Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Barack Obama will win the 2012 electionFollow

#302 Apr 06 2011 at 8:58 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
"You knew the job was dangerous when you took it, Fred."
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#303 Apr 06 2011 at 9:51 AM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
27,898 posts
Yeah, yeah; but that's like saying "if you didn't want to get harassed constantly you shouldn't have courted fame." No one knows what it's really like until they're there, and then it's your life.

I'm not sending him flowers, but I think it's fair to acknowledge that all those potshots he took at Pelosi are chewing on his ass right about now. That's amusing, but I do feel a tiny bit sorry for him at the same time.

____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#304 Apr 06 2011 at 9:54 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Nah, I get what you're saying. I'd feel worse for him if he was actually sticking to his attempt to hit the Democrats around the mark they were both agreeing to rather than constantly capitulating to a handful of Tea Party goons. But this is the Congress he asked for.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#305 Apr 06 2011 at 9:56 AM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
27,898 posts
You know, I think that's what makes me feel sorriest for him.

Bless his heart, as we'd say back in the mother country.

____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#306 Apr 06 2011 at 10:21 AM Rating: Good
Supreme Lionator
*****
13,908 posts
Having played video games from a young age, I am physiologically incapable of feeling sorry for Boehner.
____________________________
“Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires.”
#307 Apr 06 2011 at 10:23 AM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
27,898 posts
Which video game is an appropriate metaphor, here?

You are the speaker of the house.
It is totally dark.
You may be eaten by a grue.
____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#308 Apr 06 2011 at 10:28 AM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
34,613 posts
Samira wrote:
Which video game is an appropriate metaphor, here?

You are the speaker of the house.
It is totally dark.
You may be eaten by a grue.
I was thinking Resident Evil.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.
Need a hotel at a great rate? More hotels being added weekly.

An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#309 Apr 06 2011 at 10:34 AM Rating: Good
****
6,470 posts
Uglysasquatch wrote:
Samira wrote:
Which video game is an appropriate metaphor, here?

You are the speaker of the house.
It is totally dark.
You may be eaten by a grue.
I was thinking Resident Evil.


"Boehner, YOU'RE small time!!"
____________________________
Latest Articles:
Monaco: What's Yours is Mine Review

Follow me on Twitter!
#310 Apr 06 2011 at 10:41 AM Rating: Good
Supreme Lionator
*****
13,908 posts
Samira wrote:
Which video game is an appropriate metaphor, here?

You are the speaker of the house.
It is totally dark.
You may be eaten by a grue.


That'd be a pretty immersive game. I can really imagine myself in his shoes.

Briefly. Before being ripped out of them and torn apart by a ravenous grue.

Anyway, uh... Pac-Man?

Boehner rushes to collect his anti-anxiety medication, chased by the ghosts of Pelosi, McCain, Coussoule and, uh... Clyde. The big pills represent perfectly weighted burns hurled Obama's way, cooked up in the sizzling cauldron of chemicals where his brain floats.
____________________________
“Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires.”
#311varusword75, Posted: Apr 06 2011 at 11:30 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) According to the polls if there's a shutdown the dems are going to blamed by most of the voters, regardless of what Boehner says.
#312 Apr 06 2011 at 11:43 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
"The polls". Ah.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#313 Apr 06 2011 at 2:22 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
30,870 posts
So I assume there's no division nor concern among Democrats about the political fallout from a shutdown? Or is it that no one's writing that story? Hmmm....
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#314 Apr 06 2011 at 2:30 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
According to the GOP, all the Democrats are praying for a shut-down so, no, I guess no divisions there.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#315 Apr 06 2011 at 2:38 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
30,870 posts
Jophiel wrote:
According to the GOP, all the Democrats are praying for a shut-down so, no, I guess no divisions there.


So the GOP is actually discussing among themselves ways to avoid a shutdown, while the Dems aren't? Just checking...
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#316 Apr 06 2011 at 2:42 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Nah, the Democrats have been working on the $33B number that Boehner originally asked for so they can avoid a shut-down.

