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.

Are we seriously trying to equate the lack of compromise on both sides? Really?

biccat wrote:
Wait, so the health care bill isn't novel enough? It's simply an improvement over what existed before? (and, I'll note while I'm here, unconstitutional).

You're picking sides and declaring which side should 'compromise' in order to get your preferred result. There's nothing wrong with that, but claiming that Republicans are wrong because they refuse to compromise while Democrats are right because they refused to compromise smacks of hypocricy.

Sigh Frazz


Yawn, wake me when it gets to the Supreme Court.

Sigh, both sides should compromise more, not for my preferred result, but for a better result. Unfortunately this is how it seems to usually go

And after the search it took me to find this damn cartoon, you guys have fun.

In the end, they are all mostly self-serving politician donkey-caves, other than a faint glimmer of looking out for 'regular people/peons' every once in a while, I'm sure they are far more concerned with their political future/business-corporate donors.

CT GAMER wrote:

lord commissar klimino wrote:

ineptus astartes wrote:wow, the country is going down the tubes.

understatement. just watch,were going to get invaded within 10-20 years. that or are economy is going to completely collapse and were gonna be forced to split into smaller countries...wait,id be ok with that.

Is this before or after the apes rise up claim the earth? Will Jesus come riding back on a dinosaur to save us? So much crazy, so little time...

WDWJR baby! (what dino would Jesus ride?) I hope there are a lot of coconuts for the TRexes are it might get prickly...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

daedalus-templarius wrote:

biccat wrote:
Wait, so the health care bill isn't novel enough? It's simply an improvement over what existed before? (and, I'll note while I'm here, unconstitutional).

You're picking sides and declaring which side should 'compromise' in order to get your preferred result. There's nothing wrong with that, but claiming that Republicans are wrong because they refuse to compromise while Democrats are right because they refused to compromise smacks of hypocricy.

Sigh Frazz


Yawn, wake me when it gets to the Supreme Court.

Sigh, both sides should compromise more, not for my preferred result, but for a better result. Unfortunately this is how it seems to usually go

And after the search it took me to find this damn cartoon, you guys have fun.

Cartoons are . Obama did not put forth a plan. Obama did put forth a request for a clean bill which was killed mightily by both houses. Obama has not put forth a revised budget since the horror show earlier in the year which also was not approved (not sure it was even taken up) by his own Democrat controlled Senate.

He tried to make a 4T plan with Bohner, which Bohner walked away from since it closed corporate loopholes and MIGHT have increased taxes on the top 1%.

But cry about cartoons some more, its cute

Just a friendly reminder. Let's all be civil. I see where this is going...

Happygrunt wrote:Just a friendly reminder. Let's all be civil. I see where this is going...

A couple of key facts:

1. This is a political discussion

2. We are on "the interwebz"

3. This is Dakka Dakka (with a cast of OT regulars who haunt these types of threads churning out the same biased/entrenched talking points time after time)

You could see where this was going as soon as the OP's post appeared.

But then we all secretly (and for some of us not so secretly) know and enjoy that fact.

My advice: sit back with some popcorn and enjoy the show, if it ends abruptly another one will start up in a matter of hours...

Happygrunt wrote:Just a friendly reminder. Let's all be civil. I see where this is going...

Good point. I shall eat some Doritoes and remain civil.

You'll all be happy to note that TBone the Yoda of wiener dogs has fully recovered and is back to his ball retrieving self.


And if you're not happy to note that then I'd advise staying away from unmarked vans in the near term. The dread "800 dachshund ambush" is a terrible thing to behold.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

daedalus-templarius wrote:He tried to make a 4T plan with Bohner, which Bohner walked away from since it closed corporate loopholes and MIGHT have increased taxes on the top 1%.

But cry about cartoons some more, its cute

I didn't say they weren't funny.

Frazzled wrote: The dread "800 dachshund ambush" is a terrible thing to behold.

The Horror...

CT GAMER wrote:A couple of key facts:

1. This is a political discussion

2. We are on "the interwebz"

3. This is Dakka Dakka (with a cast of OT regulars who haunt these types of threads churning out the same biased/entrenched talking points time after time)

You could see where this was going as soon as the OP's post appeared.

But then we all secretly (and for some of us not so secretly) know and enjoy that fact.

I realized on my way driving home, why do I even try sometimes. I believe I've come to this conclusion before during other "political debates" here.

Frazzled wrote:

I didn't say they weren't funny.

Oh well then, carry on weiner-loving-friend.

Ouze wrote:
I understand that Obama's numbers are quite poor, and are on the low end of what would normally win an election. Do you understand that, while Obama is tied with Generic Republican, that Generic Republican is not running, and that it will be a choice between Obama and one of the specific people above?

