An Inconvenient Truth...

>> Wednesday, May 2, 2012

One that even liars like Jim can't deny... though he'll certainly try.


"After five years with Democrats in control of two-thirds or more of the government, only somebody genuinely ignorant, or a liar, would think Republicans or conservatives have any responsibility for the current state of affairs. The Republicans haven't had the power to implement their own ideas." 

-Rush Limbaugh, May 2, 2012

31 comments:

Jim May 3, 2012 at 7:48 PM  

More horse sh*t from the leader of the Republican Party as delivered ELla.

After five years with Democrats in control of two-thirds or more of the government

Utter bullsh*t nonsense:

Republicans have had control of the SCOTUS for at least 30 years.

Republicans held the presidency for 2 of the last five years.

The Republicans have controlled the House for the last 1.5 of the past 5 years.

The Republicans have had the power to stop any Senate legislation for all but about 4 months of the last 5 years.

The Republicans haven't had the power to implement their own ideas.

They HAVE had the power to work with Democrats to find common ground and implement solutions for the benefit of the country, but they have refused to do anything that would allow President Obama to have any successes. For that, Republicans share at least 50% of the responsibility.

And since the biggest drivers of the US deficit are the Bush era tax cuts, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, Medicare Part D, all passed and supported by the Republicans Congress and their president, only the genuinely ignorant or a liar would claim that Republicans bear no responsibility for the current state of affairs.

ELAshley May 4, 2012 at 7:18 AM  

And as predicted, Jim proves himself to be either genuinely ignorant, or a liar. His head is so deeply rooted up the corporate democratic bung, he has no ability to reason on his own. All he can do is pick apart phrases and provide asinine and inane retorts...

It's very important to pay close attention to how something is said. BenT illustrated this to me years ago, and quite beautifully... "I didn't say he killed his wife." It's all about emphasis. But while this is not strictly applicable here (there are no auditory nuances in a textual statement), but the lesson is essentially the same: listen (or read) for what is ACTUALLY being said.

Jim has yet to grasp this, and so, has no ability to truly dissect any statement. He's a surface thinker-- reciting schmaltzy affirmations to himself and others while waiting in line at Starbucks and, therefore, most men's intellectual inferior.

Craig May 4, 2012 at 9:20 AM  

After P-BO got elected I asked a staunch supporter at what point durion P-BO's term would he responsibility transfer from Bush to P-BO. Strangely enough I could never get an answer.

Unless I'm mistaken P-BO supported the extension of the Bush tax rates since he's been president. Wouldn't that at a minimum make them the B/O tax rates.

Let's face it the left will not hold P-BO responsible until at least year 4 of his second term, if even then.

Jim May 4, 2012 at 9:27 AM  

And predictably, Ella makes an ass of himself by responding with irrelevant, untrue drivel.

The truth is, that regardless of "how" the above was said, there is not one single PHRASE "ACTUALLY being said" in the quote that is true, and I have easily demonstrated that.

When it comes to ignorance and heads up "bungs", ELla proves to be an SME.

Jim May 4, 2012 at 9:37 AM  

Unless I'm mistaken P-BO supported the extension of the Bush tax rates since he's been president.

Proving that the statement that "the Republicans haven't had the power to implement their own ideas" is false. The extension was a compromise.

ELAshley May 4, 2012 at 12:55 PM  

You have demonstrated nothing but that you are a bitter little man unable to think for himself. I pity you.

ELAshley May 4, 2012 at 1:21 PM  

Jim and all his intellectual dopplegangers on the left can't accept responsibility for their FAILED ideology, nor can they allow P-BO to become responsible; he is, after all, the proverbial proof in the pudding for said 'failed ideology.'

So while I believe Jim and his like are to be pitied, I don't believe we should allow them to ruin this country even further by HOPING their failure of a president won't continue to CHANGE America in something altogether unrecognizable.

The Jims of this nation won't be content until they've collapsed this country into a smoking pile of ruin. At which time, the Jims will rise up, blame Bush, and demand republicans take responsibility for their policies when all along it's been the Left's policies which brought on the disaster. They'll then insist that they be the ones to fix it all... Like Dodd/Frank.

These people are so morally, and intellectually bankrupt they wouldn't even recognize truth if we tattooed it across their foreheads-- they'd all complain that the words were backward in the mirror, then insist the government (read: the Taxpayers) pay for everyone to have the tattoos fixed so they can be read forward and backward..... missing the point entirely..... as usual.