The primary difference being that no one is throwing a fit and saying "Five billion or NOTHING!!!" despite the $33B number being larger than their starting point. Since no one is throwing a fit, it's not really news like the Tea Party hysteria is.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#317 Apr 06 2011 at 2:49 PM Rating: Decent
Edited by bsphil
******
21,733 posts
varusword75 wrote:
According to the polls
I see no polls referenced in your post.
____________________________
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
If no one debated with me, then I wouldn't post here anymore.
Take the hint guys, please take the hint.
gbaji wrote:
I'm not getting my news from anywhere Joph.
Stylish plugin for Firefox | ZAM/Allakhazam Widescreen/ad-free Stylish theme
#318 Apr 06 2011 at 3:02 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
30,870 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Nah, the Democrats have been working on the $33B number that Boehner originally asked for so they can avoid a shut-down.


I still love how you (not you really since you're just parroting what you hear) are cherry picking one number likely just bandied about in a meeting one day with no weight behind it, while ignoring the reality that the House passed a bill with a different number in it. That's the starting point of the negotiation Joph. Not some convenient number which the left wants to cling to because it happens to be the number they wanted in the first place.

Quote:
The primary difference being that no one is throwing a fit and saying "Five billion or NOTHING!!!" despite the $33B number being larger than their starting point. Since no one is throwing a fit, it's not really news like the Tea Party hysteria is.


The only people I see throwing any fits are the liberals jumping up and down and yelling about the GOP. You yell about them being unreasonable. Then you yell about them disagreeing with each other. Then you just yell for the sake of yelling. I'm not seeing any panic among the right Joph. What I'm seeing is a whole lot of liberals running around at breakneck speed attempting to spin this.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#319 Apr 06 2011 at 3:08 PM Rating: Decent
Edited by bsphil
******
21,733 posts
gbaji wrote:
I'm not seeing any panic among the right Joph.
You're not looking very hard, but just about anyone should know that about you by this point.
____________________________
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
If no one debated with me, then I wouldn't post here anymore.
Take the hint guys, please take the hint.
gbaji wrote:
I'm not getting my news from anywhere Joph.
Stylish plugin for Firefox | ZAM/Allakhazam Widescreen/ad-free Stylish theme
#320 Apr 06 2011 at 3:13 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
30,870 posts
bsphil wrote:
gbaji wrote:
I'm not seeing any panic among the right Joph.
You're not looking very hard, but just about anyone should know that about you by this point.


All I'm seeing is liberals trying really hard to convince everyone that the GOP is panicking. Of course, if all you do is get your news from liberal sources, I can see how you might assume this is "everyone".
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#321 Apr 06 2011 at 3:14 PM Rating: Excellent
******
41,289 posts
All I see is one side favoring a party of morons while another side is favoring a party of idiots, and a lot of pretending that there is a difference between the two.

Edited, Apr 6th 2011 5:25pm by lolgaxe
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#322 Apr 06 2011 at 3:21 PM Rating: Decent
Edited by bsphil
******
21,733 posts
gbaji wrote:
bsphil wrote:
gbaji wrote:
I'm not seeing any panic among the right Joph.
You're not looking very hard, but just about anyone should know that about you by this point.


All I'm seeing is liberals trying really hard to convince everyone that the GOP is panicking. Of course, if all you do is get your news from liberal sources, I can see how you might assume this is "everyone".
I'm talking mainly about the division between the traditional GOP and the Tea Party, the Tea party expecting drastically larger cuts and the GOP not willing to negotiate nearly as much. I know there's no chance of me convincing you of reality though, not going to even bother. Keep saying your party is unified, it's amusing each time.
____________________________
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
If no one debated with me, then I wouldn't post here anymore.
Take the hint guys, please take the hint.
gbaji wrote:
I'm not getting my news from anywhere Joph.
Stylish plugin for Firefox | ZAM/Allakhazam Widescreen/ad-free Stylish theme
#323 Apr 06 2011 at 3:24 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
I still love how you (not you really since you're just parroting what you hear) are cherry picking one number likely just bandied about in a meeting one day with no weight behind it, while ignoring the reality that the House passed a bill with a different number in it.

Hahahahaha...

This is where Gbaji goes from "I'm intentionally ignorant and it's the BEST!!" to "I'm a politics savvy guy who knows all the facts!!"

