy managing editor for Fox News Channel's Washington bureau.[1]) Chris Stirewalt, who has been described as "a true conservative voice"[2], is the Examiner's political editor. Mary Katherine Ham, former managing editor of the conservative Townhall.com, briefly served as the Examiner's online editor for a few months in 2008 [3] before joining the Weekly Standard.[4] Matthew Sheffield, executive editor of the Media Research Center blog NewsBusters, is in charge of the Examiner's website.[5] Byron York, formerly of National Review, joined the paper in February 2009.[6] Oh nos! A clearly conservative paper reports polls favoring Romney! And right before the latest debate too! You forgot to mention the part where even the poll that was sampled is highly biased. Susquehanna Polling & Research has been the Republican pollster of choice in Pennsylvania for many years now. Source
Ruh roh.
|
On October 19 2012 07:20 ziggurat wrote:Show nested quote +On October 19 2012 06:42 Focuspants wrote:
"The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president."
-Mitch Mcconnell
You dont need any more proof about them being obstructionists. Their entire goal is for him to fail. They are holding the country hostage for political gain. Look at the spending cut/revenue increase discussions. An agreement couldnt be reached because the republicans refused to allow the rich to be taxed, even if they would get many things they want in return. What the hell kind of policy is that during a recession where the middle and lower classes are being railed? Theyre a bullshit party. I guess I just don't see how this is different from every other presidency. When Bush was president Democrats wanted him to be a one-term president too.
It was not that they didn't want Bush as president... They didn't want the ridiculous policies and rash foreign decisions. IT wasn't "We don't want obama, that is are only goal!"... It was "Let's save America, he's fucking everything up, here's x yz points."
Republicans argue that Obama is so bad but if you look at the track record past 1960 and up Republicans have absolutely no idea how to make an economy work... They think creating jobs is like building pottery and it can just be done either cutting rich peoples taxes (proven not to work, trickle down system is an abomination) or spending MORE on military.
If Republicans want Obama fine, I would love for someone to come up with better policies (cough Ron Paul) but no one in the Republican party has come up with any ideas, they're like that annoying employee who sits and bitches about management but when asked how to fix it they're like "I dunno, um just do it!" ... Absolute immaturity of leadership.
|
On October 19 2012 08:05 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On October 19 2012 08:02 mynameisgreat11 wrote:On October 19 2012 07:55 xDaunt wrote:Ruh, roh. A new poll shows Republican Mitt Romney leading in Pennsylvania, a state that Republicans had all but written off just weeks ago but which is now listed as a toss up by the Real Clear Politics website.
Susquehanna Polling and Research provided The Washington Examiner with a poll it conducted for state party officials that shows Romney with a 49 percent to 45 percent lead over President Obama.
It's the first poll to show Romney leading among likely voters in the Keystone State.
"The polling is very clear that the race is certainly up for grabs and Republicans have a tendency to never believe it," Susquehanna President James Lee told The Examiner. Source. Wiki: The Examiner's editorial page is heavily conservative; it is headed by Mark Tapscott, with American Spectator senior editor Quin Hillyer serving as its associate editor. The paper's national political coverage, which also appears in Examiner papers in Baltimore and San Francisco, was previously headed by Bill Sammon, a former Washington Times reporter who has written several books praising George W. Bush. (Sammon is now the deputy managing editor for Fox News Channel's Washington bureau.[1]) Chris Stirewalt, who has been described as "a true conservative voice"[2], is the Examiner's political editor. Mary Katherine Ham, former managing editor of the conservative Townhall.com, briefly served as the Examiner's online editor for a few months in 2008 [3] before joining the Weekly Standard.[4] Matthew Sheffield, executive editor of the Media Research Center blog NewsBusters, is in charge of the Examiner's website.[5] Byron York, formerly of National Review, joined the paper in February 2009.[6] Oh nos! A clearly conservative paper reports polls favoring Romney! And right before the latest debate too! You forgot to mention the part where even the poll that was sampled is highly biased. Susquehanna Polling & Research has been the Republican pollster of choice in Pennsylvania for many years now. Source
Not to mention the Washington Examiner is one of the most blatantly biased sources I've seen out there.
