Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

We're just obstructionists. On the positive there's hope yet. I'm ready that full 8 gun sections of 25 pounders in FOW are far more efficacious than I had realized. When combined with Air observation at least in V2 you had multiple re-rolls. I shall have to check this out further as I am facing Sherman Jumbasy Eight crackheads to the left of me and King Tiger methusers to the right of me. How are my valiant free Poles to survive?

biccat wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:You answered your own question. It's likely they realized that it couldn't be passed through the house and congress and weren't looking to get into another ugly budget slap fight before a new election cycle that could deliver them majorities. If the republicans have already vowed to vote it down and have proven their willingness to do so and unwillingness to debate or be reconciliatory than whats the point?

Republicans vote against something: Republican obstructionism.
Democrats vote against something: Republican obstructionism.

Boy, Frazzled and I are sure jumping through hoops on this one.

Republicans vote against something: Republican obstructionism.
Republicans don't get to vote against something so they rewrite it and then put it to a vote and then vote against it: Probably part of a spell used to summon Cthulu.

There is probably a point where the hoop becomes so large that you can't even see it anymore. I think part of the hoop just collided with the moon.

You're playing Poles in a WWII tabletop game? I've got some bad news Frazzled...

The first time I played Diplomacy I got to play Austria. I was initially optimistic as well.

Frazzled wrote:Yep. I'm tired of the partisan hacks.

One of our Senators is Coburn. He is pretty far on the right on every issue, very conservative, and I think just a bit crazy. I have never voted for him. But in my opinion he has two things going for him:

He keeps his word. He told everyone he would term limit himself in the house, and he did. He also ran on a zero earmarks platform, and he has not requested any for Oklahoma.

He knows that compromise is needed. He is pretty much ultra-conservative and doesn't agree with democrats on most issues. But he knows that sometimes to get what you want you have to give in return. He also got attacked for actually being nice to President Obama, and stated that just because he disagrees with him on just about everything does not mean he needs to be disagreeable and that he will respect the president and keep the dialog open.

I still think he is a conservative nut job (although not as bad as Inhofe), but I respect him for his willingness to compromise and get stuff done.

biccat wrote:You're playing Poles in a WWII tabletop game? I've got some bad news Frazzled...

The first time I played Diplomacy I got to play Austria. I was initially optimistic as well.

Free Poles Baby 1st freeking British trained Armored Division. Fireflies, 25 pounders, and right proper Enfields Oh my!

Frazzled wrote:The Republicans submitted the President's budget to a vote in the Democratically controlled Senate. It got killed. The point is efectivewly no member of Congress voted for the President's budget. I'm not sure if that has ever occurred before.

Its debatable whether or not it was Obama's budget, but without seeing the two proposals (Obama's original, and what the Republicans proposed) we can't know for sure.

I suspect, seeing as Obama's formal proposal is being voted on today (the 16th) that either the budget was materially different in its language (it would almost have to be if it were significantly shorter), Democrats voted against it because it was a Republican budget, or the proposal has little support from Democrats because it is either too large a budget or too small for Dem Senators.

LordofHats wrote:EDIT: Though this raises the question for me; To what extent is Obama supported by his own party?

Obama is criticised by the democrats for trying to compromise with the Republicans too much, while the Republicans criticize him because they like to move the goalposts whenever he tries to compromise with them.

I don't mean that. I remember back during the Health Car debate that some Democrates were upset with him cause he was 'forcing' them to make a vote on the issue, which for some of them could be politically disastrous.

So, is this more of that maybe?

That's what I wonder.

LordofHats wrote:I don't mean that. I remember back during the Health Car debate that some Democrates were upset with him cause he was 'forcing' them to make a vote on the issue, which for some of them could be politically disastrous.

So, is this more of that maybe?

That's what I wonder.

Unlikely, it's too unified. Were it actually a legitimate vote on a bill that wasn't going to be put to vote unaltered shortly anyway there would be a much more mixed set of votes.

LordofHats wrote:I don't mean that. I remember back during the Health Car debate that some Democrates were upset with him cause he was 'forcing' them to make a vote on the issue, which for some of them could be politically disastrous.

So, is this more of that maybe?

That's what I wonder.