No, they were using that $33B number for weeks throughout multiple meetings. I'd ask where you get your information from but... well, you know. The House can pass whatever it wants. Without the Senate agreeing to it, it's not worth a whole lot. And, in case you missed it in your attempts to remain ignorant so you're not accidentally "parroting" any accurate numbers or facts, that bill died in the Senate when it failed to pass a vote. So now, rather than waste time with GOP filibusters and crap, the Senate Democrats have been trying to strike the deal now with Boehner so a real budget bill can pass through both chambers. The number they've been working on for that budget was $33B.

Quote:
I'm not seeing any panic among the right Joph.

That's okay. Their panic isn't dependent upon your perception :)
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#324 Apr 06 2011 at 3:27 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
30,870 posts
bsphil wrote:
gbaji wrote:
bsphil wrote:
gbaji wrote:
I'm not seeing any panic among the right Joph.
You're not looking very hard, but just about anyone should know that about you by this point.


All I'm seeing is liberals trying really hard to convince everyone that the GOP is panicking. Of course, if all you do is get your news from liberal sources, I can see how you might assume this is "everyone".
I'm talking mainly about the division between the traditional GOP and the Tea Party, the Tea party expecting drastically larger cuts and the GOP not willing to negotiate nearly as much. I know there's no chance of me convincing you of reality though, not going to even bother. Keep saying your party is unified, it's amusing each time.


Wait! You're saying that within a political party there might be different groups of people who might not always agree 100% on everything! OMG! Alert the media!!!

This hardly constitutes "panic". It's healthy debate within a party. The point is that the House passed a bill with 61 Billion in cuts. That is the position of the House Republicans on this issue. That's what they decided on. It's funny how much weight the left is putting on the fact that not every Republican is in absolute lockstep on this.


Do you think that every Democrat is in lockstep with sticking with the 33B figure and not negotiating on any of the issues the GOP has put forth? I would find that amazingly unlikely. The only difference is that no one in the media is making a point of finding Dems who think that they should compromise a bit and writing story after story about it in an attempt to make it look like they're divided on this issue.


Perception is not always reality.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#325 Apr 06 2011 at 3:28 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
30,870 posts
Jophiel wrote:

No, they were using that $33B number for weeks throughout multiple meetings.


Source?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#326 Apr 06 2011 at 3:29 PM Rating: Decent
Edited by bsphil
******
21,733 posts
gbaji wrote:
Wait! You're saying that within a political party there might be different groups of people who might not always agree 100% on everything! OMG! Alert the media!!!
So debate within the party is no big deal as long as you're the Republican party?
____________________________
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
If no one debated with me, then I wouldn't post here anymore.
Take the hint guys, please take the hint.
gbaji wrote:
I'm not getting my news from anywhere Joph.
Stylish plugin for Firefox | ZAM/Allakhazam Widescreen/ad-free Stylish theme
#327 Apr 06 2011 at 4:04 PM Rating: Excellent
Annoying Ass
ZAM Administrator
Avatar
*****
11,916 posts
gbaji wrote:

Wait! You're saying that within a political party there might be different groups of people who might not always agree 100% on everything! OMG! Alert the media!!!

This hardly constitutes "panic". It's healthy debate within a party.


Quote:
"There is no other way to put this," Tea Party Nation founder Judson Phillips wrote on the group's website in early March. "The Tea Party movement should find a candidate to run against John Boehner in 2012 and should set as a goal, to defeat in a primary, the sitting Speaker of the House of Representatives."


Healthy debate Smiley: nod
____________________________
Volunteer News Writer for the ZAM Network.
WoW - Aureliano the Insane - level 90 Druid on Sen'Jin
Nanaoki - level 90 Mage on Sen'Jin
#328 Apr 06 2011 at 4:47 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Source?

The liberal media, obviously.

Politico, March 29, wrote:
Republicans have suggested a possible top line of $1.052 trillion, and the administration has said it is prepared to move toward $1.058 trillion — leaving a difference of $6 billion. The White House has refused comment on the details of its discussions, but the latest offer follows a discussion between Obama’s chief of staff, Bill Daley, and Boehner’s office and represents a significant effort to move toward the numbers discussed by the GOP.