They actually aren't. A year out from the 1996 Presidential election Clinton was polling between 46-50% approval, a year out from the 1984 election Regan was polling between 44-47%. Bush consistently posted numbers higher than 50% one year before 2004, but only just barely. Its also worth noting that all incumbents saw significant increases in their numbers as the campaign progressed (except, oddly enough, the younger Bush who entered with the strongest numbers), even the elder Bush. Hell, even Carter got a significant boost, and he, like Bush, was well below 35%.

The problem with polling is that you can't simply look at the percentages offered and draw a conclusion based on the raw data. You also have to know something about the history of polling relative to electoral outcomes, and the way methodology impacts results. There's a reason that political campaigns have polling consultants.

Frazzled wrote:
Since the House has passed multiple budgets, had passed multiple bills cncerning the debt and none of them were approved by the Senate, since the Senate hasn't put forth a budget, since the President hasn't put forth a budget passable by his own party, who's the one with no middle ground?

As I understand the argument here, the Republican controlled House can be shown to be willing to compromise because they passed a budget, while the Democrat controlled Senate is shown to be unwilling to compromise because they did not pass those same budgets. This is then being seen as a willingness of the Republicans to compromise, being as they were able to pass a budget in the house they controlled, but the Democrats are unwilling to compromise because they would not pass the same budgets in the house they controlled.

This seems like a strange argument, and the idea that the budget put forth by Obama was not passable by his own party seems all the stranger, since any such bill would have to originate in the Republican controlled House; indicating that a House Democrat would have to propose it in his name there.

Frazzled wrote:
You're right. But being that the Senate didn't take them up, didn't pass anything. and Obama didn't proposeanything. its defenders need to seriously STFU.

No they don't, in fact they shouldn't, that would mean giving in to the browbeating you're displaying here.

In any case, it seems like you're confused. You stated that Obama has proposed nothing, and that he has proposed at least one bill which his party could not pass; these are mutually exclusive. Additionally, if we carry your metaphor from partisan control above, the unwillingness of the Senate to pass a bill does not necessarily mean that the Senate refuses to compromise, it might also mean that the House failed to submit a bill they could agree on.

biccat wrote:Wait, so the health care bill isn't novel enough? It's simply an improvement over what existed before? (and, I'll note while I'm here, unconstitutional).

What actually happened was substantially different then your summary, in fact, the entire law was ruled constitutional, overriding a previous decision which threw out the whole thing, which the sole exception of the individual mandate element. All of which is largely moot until it hits the Supreme Court.

dogma wrote:This seems like a strange argument, and the idea that the budget put forth by Obama was not passable by his own party seems all the stranger, since any such bill would have to originate in the Republican controlled House; indicating that a House Democrat would have to propose it in his name there.

This seems like a strange argument (bipartisanship at work, btw).

Also, the Senate can take any bill that has originated in the House and amend the whole thing to contain whatever they want, then send it back.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ouze wrote:

biccat wrote:Wait, so the health care bill isn't novel enough? It's simply an improvement over what existed before? (and, I'll note while I'm here, unconstitutional).

What actually happened was substantially different then your summary, in fact, the entire law was ruled constitutional, overriding a previous decision which threw out the whole thing, which the sole exception of the individual mandate element. All of which is largely moot until it hits the Supreme Court.

Laws aren't ruled constitutional. They're either within the constitutional power of Congress or they're ruled unconstitutional.

Also, I think the Supremes will reinstate the lower court's argument against severability. The legislative (and political) history on that particular point is pretty clear.

biccat wrote:
This seems like a strange argument (bipartisanship at work, btw).

Democratic aides said ahead of the vote that the Democratic caucus would not support the plan because it has been supplanted by the deficit-reduction plan Obama outlined at a speech at George Washington University in April.

Source.

The budget that was rejected was put forward in February, by the way.

biccat wrote:
Also, the Senate can take any bill that has originated in the House and amend the whole thing to contain whatever they want, then send it back.

That isn't true of any bill which contains provisions regarding either specific or general appropriations, as they are subject to the Senate's germaneness rules (in fact, that's one of the few things that is). All budget bills that have been discussed in this year have contained such provisions, at the very least as regards budget cuts. In fact, that's why it was necessary for Reid's bill to be considered by the House under a suspension of House rules, that chambers rules being much easier to work around in matters of revenue.

Happygrunt wrote:Seeing as I have been able to live through only three presidents (Clinton, Bush and now Obama), I don't think Obama is doing that bad. He is simply playing with the cards he was dealt, which is something like a 2 of spades and a one card from uno.

I think the problem is the "Tea Party" who throw tantrums unless they get their way.

Anyone up for reviving Teddy Roosevelt? I liked that guy.