I'm sick to death of the Jims of this world; they are contemptible liars and intellectual defects. It cheapens me to even have to respond to their ridiculous, lying prattle. And this sums it up perfectly.... They're quick to point out your mistakes, but will never admit to their own.

Jim May 4, 2012 at 2:22 PM  

I note that you have once again failed to show how each of the points I've made on this thread is incorrect, much less demonstrate a failed ideology. Your only response is a delusional rant aimed at de-legitimizing people who have a differing point of view.

the left can't accept responsibility for their FAILED ideology

Nicely vague so as to avoid either naming the ideology, much less how it has failed.

their failure of a president

Laughable. Sorry it's taking so long to clean up your mess.

CHANGE America in something altogether unrecognizable.

And what do you believe this "something" to be?

all along it's been the Left's policies which brought on the disaster.

Which policies would these be? You truly are either ignorant or delusional, if not both.

These people are so morally, and intellectually bankrupt they wouldn't even recognize truth if we tattooed it across their foreheads

Rant, rant, rant rant. If I could reach through the interwebs with a towel I would wipe the foam from your chin.

I'm sick to death of the Jims of this world; they are contemptible liars and intellectual defects.

Here, let me wipe that off for you. Now, here's another spoonful of applesauce. Don't worry, I'll tell the kids to get off your lawn.

It cheapens me to even have to respond to their ridiculous, lying prattle.

"Respond" implies a lot more than what you are actually doing.

They're quick to point out your mistakes, but will never admit to their own.

So this is about my daring to provide proof of Rush's lying blather, and by association yours?

Point out a mistake (a real one, not some delusional generalization about moral bankruptcy) and back it up, and I will, as I have in the past admit it. Warning: the bar is higher than you are used to.

ELAshley May 4, 2012 at 3:17 PM  

"Your only response is a delusional rant aimed at de-legitimizing people who have a differing point of view."

Pot? Meet Kettle.... You're such a hypocrite.

Jim May 4, 2012 at 4:08 PM  
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ELAshley May 4, 2012 at 5:00 PM  

And since Jim still can't spell my name correctly I'm going to spare him the embarrassment of any continued display of his vast stores of stupidity.... and delete his last comment

Jim May 4, 2012 at 6:12 PM  

Irony is certainly not dead.

Craig May 5, 2012 at 2:20 PM  

I guess from Jim's response, one must conclude that the tax rates implemented during the Bush presidency were a bad thing, but the heroic compromise that led P-BO to continue those rates was a great blessing to all involved courtesy of P-BO.

Which leaves the great central question unanswered.

When do y'all stop blaming Bush and when does P-BO become responsible for things.

Marshall Art May 5, 2012 at 4:31 PM  

Oh, I'll bite!

"They HAVE had the power to work with Democrats to find common ground and implement solutions for the benefit of the country, but they have refused to do anything that would allow President Obama to have any successes."

What this means is that to work with Dems means that Dem ideas must be implemented regardless of how crappy those ideas are. If one does not respect an idea enough to "work with" the originator of the idea, then one is somehow guilty of obstructionism. Sorry, Jim. But it doesn't work that way. Compromise must be based on having something with which to work in the first place. There must be some underlying area of agreement. If Obama's ideas suck, what do you suggest? "Working with" Obama and his cronies until the result is a policy that sucks just a bit less? How does it help the country if it still sucks, but just not as much as if Obama had his way completely?

This is the real problem: not that Republicans won't work with the Barry and the Dems, but that Barry and Dems insist on pushing through that which Republicans believe are inherently destructive to the nation. Obamacare is a prime example. That any of Obama's or Dem policies have gotten anywhere at all means that the Republicans haven't been obstructive enough.

There is this preposterous assumption that what America needs is for both parties to work together and to compromise. This is nonsense. What America needs is results. Compromise gets us a spending bill that is less than the original version, but is still spending more than last year. THAT is NOT an example of a good result. THAT kind of compromise means what we get is something that sucks less but still sucks.

And Jim still has his head up his ass in this regard:

"And since the biggest drivers of the US deficit are the Bush era tax cuts..."

These cuts led to an increase in revenues to the federal gov't. Bush's mistake was not vetoing the spending that even his party was passing in Congress. This all got worse when the Dems took control of Congress in the last two years of his second term.

But here's more...

Limbaugh is specifically referring to the last five years. At some point, whining about what came before is excuse making. How much time does one need if one has good ideas? The Dems haven't had any and never do. But...