Of course the question should be "is this good for the country" and not "is this good for me politically".

I wish I could put off doing my job and still get paid. Would be great.

As an outsider, why would the president try to pass a bill if there was litererally 0 support for it? Would he not at least get a feel for what could pass and what couldn't? How can every single representative be against something, yet he still tried to pass it?

He didn't try to pass it. It wasn't his budget and he didn't push that particular piece of legislation.

Thus why Fraz got accused of outright lying.

Joey wrote:As an outsider, why would the president try to pass a bill if there was litererally 0 support for it? Would he not at least get a feel for what could pass and what couldn't? How can every single representative be against something, yet he still tried to pass it?

The President did not support the bill. His officer merely produces a budget, there is no impetus on the White House to present it as a bill or support it afterwards. Really the House creates the budgets...which they have failed to do for some time.

The Washington Times? Seriously? Guys do you not realize this is a tabloid newspaper? While I agree that Congress and the Senate are in a total mess right now....

biccat wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:You answered your own question. It's likely they realized that it couldn't be passed through the house and congress and weren't looking to get into another ugly budget slap fight before a new election cycle that could deliver them majorities. If the republicans have already vowed to vote it down and have proven their willingness to do so and unwillingness to debate or be reconciliatory than whats the point?

Republicans vote against something: Republican obstructionism.
Democrats vote against something: Republican obstructionism.

Boy, Frazzled and I are sure jumping through hoops on this one.

You make a cute couple...

CT GAMER wrote:

biccat wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:You answered your own question. It's likely they realized that it couldn't be passed through the house and congress and weren't looking to get into another ugly budget slap fight before a new election cycle that could deliver them majorities. If the republicans have already vowed to vote it down and have proven their willingness to do so and unwillingness to debate or be reconciliatory than whats the point?

Republicans vote against something: Republican obstructionism.
Democrats vote against something: Republican obstructionism.

Boy, Frazzled and I are sure jumping through hoops on this one.

You make a cute couple...

Oh stop you.

I would write "For Feths sake it's a Tabloid newspaper" 30 times but I don't have the time.

Worth noting, the Washington Times is a very conservative paper owned by Rev Moon's Unificiation Church.

Not the place I'd look for for news.

Kid_Kyoto wrote:Worth noting, the Washington Times is a very conservative paper owned by Rev Moon's Unificiation Church.

Not the place I'd look for for news.

Even if your a crazy person and the voices tell you to read it?

Kid_Kyoto wrote:Worth noting, the Washington Times is a very conservative paper owned by Rev Moon's Unificiation Church.

Not the place I'd look for for news.

Thank you

It's like getting your political education from the Daily Mail.

d-usa wrote:It's like getting your political education from the Daily Mail.

Worse than that actually, it's like getting religious advice from that raving homeless man on the side of the street.

Funny to laugh at, but scary when people actually buy into it.

@ Frazzled

Here's how much attention the WaPo gave it (not that the Washington Post is that great these days either but still...)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/rand-pauls-cynical-budget/2012/05/16/gIQAmyogUU_story.html

Republicans were able to bring several budgets to a vote Wednesday (they mockingly offered a version of Obama’s budget), and all went down.

One line.

In parhenthesis.

He may get a second term, so there's still hope that one day we will all live the American gangsta dream!

Kid_Kyoto wrote:Here's how much attention the WaPo gave it (not that the Washington Post is that great these days either but still...)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/rand-pauls-cynical-budget/2012/05/16/gIQAmyogUU_story.html

Republicans were able to bring several budgets to a vote Wednesday (they mockingly offered a version of Obama’s budget), and all went down.

One line.

In parhenthesis.

This forum is like a tiny microcosm of everything wrong with American politics at times.

rubiksnoob wrote:He may get a second term, so there's still hope that one day we will all live the American gangsta dream!

Is this intended to be representative of excess inflation?

Amaya wrote:

rubiksnoob wrote:He may get a second term, so there's still hope that one day we will all live the American gangsta dream!

Is this intended to be representative of excess inflation?

Inflation rates in america have stayed pretty flat since the recession. For a little while we actually deflated.

It was a joke...

Amaya wrote:It was a joke...

Given how this thread started it's impossible to tell anymore.