Measured against the $61 billion in initial House cuts, the new offer — described as now on Reid’s desk — would be about halfway.
The Hill.com, March 29, wrote:
Reid said Senate Democrats and the White House have met Republicans “far more than halfway” with their budget plan. Using 2010 spending as the baseline, Democrats are proposing $30 billion in total cuts, including $10 billion already enacted in two short-term measures.
The Hill.com, March 30, wrote:
A source familiar with the talks said members of the Senate and House Appropriations panels are working toward a target of $33 billion in spending cuts. The $33 billion goal splits the difference between $30 billion in cuts Senate Democrats have proposed and $36 billion in cuts Boehner suggested in talks with White House officials, according to the source.
CSM, March 31, wrote:
Leaving a meeting with Senate Democratic leaders, Vice President Joe Biden said on Wednesday evening that House and Senate negotiators had reached a partial agreement and were now "working off the same number," after the Appropriations chairmen in both chambers had agreed on $73 billion in total cuts from the spending levels proposed in President Obama's fiscal 2011 budget proposal--or $33 billion from current levels. Republicans had pledged to cut $100 billion from Obama's fiscal 2011 budget during the midterm elections campaign.
[...]
Still, the progress reported on Wednesday night appears to be the result of a grown-up discipline suddenly taking hold of the process, despite the continuing public acrimony and heated rhetoric from the extremes of both parties.

A spokesman for House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, Michael Steel, did not specifically dispute Biden's assertion that the sides are working off the same number but said, "There is no deal until everything is settled--spending cuts and policy restrictions."
Roll Call, April 1, wrote:
Negotiations are expected to go into the weekend as Congressional leaders work against a fast-approaching deadline. The current continuing resolution runs through April 8. The two sides appear to be closing in on a deal to cut $33 billion from the federal budget.
Then, on April 4th,
The Hill.com, April 4, wrote:
Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) said Monday that Vice President Biden’s offer of $33 billion in spending cuts is “not enough,” suggesting the chances of a government shutdown are increasing.

Boehner, who delivered the GOP’s radio address on Saturday, issued his most definitive rejection of the level of cuts that Democrats had for days claimed were the basis of a bipartisan accord.
Politico, April 6, wrote:
In talks since, Obama has moved more than halfway to a target of $33 billion in cuts, or about $73 billion from his initial budget. Last week, that target became the framework for talks between the House and Senate Appropriations committees, but at a White House meeting Tuesday, Boehner upped the ante by floating a compromise of $40 billion in cuts, or $80 billion below Obama’s budget request.

In fact, negotiators have continued to stay close to the $33 billion target — which may explain some of Boehner’s frustration

$33B was never just a number "bandied about" one time; it was the point that they were building off of in multiple negotiations last week through this week (up until Monday). I admit the error in saying "weeks" rather than "the past week" -- I mentally figured it as being a week last week and a week this week. However, there were multiple meetings last week and whoever told you that it was "likely just bandied about in a meeting one day with no weight behind it" was, once again, either lying to you or else you misunderstood what they were saying.

Edited, Apr 6th 2011 8:10pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#329 Apr 06 2011 at 7:48 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
30,870 posts
So that 33B number was never the "original number" as you have repeatedly claimed. I assumed you were trying to argue that Boehner had proposed this before the Tea Party somehow changed the number and made them pass a bill that had 61B in it instead. So where are the sources showing that 33B was agreed upon prior to the House bill being passed?


If you're really just talking about negotiations over the last week between the House and Senate leadership after the Senate rejected the House bill, then that's not even remotely what you have been implying through this entire thread and it's absolutely not the same as saying that they started with that number and then the Tea Party made them change it.


They started with a figure of 61B. Anything less than that is a compromise by the GOP, not the other way around. I'm just finding your incredibly lose use of the concept of some original agreed upon figure mind-boggling.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#330 Apr 06 2011 at 7:51 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
30,870 posts
bsphil wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Wait! You're saying that within a political party there might be different groups of people who might not always agree 100% on everything! OMG! Alert the media!!!
So debate within the party is no big deal as long as you're the Republican party?