SCOTUS does not set policy, pass spending bills or create law. The SCOTUS is not controlled by any party. The rest:

"Republicans held the presidency for 2 of the last five years.

The Republicans have controlled the House for the last 1.5 of the past 5 years.

The Republicans have had the power to stop any Senate legislation for all but about 4 months of the last 5 years."


...just confirms what Rush was saying. They were not in control for the bulk of the last five years. Even with Bush as president for 2 of the last 5, he had a Dem controlled Congress, a member of which was one Barry H. Obama. Control of the House alone is not good enough if everything passed there doesn't make it through the Senate. No party can halt anything without a majority, which usually includes members of the other party. Thus, you have not refuted anything Rush has said.

ELAshley May 5, 2012 at 5:08 PM  

Thanks for biting, Marshall. I've lost all patience with Jim and his ilk. Nicely done.

Jim May 5, 2012 at 6:07 PM  

No party can halt anything without a majority, which usually includes members of the other party.

Holy sh*t, your ignorance is astounding! You must be 17 years old and not have passed high school civics. Unless your state doesn't require it to graduate from high school.

If you don't know and understand the term filibuster, then you have no business discussing American politics. Certainly you have not followed US politics for the last 10 years or longer. And if you DO and you still have the gall to write the above, then you are blatantly disingenuous. Why is there no head of the Consumer Protection Bureau even though Democrats have a Senate Majority? Why did David Liu not get confirmed as a judicial appointment? (Democrats do it too).

When do y'all stop blaming Bush and when does P-BO become responsible for things.

When he is able to UNDO what Bush did.

What this means is that to work with Dems means that Dem ideas must be implemented regardless of how crappy those ideas are.

No, it means that give and take occurs to reach some kind of solution where everybody gets something they want. Instead, the American people get NOTHING.

There must be some underlying area of agreement.

Barry and Dems insist on pushing through that which Republicans believe are inherently destructive to the nation.

Barry who?

You mean the PPACA which is based on Republican ideas, including the mandate, backed by Republicans and conservatives for years until the Democrats wanted to pass it? Seems like "personal responsibility" would be an "underlying area of agreement."

How does it help the country if it still sucks?

Ask the seniors who are saving billions of dollars on prescriptions how much PPACA sucks. Ask the families who are able to carry their children up to 26 years old on their policies how much it sucks. Ask the people who are going to have job mobility since they can't be denied coverage for pre-existing conditions how much it sucks. I could go on and on.

These cuts led to an increase in revenues to the federal gov't.

This is false. As Bruce Bartlett, adviser to Reagan and Bush 41, notes the linked CBO report shows revenues were $2.9 Trillion (with a T) less than they otherwise would have been 2001-2011 due specifically to Bush era tax cuts.

How much time does one need if one has good ideas?

With an economic debacle of this magnitude, it may take years. And since most of the good ideas the administration has proposed have been blocked, we'll never know.

The SCOTUS is not controlled by any party.

Hmmm, really?

just confirms what Rush was saying

Not one single bit.

They were not in control for the bulk of the last five years.

You don't need to have "control" to have the power to allow things to continue on a bad course.

Since Democrats in the Senate have not had a 60 vote majority for more that about 4 months out of the last decade or more, the Democrats have not had control either.

Control of the House alone is not good enough if everything passed there doesn't make it through the Senate.

The only correct sentence in your post and proving all by yourself that Rush doesn't know WTF he's talking about.

ELAshley May 5, 2012 at 6:48 PM  

I think this latest rant by Jim proves he doesn't know what HE'S talking about...

Jim May 5, 2012 at 6:51 PM  

David Liu. I meant Goodwin Liu.

Jim May 5, 2012 at 6:59 PM  

You're such coward, Ella. That is no rant. It is arguments backed up by fact. A concept you are clearly either unfamiliar with or unable produce.

In this entire thread you haven't even tried to produce one fact to refute anything I've said. The only fact you've offered is that Rush actually said the quote you've reproduced here.

All you can do is throw mud at me and hope your friends will think it sticks. Oh, and delete my comments.

At least Marshall and even Craig tried. You are such a coward.

ELAshley May 5, 2012 at 7:30 PM  

At least I know how to spell your name, Jim.