Getting things done doesn't mean that they're being done right or Constitutionally. Teddy Roosevelt was a president who believed in eugenics, big government intervention in business and was a complete war monger. He's hardly great. I would put him the bottom half of presidents at best.

I would also like to know what the Tea Party has actually won? They haven't gotten a thing that they wanted. Yet the narrative is that they control the Republican congress. Hardly, Boehner and McConnell are spineless and wouldn't dare draw the ire of the media. So please explain to me what the Tea Party has won?

Stormrider wrote:

Happygrunt wrote:Seeing as I have been able to live through only three presidents (Clinton, Bush and now Obama), I don't think Obama is doing that bad. He is simply playing with the cards he was dealt, which is something like a 2 of spades and a one card from uno.

I think the problem is the "Tea Party" who throw tantrums unless they get their way.

Anyone up for reviving Teddy Roosevelt? I liked that guy.

Getting things done doesn't mean that they're being done right or Constitutionally. Teddy Roosevelt was a president who believed in eugenics, big government intervention in business and was a complete war monger. He's hardly great. I would put him the bottom half of presidents at best.

I would also like to know what the Tea Party has actually won? They haven't gotten a thing that they wanted. Yet the narrative is that they control the Republican congress. Hardly, Boehner and McConnell are spineless and wouldn't dare draw the ire of the media. So please explain to me what the Tea Party has won?

It's what they've been told.

lord commissar klimino wrote:

everything i learned ive learned from school mostly.

Which judging by your spelling and grammar, isn't very much. I know it's a little harsh, but if you can't be bothered to even try to use the correct words to express yourself, much less punctuate them, we can't be bothered to take you seriously. It's like trying to apply for a job, but you won't even bother to brush your teeth, shave, or put on pants.

On a tangentially related note, Tim Pawlenty called it quits this morning. Seemed a little early for it, but there you go.

Damn. I was hoping we'd get a Minnesotan in office.

behold everybody: Frazzled: raging conservative. Who has to control his temper!

Insults and trolling are more effective without run on sentences and poor capitalization and punctuation.

I am not trolling, nor am I insulting. I am simply grumpy that Frazzled is denying true facts. And talk about the pot calling the kettle black ,I have seen grammar and spelling mistakes from every user here.

ineptus astartes wrote:behold everybody: Frazzled: raging conservative. Who has to control his temper!

This was blatant trolling, and had nothing whatsoever to do with the topic.

ineptus astartes wrote:I am not trolling, nor am I insulting. I am simply grumpy that Frazzled is denying true facts. And talk about the pot calling the kettle black ,I have seen grammar and spelling mistakes from every user here.

The point is that anyone with basic reading skills can tell the difference between someone who tries and someone who doesn't. As an example, refer to the quote at the top of this post.

ineptus astartes wrote:I am not trolling, nor am I insulting. I am simply grumpy that Frazzled is denying true facts. And talk about the pot calling the kettle black ,I have seen grammar and spelling mistakes from every user here.

*Unless you're Stalin, Pol Pot, or Alfred E Neuman just because its your opinion doesn't make it a fact.
*I'm not the one slamming your grammar et al, so please aim your missives at someone else.

You have a tendency to deny factual information, and misunderstand the distinction between fact and opinion only to subsequently hide behind your inability to understand it.

ineptus astartes wrote:well, the country probably won't be invaded, the world does not work like that anymore, but thew politicians are bickering all over the place, and the only way to fix out trillions in debt that is due when? Tomorrow? Is to raise taxes.

Lmao..What hole do you live in the United states has invaded two countrys in the last ten years.It also looks like syria up next and nato forces are dropping bombs inlibya still.Im sure ground troops wil follow.

No one is going to invade Syria. Unlike Gaddafi al-Assad has the loyalty of the military.

dogma wrote:No one is going to invade Syria. Unlike Gaddafi al-Assad has the loyalty of the military.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=26019

Time will tell.

dogma wrote:No one is going to invade Syria. Unlike Gaddafi al-Assad has the loyalty of the military.

And the population is MUCH larger, and denser, and less homogenous, and etc., etc.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

palehorse wrote:

dogma wrote:No one is going to invade Syria. Unlike Gaddafi al-Assad has the loyalty of the military.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=26019

Time will tell.

Did you actually look at that site?

Wow.

palehorse wrote:
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=26019

Time will tell.

How many financial and materiel efforts have led to invasion?

Two in the last 60 years.

Albatross wrote:Did you actually look at that site?

Wow.

I just did.

I love the whole "The fact that you haven't heard about this in the media proves that we're right!" thing they have going.

At least they cite their sources. By which, I mean, they refer repeatedly to "our sources" when making wild and implausible claims.