It's no big deal no matter which party you're in. I'm not the one who constantly runs around finding any division within a political party and holds it up as proof that the other party is falling apart or something. That's a game that several of the liberal posters on this forum have been playing for years though.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#331 Apr 06 2011 at 8:00 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
30,870 posts
Jophiel wrote:
$33B was never just a number "bandied about" one time; it was the point that they were building off of in multiple negotiations last week through this week (up until Monday). I admit the error in saying "weeks" rather than "the past week" -- I mentally figured it as being a week last week and a week this week. However, there were multiple meetings last week and whoever told you that it was "likely just bandied about in a meeting one day with no weight behind it" was, once again, either lying to you or else you misunderstood what they were saying.


BS Joph. We've been having this argument for about as long as that 33B figure has existed. Yet you presented it from day one as though it was agreed upon for months until the tea party screwed things up. The fact is that it was never an agreed upon number. It was, at best, a number the Dems wanted and did everything they could to suggest was an agreed upon number. But not one of those quotes you provided show Boehner saying that he agreed with the 33B figure. You have Harry Reid saying that's the number they're looking at. You have "sources familiar with the talks" saying that's the number they're looking at. And you have VP Biden saying that's the number they're working on (followed by a response from Boehner saying that there's no deal until everything is settled).


So we have lots of quotes from liberals claiming that everyone is in agreement, but I still don't see a single one from Boehner saying it. It looks to me like the Dems jumped the gun, proclaimed their proposal to be the one everyone agreed to, shoved that assumption in front of the media, and when the GOP responded with "Wait a minute! We didn't agree to that at all", the Dems are attempting to pretend that because they said it was agreed upon, the GOP has to stick with it.

Funny. Find me a source where Boehner actually agrees to 33B.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#332 Apr 06 2011 at 8:55 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
So that 33B number was never the "original number" as you have repeatedly claimed.

Yeah, it was. Back in late Jan & early February Or rather, a number in that 30-36B range, anyway (it changes depending on the story and day). I quoted the articles I did to show you that the $33B compromise number from the past week was not some flippant number thrown around for shits and giggles, it was the framework they were working off of. I didn't realize you needed your hand held yet again through a complete history of the budget process starting back in January.
The Hill, Feb 3, wrote:
House Republican leaders on Thursday said they would seek $32 billion in spending cuts from the resolution currently funding the government.

Republicans framed their proposal as cutting $74 billion from President Obama's 2011 budget request. However, because Obama’s budget was never approved by the last Congress, the cuts would actually be made against a continuing resolution now funding the government.
The Hill, Feb 3, wrote:
House Republican leaders under pressure from conservatives worked hard Thursday to prove their budget-cutting credentials, even taking to Twitter to fight reports they were cutting spending by $32 billion.

“Associated Press is wrong. House GOP plan would cut $74 billion from the Budget… and we’re just getting started,” House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) tweeted minutes after announcing his budget ceiling.

The problem with the GOP's preferred figure is that the $74 billion refers to President Obama’s budget request from a year ago, which never became law.

The AP correctly reported the budget ceiling announced Thursday by Ryan would cut $32 billion from current spending levels, but the GOP clearly wants the public to focus on the larger number.

The $32 billion figure wasn’t mentioned in a GOP press releases issued Thursday, and at a background briefing with reporters, Republican aides only discussed the $32 billion figure under questioning, emphasizing the proposal cut $74 billion from Obama’s budget request.

You know, if you took even a little time to educate yourself, you wouldn't keep making so many basic, stupid errors in your desperate quest to try and score political points.
gbaji wrote:
They started with a figure of 61B.

I hope someday you can find a girl who thinks complete ignorance is cute.

Edited, Apr 6th 2011 10:03pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#333 Apr 06 2011 at 9:22 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
So we have lots of quotes from liberals claiming that everyone is in agreement, but I still don't see a single one from Boehner saying it. It looks to me like the Dems jumped the gun, proclaimed their proposal to be the one everyone agreed to, shoved that assumption in front of the media, and when the GOP responded with "Wait a minute! We didn't agree to that at all", the Dems are attempting to pretend that because they said it was agreed upon, the GOP has to stick with it.