You can call me whatever you want, but that doesn't change the fact that you are petty, ignorant, and the worse kind of hypocrite. You accuse us of all manner of intellectual derelictions and yet you commit the very same with every comment. All you know how to do is parrot whatever the morons on MSNBC and CNN say. You've yet to demonstrate a single independent original thought. So you get angry when we don't agree with you-- with me particularly --mocking us with playground tactics... Go ahead, call me Ella. If that's all you got, go for it. It won't make you any less of a sophomoric crybaby.

A real coward is one who refuses to think for himself. And that's you all over.

Jim May 5, 2012 at 8:04 PM  

A coward AND sensitive. You didn't have any problem referring to ME with a "nickname" of your own choosing did you? You didn't even delete yours or Al's comments to save yourselves embarrassment, you hypocrite.

you commit the very same with every comment.

So far you have yet to name one. Just one. Anything?

All you know how to do is parrot whatever the morons on MSNBC and CNN say. I watch Fox five nights a week. I have many sources other than MSNBC. Furthermore, unlike you, I actually do research instead of merely relying on what I see on TV or read on blogs. More than I can say about you.

You've yet to demonstrate a single independent original thought.

See if you can find anything on the web or MSNBC or CNN (which I rarely watch) regarding the filibuster and learning civics before graduating high school.

Which thought of yours on this thread was independent or original?

So you get angry when we don't agree with you

Angry? Where? You're the one deleting comments.

It won't make you any less of a sophomoric crybaby.

To quote ELAshley, "Pot? Meet Kettle." Not really an original thought, though. I'm not the crybaby that deleted a post.

A real coward is one who refuses to think for himself.

Hard to answer such nonsense. But I can think for myself well enough to find the sources that refute your point. That's kind of what facts are all about. You have not presented ONE SINGLE FACT on this thread. At least Marshall and Craig tried.

Marshall Art May 5, 2012 at 11:56 PM  

You'll have to excuse me, but I keep forgetting I need to spell things out more clearly because lefties will muddy the waters. But of course I'm aware of filibusters. I'm also aware of cloture votes to overcome them. But filibusters are useful for denying crappy ideas from being rammed through, and they are a great way to have the House take more care in crafting legislation that will eventually be dealt with in the Senate. In any case, the point was that, assuming an idea has some degree of merit, the opposition party in minority would have to persuade members of the majority to overcome the idea. So...

...going back to Rush...

if the Dems had plans with merit, they could not be overcome by simple obstruction since not every Republican acts strictly to obstruct (assuming there are any at all who do). Thus, if ideas or proposals by Barry or the Dems are seen as beneficial for the nation, there would be no obstruction that wouldn't be easily overcome.

YOU, Jim, seem to think that merely because the Dems suggest something, that the GOP needs to work with them to implement the proposal, as if it is their job to merely reduce the smell of whatever pile of shit is proposed. Indeed, there have usually been some from the right willing to do this. But lately, there have been people elected to Congress for the purpose of denying any trace of shit be forced upon the nation. I like this. Yet before that time came (the last midterms), Barry & Co had plenty of opportunity to, if not "fix the mess", at least do something to turn the crappy economic numbers around; numbers they and spendaholics from the GOP helped to bring about.

And it is helpful and honest to remember that the GOP can't filibuster the presentation of a budget, and the Dems don't even come up with one. Rush is right.

So the idea that the Dems can be thwarted by means of filibuster doesn't have anything to do with their inability to turn anything around. The GOP doesn't want Obama to fail just because he's a Democrat. They want him to fail because his ideas are crap and detrimental. The GOP couldn't get every Republican Congressman and Senator to block good ideas, regardless of who came up with them.

"No, it means that give and take occurs to reach some kind of solution where everybody gets something they want. Instead, the American people get NOTHING."

This is what losers do. Winners deal only with good ideas. "Give and take" still requires both sides to be working to put forth sound policies. When one side is working toward a socialist-style solution while the other is properly thinking in terms of market based solutions, there can be no compromise, no give and take, except that one side forsakes their principles in favor of the other. I don't want my representatives giving an inch toward Dem ideas that lead to Greece, because then the American people will get nothing for generations.

But your first mistake is in believing that the American people should be getting anything in the first place. All we need is for the federal gov't to get the hell out of the way. These are the fools who f'd things up and you want to "compromise" with them.

"You mean the PPACA which is based on Republican ideas..."

I've heard this for awhile, but I'm not aware of the original idea. I would wager it looks nothing like Barry-care except in the most superficial way. More to the point, I don't care who came up with it, it sucks. We don't need it. We need to remove all those things that led to the increase in health care costs, not add to it with more legislative crap. What's more, I would never deny that sometimes a Republican or two will think gov't can help. Newt suffers from this delusion at times. So that argument is worthless.