Kerry was a fine candidate I think, though Edwards did turn out to be a scumbag. Unfortunately, the Republicans (Karl Rove to be exact) decided to stoop to a new low in attack ads with swiftboat.
|
This is too rich. By the same log that y'all are using, basically every poll from a media outlet out there should be ignored because they are biased. CBS? NYTtimes? CNN? All liberal hacks! Ergo, their polls must be biased!
Go find something structurally wrong with the poll and then come back to me.
I must say, it is hilarious that you guys are still in denial over what is happening and what is coming. I really am going to enjoy it when the panic sets in.
|
On October 19 2012 08:36 xDaunt wrote:
This is too rich. By the same log that y'all are using, basically every poll from a media outlet out there should be ignored because they are biased. CBS? NYTtimes? CNN? All liberal hacks! Ergo, their polls must be biased!
Go find structurally wrong with the poll and then come back to me.
I must say, it is hilarious that you guys are still in denial over what is happening and what is coming. I really am going to enjoy it when the panic sets in.
I have to admit I'm jealous xDaunt. I just can't escape reality no matter how hard I try.
|
On October 19 2012 08:18 ticklishmusic wrote:Show nested quote +On October 19 2012 08:05 farvacola wrote:On October 19 2012 08:02 mynameisgreat11 wrote:On October 19 2012 07:55 xDaunt wrote:Ruh, roh. A new poll shows Republican Mitt Romney leading in Pennsylvania, a state that Republicans had all but written off just weeks ago but which is now listed as a toss up by the Real Clear Politics website.
Susquehanna Polling and Research provided The Washington Examiner with a poll it conducted for state party officials that shows Romney with a 49 percent to 45 percent lead over President Obama.
It's the first poll to show Romney leading among likely voters in the Keystone State.
"The polling is very clear that the race is certainly up for grabs and Republicans have a tendency to never believe it," Susquehanna President James Lee told The Examiner. Source. Wiki: The Examiner's editorial page is heavily conservative; it is headed by Mark Tapscott, with American Spectator senior editor Quin Hillyer serving as its associate editor. The paper's national political coverage, which also appears in Examiner papers in Baltimore and San Francisco, was previously headed by Bill Sammon, a former Washington Times reporter who has written several books praising George W. Bush. (Sammon is now the deputy managing editor for Fox News Channel's Washington bureau.[1]) Chris Stirewalt, who has been described as "a true conservative voice"[2], is the Examiner's political editor. Mary Katherine Ham, former managing editor of the conservative Townhall.com, briefly served as the Examiner's online editor for a few months in 2008 [3] before joining the Weekly Standard.[4] Matthew Sheffield, executive editor of the Media Research Center blog NewsBusters, is in charge of the Examiner's website.[5] Byron York, formerly of National Review, joined the paper in February 2009.[6] Oh nos! A clearly conservative paper reports polls favoring Romney! And right before the latest debate too! You forgot to mention the part where even the poll that was sampled is highly biased. Susquehanna Polling & Research has been the Republican pollster of choice in Pennsylvania for many years now. Source Not to mention the Washington Examiner is one of the most blatantly biased sources I've seen out there. Kerry was a fine candidate I think, though Edwards did turn out to be a scumbag. Unfortunately, the Republicans (Karl Rove to be exact) decided to stoop to a new low in attack ads with swiftboat.
No joke. I was pretty much republican until 2004. It was awhile before I self labeled as "liberal" (was always socially liberal, fiscally not so) but seeing the swiftboat attacks was just fucking sickening.
![[image loading]](http://bp1.blogger.com/_QTMkWfqFyfk/SHGY4lb05MI/AAAAAAAAA0s/OHXT63QtXVg/s400/purple_heart_bandaid.jpg)
This picture more than anything made me realize how vile many in the Republican base were and I never looked back.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