Wow, you're charmingly naive and easily trained. Boehner had a week to actively push back against the $33B number. He didn't until the next week when he was getting castigated by his own party. You won't be able to find a single source (including Boehner's aides or GOP people actually in the talks) saying any different number. Know why? Because there was no different number. I know you can't believe this because it would force you to admit that your random guesswork isn't quite as good as those pesky facts and reading things but there you have it. You can now continue ranting and swearing that there was never a $33B target in the negotiations and there was never a $32B GOP budget proposal and the GOP is giving up SO MUCH because they REALLY wanted a thousand-trillion-billion dollars but are settling for only a hundred-trillion-billion.

Oh, and the March 29 article plainly states that the GOP was coming into the negotiations asking for $36B with the Democrats asking for $30B. The same numbers are backed up in the March 30 article from The Hill. The $33B was the compromise between the two of them. But, hell, call it $36B if you really want to; $3B isn't all that important to me. You won't, because you've been told that it was always $100B and $61B was the grand sacrifice the GOP was making but... you can lead a horse to water, etc. All I can do is show everyone else how wrong you were yet again.

Edited, Apr 6th 2011 10:29pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#334 Apr 07 2011 at 12:22 AM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
7,426 posts
Im so glad I read the last 3 pages of this thread, I needed some Gbaji lulz before bedtime.
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. @#%^ OFF YOU. @#%^ YOUR BULLsh*t SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS @#%^ING sh*tTY BINARY ASS. ALL DAY LONG.

#335varusword75, Posted: Apr 07 2011 at 7:38 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Jophed,
#336 Apr 07 2011 at 7:44 AM Rating: Excellent
Annoying Ass
ZAM Administrator
Avatar
*****
11,916 posts
In completely tangentially-related news, a close highschool friend of Obama was arrested for soliciting an undercover cop posing as a prostitute. The man was obviously a liberal, as the undercover cop was a female, not a male.

Also, his name was Titcomb. /giggle

Edited, Apr 7th 2011 9:45am by LockeColeMA
____________________________
Volunteer News Writer for the ZAM Network.
WoW - Aureliano the Insane - level 90 Druid on Sen'Jin
Nanaoki - level 90 Mage on Sen'Jin
#337 Apr 07 2011 at 7:51 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
varusword75 wrote:
None of what you said matters one bit.

Yeah, facts are hard, I know. You and Gbaji are made for one another :)

Edit: Huh. Looking back, I actually went through all this with Gbaji back on Page 5 including links to relevant details such as Ryan's original $32B number. So not only is Gbaji intentionally ignorant, he refuses to read the information even when spoon-fed to him and instead continues to insist that it never happened because that's the only sort of thing to soothe his ideological purity.

You can't crack that sort of nut of self-imposed delusion, people. You can only expose it for what it is.

Edited, Apr 7th 2011 9:06am by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#338varusword75, Posted: Apr 07 2011 at 8:06 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Joph,
#339 Apr 07 2011 at 8:17 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
varusword75 wrote:
What facts?

Hehe. Thanks :)
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#340varusword75, Posted: Apr 07 2011 at 8:19 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Jophed,
#341 Apr 07 2011 at 8:20 AM Rating: Excellent
Annoying Ass
ZAM Administrator
Avatar
*****
11,916 posts
varusword75 wrote:
The fact is Obama thinks a govn shutdown will bring him a second term so it's really, in his eyes anyway, in his best interest to let the govn shutdown go ahead.


Not sure why you're complaining about it, really. Boehner and Karl Rove both believe a shut-down will help Obama; but the Tea Party wants it to happen. Everyone who has a political stake seems to win (except the GOP at large), but the folks who rely on government services will get screwed. I think that's what shows not only Obama, but the Tea Party itself is out of touch. Unlike Obama though, the Tea Party doesn't want any compromise; which makes me think they are out of touch with reality as well.
____________________________
Volunteer News Writer for the ZAM Network.
WoW - Aureliano the Insane - level 90 Druid on Sen'Jin
Nanaoki - level 90 Mage on Sen'Jin
#342 Apr 07 2011 at 8:20 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Numbers are hard, I know :(
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#343varusword75, Posted: Apr 07 2011 at 8:34 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Locked,
#344varusword75, Posted: Apr 07 2011 at 8:36 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Jophed,
#345 Apr 07 2011 at 8:43 AM Rating: Excellent
Annoying Ass
ZAM Administrator
Avatar
*****
11,916 posts
varusword75 wrote:
Locked,

You really think Obama wants compromise? Really? The same Obama who keeps telling the GOP to go the back of the bus and shut up. Really?