Jim May 6, 2012 at 12:42 AM  

I keep forgetting I need to spell things out more clearly.

You don't have to spell things out. You need to write English that makes sense. Case in point. What does this mean?

In any case, the point was that, assuming an idea has some degree of merit, the opposition party in minority would have to persuade members of the majority to overcome the idea.

Closest I can can figure:

the opposition party in minority would have to persuade members of the majority to overcome the idea.

Still not true. The "opposition party in minority", currently 47, needs NO majority members to "overcome" an idea since only 41 votes are necessary to deny cloture. Go back and read your book.

if the Dems had plans with merit, they could not be overcome by simple obstruction since not every Republican acts strictly to obstruct

Do you read papers, watch the news or read anything beside Thomas Sowell on the internet? How many republicans voted for the stimulus? How many for PPACA? The Republicans have voted nearly 100% as a block against any Obama legislation.

Thus, if ideas or proposals by Barry or the Dems are seen as beneficial for the nation, there would be no obstruction that wouldn't be easily overcome.

Who is Barry?

Some ideas are seen as beneficial, but they are also seen as possible successes for Obama, so Republicans vote as a block to obstruct.

YOU, Jim, seem to think that merely because the Dems suggest something, that the GOP needs to work with them to implement the proposal,

Absurd. I expect the GOP needs to give a little to get a little and get something accomplished that will help the country. YOU, on the other hand "seem" (there's that word again) that the Dems have no ideas that would benefit the country. If that's your position, then I don't understand why you are living in a country with a history of a two party system which has been able to compromise and get things done for over two hundred years.

Barry & Co had plenty of opportunity to, if not "fix the mess"

Barry who?

The Democrats had a filibuster-proof Senate for 4 months. See cloture above. During that time, they managed to pass PPACA in the Senate.

The GOP can't filibuster the presentation of a budget.

A phony issue since budgets are "resolutions" and not law. Spending and revenues are determined by the Appropriations Committees in both houses. There have been many years over a number of administrations that the Senate has not "passed" a "budget".

The GOP couldn't get every Republican Congressman and Senator to block good ideas

Again, you are apparently unaware of current events.

This is what losers do. Winners deal only with good ideas.

In that case, Reagan was one of the biggest losers of all time.

When one side is working toward a socialist-style solution

I have asked over and over again, what "socialist-style solutions"?

I don't want my representatives giving an inch toward Dem ideas

Then you can watch the country do nothing and go down the tubes and feel some degree of self-satisfaction.

All we need is for the federal gov't to get the hell out of the way.

Thank you Dan'l Boone.

Marshall Art May 6, 2012 at 1:44 AM  

"This is false."

No. It is NOT false. Just because you've got one guy who thinks revenues could have been higher (one can't say "would have" without having a parallel universe by which to compare), that does not change the fact that revenues to the federal government increased, particularly after the 2003 cuts. IRS numbers clearly showed an increase.

"With an economic debacle of this magnitude, it may take years."

Years more than it should were it not for the actions of Barry Obumble and the Dems. From the time that he joined in after the 2006 mid-terms, through his unfortunate presidential election up to the 2010 mid-terms, they totally accelerated the economic descent. CBO numbers have been presented numerous times to point out this fact.

"And since most of the good ideas the administration has proposed have been blocked, we'll never know."

What good ideas? Got any examples of "good ideas" proposed by Barry and the Dems that had any hope of making things better fiscally? I can't wait to see them!

"
The SCOTUS is not controlled by any party.

Hmmm, really?"


Yeah. Really. Once they are confirmed, they belong to no one and no one can truly threaten them without putting their own political lives in jeopardy. Impeaching justices ain't no cake walk.

"You don't need to have "control" to have the power to allow things to continue on a bad course."

This again assumes that the GOP is blocking good ideas that could alter the course in a positive direction. This assumes that the GOP hasn't had ideas of their own that were not allowed to see the light of day. The GOP isn't likely to "allow things to continue on a bad course" when pushing to improve things would reflect well on them. Again, you'll have to provide examples of good ideas that the GOP blocked the prevented a positive course correction. You'll have to provide an example of ANY idea that the Dems imagined.

"Since Democrats in the Senate have not had a 60 vote majority for more that about 4 months out of the last decade or more, the Democrats have not had control either."

They had four years of total control (2006-2010) and still haven't come up with a budget. (Barry came up with one his own party didn't like) You have to pretend that all Republicans are so devoted to obstructing that they would risk the nation to obstruct a good idea. That's a typical lib mindset that is a steaming pile.

Marshall Art May 6, 2012 at 2:03 AM  

"Still not true. The "opposition party in minority", currently 47, needs NO majority members to "overcome" an idea since only 41 votes are necessary to deny cloture"

I wasn't talking about "currently". I was talking about when they had their 60. But even now, if all they need is 41 to deny cloture, that would still entail convincing enough people to do so. IF the GOP is voting as a block, then it is because as a block, they believe the Dem proposals are crap. But worse, in typical lib fashion (and something I meant to reference earlier), you assume it is the GOP that is doing all the stubborn stuff and only the angelic Dems are bending over backwards to "give and take". This is bullshit. There was no "give and take" over Obamacare. They rammed it through.

"I don't want my representatives giving an inch toward Dem ideas

Then you can watch the country do nothing and go down the tubes and feel some degree of self-satisfaction."


Not at all. But it's going down the tubes BECAUSE of our current president and the Dems who support him. Blocking them is the only thing that can be done until enough better people are in Congress and the White House.

I noticed you have not provided any examples of those good ideas by Barry or the Dems. (Hint: Obamacare isn't one of them.)

Jim May 6, 2012 at 4:24 PM  

Just because you've got one guy who thinks revenues could have been higher.

I don't have one guy "who thinks", I have the CBO which flatly STATES that revenues decreased NOT increased by the tax cuts. Where are you "IRS numbers"? And how does what they may have said prove any increase was due to lower taxes? Post Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc?

they totally accelerated the economic descent.

You have some source for this?

I can't wait to see them

Larger Stimulus, American Jobs Act. H.R. 2142 – Government Efficiency, Effectiveness, and Performance Improvement Act, H.R. 2352 – Job Creation Through Entrepreneurship Act, H.R. 2510 – Absentee Ballot Track, Receive and Confirm Act, H.R. 2868 – Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Act of 2009, Drinking Water System Security Act of 2009 and Wastewater Treatment Works Security Act of 2009.

This again assumes that the GOP is blocking good ideas that could alter the course in a positive direction.

See above.

Again, you'll have to provide examples of good ideas that the GOP blocked the prevented a positive course correction.

See above.

You'll have to provide an example of ANY idea that the Dems imagined.

See above.

They had four years of total control (2006-2010)

No. They. Did. Not!!

The ignorance of this claim is beyond absurd. Republican majorities in both houses in 2006. Republican president with veto power 2006-2008 and Republican cloture proof Senate 2007-2009. Democratic filibuster-proof Senate ONLY from July-August 2009 and October 2009 through January 2010 (five months total).

NOBODY has passed a budget in YEARS. How does the country function? It functions because a budget is a budget. Revenues and spending is determined through appropriations which are ongoing.

You have to pretend that all Republicans are so devoted to obstructing that they would risk the nation to obstruct a good idea.

Pretending is not required. Any person who has been breathing for the past 3+ years knows that the Republicans are perfectly willing to risk the nation to obstruct. See McConnell's "our number one priority" statement. See the debt limit showdown of 2011.

Jim May 6, 2012 at 4:38 PM  

I wasn't talking about "currently". I was talking about when they had their 60.

They had their 60 for 5 months (of which at least one month was during recesses).

But even now, if all they need is 41 to deny cloture, that would still entail convincing enough people to do so.

The only people they could possibly have to convince are Snowe and Collins.

IF the GOP is voting as a block, then it is because as a block, they believe the Dem proposals are crap.

No, it is because they do not want Obama or the Democrats to claim a success.

you assume it is the GOP that is doing all the stubborn stuff and only the angelic Dems are bending over backwards to "give and take". This is bullshit. There was no "give and take" over Obamacare. They rammed it through.

That's why we have a public option, right? That's why we have coverage for living will consultations, right?

I noticed you have not provided any examples of those good ideas

See above. And I would include Obamacares, which is basically republican ideas.

Marshall Art May 8, 2012 at 12:28 AM  

"No, it is because they do not want Obama or the Democrats to claim a success."