Sure. Democrats want no cuts, but brought 30b in cuts to the table. GOP campaigned on 100b in cuts, then said 61b is the actual amount, then brought 36b to the table. 33b is right in the middle, a compromise. If Boehner went with it, that would instantly go to the senate, likely be passed, and Obama would sign no problem. You disagree?


Quote:
Quote:
Everyone who has a political stake seems to win (except the GOP at large),


This is where you're wrong. This is good for the GOP. We need to make our differences very clear and let the people determine what direction this country needs to go.


Ideology aside, losing popular support when you need it to be elected and actually wield political power is never a good thing for a party. If your opinion is right, then the Green Party* does a good thing by never being elected because they refuse to compromise.

*Just an example. Put in any random party of your choice here.

Edited, Apr 7th 2011 10:45am by LockeColeMA
____________________________
Volunteer News Writer for the ZAM Network.
WoW - Aureliano the Insane - level 90 Druid on Sen'Jin
Nanaoki - level 90 Mage on Sen'Jin
#346 Apr 07 2011 at 8:46 AM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
7,426 posts
Quote:

Locked,

You really think Obama wants compromise? Really? The same Obama who keeps telling the GOP to go the back of the bus and shut up. Really?


quote for future lulz.
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. @#%^ OFF YOU. @#%^ YOUR BULLsh*t SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS @#%^ING sh*tTY BINARY ASS. ALL DAY LONG.

#347 Apr 07 2011 at 8:49 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
I'd say the bigger question is: If the GOP is serious about this, why did they weigh down the budget with policy riders that save zero dollars (since they only affect where money is spent, not how much is spent)? Why hold the budget hostage to their views on abortion or the environment? If they're that worried about abortion, pass a separate law about it. Trying to force it in via policy rider just slows the process down and stalls out the bill before it even started.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#348 Apr 07 2011 at 9:01 AM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
7,426 posts
Im curious what happens if a budget is not passed in the US. In Canada if a budget fails to pass parliament is generally dissolved and we re-elect people, to either change the party and the budget or give the original party more seats to pass the budget (this is what the current election in Canada is derived from as the Conservative Budget was defeated and the Governor General called for a new election). Essentially our government implodes and restarts. I see the term shutdown thrown around in this thread so I am assuming something similar happens but to what extent, do you have new elections? Or does the minority party get a chance to offer a budget?

Edited, Apr 7th 2011 11:03am by rdmcandie
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. @#%^ OFF YOU. @#%^ YOUR BULLsh*t SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS @#%^ING sh*tTY BINARY ASS. ALL DAY LONG.

#349 Apr 07 2011 at 9:12 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Nah, nothing so dramatic. Everyone who isn't an essential federal government worker stays home without pay and non-essential federal facilities close up shop until a budget is reached. This can result in a bit of hardship but not the automatic collapse of the government or anything.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#350 Apr 07 2011 at 9:13 AM Rating: Good
******
41,289 posts
rdmcandie wrote:
Im curious what happens if a budget is not passed in the US.
I know the people in the military won't get paid, but the people in congress will continue to get paid because "They quit their other jobs to take a position in congress, and can't live without that money." Of course, there are some people in congress trying to make it fair by preventing them from getting a pay check as well, but let's be honest on how well that will work out.

Must be hard working on that $174k/year working part-time at best and getting full benefits.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#351 Apr 07 2011 at 9:17 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
I'm sure Congress will pass a resolution that they don't get paid. It'd be too easy to attack anyone cashing a check.

The funny part is when they present this as them sharing a grand sacrifice as though the American Middle Class is deeply empathetic about how badly a senator's wallet will be hurt by a week without a paycheck.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 50 All times are in CDT
Allegory, Kavekk, lolgaxe, LordMagius, Anonymous Guests (46)