This type of foolishness demands evidence. Which Republicans have stated that they would vote against a good idea for the specific reason of it having been put forth by Obama or a Democrat. This is idiotic. The Dems are opposed BECAUSE of their bad ideas, not because they are merely the opposition party. If their ideas were good, there would be no opposition to them. DEMOCRATS might think this way, but you'll need to provide evidence that Republicans do to put forth that crap.

"I noticed you have not provided any examples of those good ideas

See above. And I would include Obamacares, which is basically republican ideas."


You have put forth ideas. Each will need a thorough review to determine if they are "good" ideas. Simply listing things that Dems have pushed does not constitute "good ideas".

Jim May 8, 2012 at 12:36 PM  

This type of foolishness demands evidence.

Did you just step into the world of politics yesterday? McConnell, Boehner, Bachmann, et al have publicly stated that their number one priority is to deny Obama a second term. They have voted en masse against almost every Obama proposal even when they have agreed to the elements of the proposal in the past. They have withheld approval of his nominations specifically to keep new laws from being put into effect.

Which Republicans have stated that they would vote against a good idea for the specific reason of it having been put forth by Obama or a Democrat.

Asking this question is idiotic. The Republican record speaks for itself.

If their ideas were good, there would be no opposition to them.

Horse manure! You think it's a bad idea to improve government efficiency and effectiveness (H.R. 2142)? To create jobs by encouraging entrepreneurship (H.R. 2352)? Track absentee ballots (H.R. 2510)? Improve security against terror attacks for our chemical facilities (H.R. 2868)? Improve the security against terror attacks for our drinking water systems and waste water systems (H.R. 2868)?

Each will need a thorough review to determine if they are "good" ideas.

Are you the arbiter of "good" ideas? Or are only Republicans empowered to decide what is or is not a good idea?

What foolishness!

Marshall Art May 8, 2012 at 2:12 PM  

"McConnell, Boehner, Bachmann, et al have publicly stated that their number one priority is to deny Obama a second term."

Because of Obama's politics, which are comprised of ideas and proposals that are crappy and bad for the nation. But you do realize, don't you (apparently not), that no politician will take a chance of being seen as having opposed a good idea, particularly one that has borne nothing but good fruit? But the overwhelming leftist direction that Obama seeks to take this nation is worthy of efforts to prevent a second term. That there may be one or two decent ideas to emerge along the way is irrelevant to that effort. And whether or not Barry and the boys have come up with any remains to be seen.

In addition, that "elements" of proposals might be such that a Republican would otherwise support it, to support a bad bill simply because a few "elements" are worthy is what fools do. One is still left with a bad bill and all the negative effects of that bill. To you, that's compromise. To thoughtful, rational and intelligent people, that's stupidity.

The same is true with Barry's nominations. If the nominated person moves in the same direction as Barry, why the hell would a sane person approve of the nomination? It would be self-defeating to NOT withhold approval if the result would be bad legislation or bad court decisions.

"Asking this question is idiotic. The Republican record speaks for itself."

Yes it does. And thus far, you haven't shown that they've negated anything simply for being proposed by Barry or other Dems. Indeed, some have sat out elections in order to allow the very things the GOP has opposed, so that the negative effects of leftist ideas can be felt by the nation. This idea (a poor one) hopes that the nation will then have learned its lesson regarding electing people like Barry Obummer. Do you suggest the GOP does the same thing when they have the ability to thwart bad proposals? Nonsense.

"You think it's a bad idea to improve government efficiency and effectiveness (H.R. 2142)?"

Just because a bill claims to work toward a specific goal doesn't mean that it will meet that goal or do so in a manner that doesn't result in other negative consequences. You seem to think these bills are all good ideas based on what? They're names and what they claim to do? You might be a "pass it to see what's in it" type of fool, but some of us want more before we pass judgement on an idea.

"Are you the arbiter of "good" ideas?"

Yes I am, just as any citizen who must live under a law is.

"Or are only Republicans empowered to decide what is or is not a good idea?"

Empowered? No. Intelligent enough to know crap when it is presented? Absolutely. We didn't vote for Obama, you know. His election is a prime example of the difference between the two camps. Obama used meaningless rhetoric to wage his campaign (as he is doing now) and Dem voters ate it up without doing any serious vetting at all. This is how Dems work. Say nice things and the sheep will follow, never looking to see what the details might portend. They support Obamacare on the promises put forth. The right demanded to see the damned bill before it was rammed through.

Foolishness is pretending you even know how to determine what a good idea is.

Jim May 8, 2012 at 4:52 PM  

Because of Obama's politics, which are comprised of ideas and proposals that are crappy and bad for the nation.

Which ones? Come on now, I gave you examples.

But you do realize, don't you (apparently not), that no politician will take a chance of being seen as having opposed a good idea

This is 1) moot because odds are most people would never be aware that this has happened (you don't), and 2) moot because no Republican will ever lose a vote for opposing Obama.

But the overwhelming leftist direction that Obama seeks to take this nation

Please expound. What specifically has he done that suggests an "overwhelming leftist direction"? Come on now, details.

To thoughtful, rational and intelligent people, that's stupidity.

No, stupidity is sacrificing the good in search of perfection.

If the nominated person moves in the same direction as Barry, why the hell would a sane person approve of the nomination?

Barry? Who is Barry?

The president will always appoint people with his vision. That's the way it was written in the Constitution. That's the way it has always been. That's why we have John Roberts and Samuel Alito. You only accept an Obama nomination if he nominates Clarence Jr.?

Do you suggest the GOP does the same thing when they have the ability to thwart bad proposals?

What bad proposals?

Intelligent enough to know crap when it is presented?

Which?

never looking to see what the details might portend.

What details? That Obama wasn't vetted is Republican horse sh*t. There is nothing known now about Obama's record and agenda that wasn't known during the campaign.

The right demanded to see the damned bill before it was rammed through.

The bill was available for months and months. A few details were negotiated just prior to final passage, but the final bill was passed by the Senate almost four months before the House passed it. Sorry the Republicans didn't ask their staffs to take a copy home over Christmas vacation to read it. Don't tell me they didn't read it. If they didn't, they were derelict in their duty.

What was McCain's campaign? "I can't walk and chew gum at the same time?"

Post a Comment

Your First Amendment right to free speech is a privilege and comes with a measure of responsibility. You have the right to exercise that responsibility here but we reserve the right to inform you when you've used that right irresponsibly.

We are benevolent dictators in this regard. Enjoy.

Barry Obama : The Young Turk


Young Turk:
Date: 1908
Function: noun
Etymology: Young Turks, a 20th century revolutionary party in Turkey
:an insurgent or a member of an insurgent group especially in a political party : radical; broadly
:one advocating changes within a usually established group.





Photos: 1980 Taken by, Lisa Jack / M+B Gallery

Labels

"House Negro" "No One Messes with Joe" "O" "The One" 08-Election 1984 2009 Inaugural 2012 Election 9/11 abortion abortionists Air Obama Al Franken Al Gore Al-Qaeda American Youth Americarcare Assassination Scenario Atheism Barry O Bi-Partisanship Biden Billary Birth Certificate Border Security Bush Bush Legacy Change Change-NOT child-killers Christians Christmas Civilian Defense Force Clinton Code Pink Congress Conservatism Constitution Creation Darwin Del McCoury Democrat Hypocrisy Democrats Dick Morris Dr. Tiller Dubya Earth Day Elian Gonzalez Ends Justify Means Evil Evolution Evolution-Devolution Failure in Chief Fairness Doctrine Feodork Foreign Relations Free Speech Frogs Fuck America - Obama Has Gates George Orwell Gestapo Global Cooling Global Idiots Global Warmong God GOP Descent Graphic Design Great American Tea Party Gun-Control Guns hackers Harry Reid hate haters Heath Care Heretic Hillary Howard Dean Hussein ident in History identity theft Illegal Immigration Iraq Jackboots Jesus Jihadist-Lover Jimmy Carter Joe Biden Jon Stewart Kanye West Karl Rove Katrina Las Vegas Left-Wing Media Leftists Liar Liberal Media liberal tactics Liberals Liberty Lying Media Marriage Penalty Martyr Marxism McCain Media MSNBC/Obama Administration murderers Norm Coleman Obama Obama 2012 Obama Administration Obama Dicatorship Obama Lies Obama Wars Obama's Army Obamacare Obamists Olympia Snowe Partisanship perversion Piracy Police State Political Hell Political Left Populist Rage Pragmatist Prayer Proof of Citizenship Proposition 8 Racism Regime Change Revolution Ronald Reagan Rush Limbaugh Second Amendment Separation of Powers Slavery Socialist Government Tea-Bagging Tea-Parties terrorists The Raw Deal Thuggery Tom Tancredo Traitors War Criminal War on Weather War-Crimes Worst President in History

  © Blogger template Werd by Ourblogtemplates.com 2009

Back to TOP