Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Barack Obama will win the 2012 electionFollow

#202 Mar 26 2011 at 1:48 PM Rating: Good
****
9,346 posts
Varus wrote:
Probably still wouldn't have won considering how badly the Dem congress purposely f*cked up the economy for the outgoing president



...


Sometimes your stupidity takes all the fun out of arguing with you...
____________________________
10k before the site's inevitable death or bust

The World Is Not A Cold Dead Place.
Alan Watts wrote:
I am omnipotent insofar as I am the Universe, but I am not an omnipotent in the role of Alan Watts, only cunning


Eske wrote:
I've always read Driftwood as the straight man in varus' double act. It helps if you read all of his posts in the voice of Droopy Dog.
#203varusword75, Posted: Mar 28 2011 at 8:05 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) sweety,
#204varusword75, Posted: Mar 28 2011 at 8:06 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Drift,
#205 Mar 29 2011 at 5:54 AM Rating: Decent
****
9,346 posts
Quote:
What's truly sad is you don't think congress plays any role in the direction the economy is taking.


Oh, I'm not saying they don't, I'm just saying that there is no conspiracy, Mr. Jones. In fact, Alex, I would actually bet anything, that they didn't purposely mess up the economy.

Also, maybe you should be looking at the banks when looking for the reason the economy is the way it is. But I just read a lot of stuff from across the political spectrum that for the mostpart, says the same thing, so what could I possibly know about banks purposely setting the economy up for a fall in order to line their executives' pockets with tens of millions of dollars?
____________________________
10k before the site's inevitable death or bust

The World Is Not A Cold Dead Place.
Alan Watts wrote:
I am omnipotent insofar as I am the Universe, but I am not an omnipotent in the role of Alan Watts, only cunning


Eske wrote:
I've always read Driftwood as the straight man in varus' double act. It helps if you read all of his posts in the voice of Droopy Dog.
#206varusword75, Posted: Mar 29 2011 at 7:49 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) drift,
#207 Mar 29 2011 at 5:05 PM Rating: Decent
Prodigal Son
******
20,518 posts
varus, I thought you were in favor of cutthroat capitalism? Breaking the system to hoard billions sounds like your MO.
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#208 Mar 30 2011 at 9:38 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Joe Klein wrote:
This is my 10th presidential campaign, Lord help me. I have never before seen such a bunch of vile, desperate-to-please, shameless, embarrassing losers coagulated under a single party's banner. They are the most compelling argument I've seen against American exceptionalism. [...] There are those who say, cynically, if this is the dim-witted freak show the Republicans want to present in 2012, so be it. I disagree. One of them could get elected.

Heh.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#209varusword75, Posted: Mar 30 2011 at 9:58 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Jophed,
#210 Mar 30 2011 at 10:04 AM Rating: Good
****
6,471 posts
varusword75 wrote:
The Dems are especially afraid of Gingrich. Watch the hit pieces on him increase over the next few months.


Eh, I just can't picture "President Newt."
#211 Mar 30 2011 at 10:05 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
varusword75 wrote:
The Dems are especially afraid of Gingrich.

Heh.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#212varusword75, Posted: Mar 30 2011 at 10:33 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Eske,
#213 Mar 30 2011 at 10:40 AM Rating: Good
****
6,471 posts
varusword75 wrote:
Eske,

A couple of years ago who would've guessed we'd have a president with the names Hussein.



Sentient people?
#214 Mar 30 2011 at 1:32 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Not on topic but this is my thread so I can do what I want...

The House GOP, not having any real things to fill their time with and getting more and more nervous about where the blame will go in the event of a government shutdown (or a "slowdown" as the GOP is trying to call it), are instead putting out a fully symbolic resolution called the "Prevention of a Government Shutdown Act".
Washington Post wrote:
“What this bill says is it reiterates again the deadline, and that the Senate should act before the deadline, and that’s what the American people are expecting,” House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) said Wednesday morning at a news conference with other House Republican leaders. “The bill then says if the Senate does not act, then H.R. 1 [the House-passed bill that cuts $61 billion] will be the law of the land. In addition to that, it says that if all else fails, and the Senate brings about a shutdown, then members should not get their pay.”

Asked about Republicans’ “law of the land” claim, Jon Summers, spokesman for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), noted that the measure would have to pass the Senate and be signed by the president in order to become law -- something that’s not likely to happen.

LOL GOP leaders who don't even know how Congress works.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#215varusword75, Posted: Mar 30 2011 at 1:36 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Jophed,
#216 Mar 30 2011 at 1:44 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
varusword75 wrote:
I thought you said you could read?

Have you ever made that claim? If not, I'd hold off on it.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#217 Mar 30 2011 at 2:15 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
34,933 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Washington Post wrote:
“What this bill says is it reiterates again the deadline, and that the Senate should act before the deadline, and that’s what the American people are expecting,” House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) said Wednesday morning at a news conference with other House Republican leaders. “The bill then says if the Senate does not act, then H.R. 1 [the House-passed bill that cuts $61 billion] will be the law of the land. In addition to that, it says that if all else fails, and the Senate brings about a shutdown, then members should not get their pay.”

Asked about Republicans’ “law of the land” claim, Jon Summers, spokesman for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), noted that the measure would have to pass the Senate and be signed by the president in order to become law -- something that’s not likely to happen.

LOL GOP leaders who don't even know how Congress works.


Of course they know how Congress works. They also know how public opinion works. Obviously, they have no expectation of this passing. The whole point is to make sure that the public knows *why* the budget is being delayed by highlighting the fact that the Dem controlled Senate is sitting on it. Seems like a viable approach to me.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#218 Mar 30 2011 at 2:19 PM Rating: Good
***
1,000 posts
gbaji wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
Washington Post wrote:
“What this bill says is it reiterates again the deadline, and that the Senate should act before the deadline, and that’s what the American people are expecting,” House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) said Wednesday morning at a news conference with other House Republican leaders. “The bill then says if the Senate does not act, then H.R. 1 [the House-passed bill that cuts $61 billion] will be the law of the land. In addition to that, it says that if all else fails, and the Senate brings about a shutdown, then members should not get their pay.”

Asked about Republicans’ “law of the land” claim, Jon Summers, spokesman for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), noted that the measure would have to pass the Senate and be signed by the president in order to become law -- something that’s not likely to happen.

LOL GOP leaders who don't even know how Congress works.


Of course they know how Congress works. They also know how public opinion works. Obviously, they have no expectation of this passing. The whole point is to make sure that the public knows *why* the budget is being delayed by highlighting the fact that the Dem controlled Senate is sitting on it. Seems like a viable approach to me.


You mean because the GOP refuses to compromise on anything at all anymore? Because they want things "their way", and refuse to do anything else? Yep, we know.
____________________________
Come on Bill, let's go home
[ffxisig]63311[/ffxisig]
#219 Mar 30 2011 at 2:42 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
The whole point is to make sure that the public knows *why* the budget is being delayed by highlighting the fact that the Dem controlled Senate is sitting on it. Seems like a viable approach to me.

No, the contention is with the "HR.1 will become law" schtick. A line meaningless to anyone who passed the fourth grade.

Oh, and they didn't "sit on it". HR.1 came up for vote in the Senate and failed with only 44 votes for passage.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#220 Mar 30 2011 at 3:34 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
34,933 posts
Technogeek wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Of course they know how Congress works. They also know how public opinion works. Obviously, they have no expectation of this passing. The whole point is to make sure that the public knows *why* the budget is being delayed by highlighting the fact that the Dem controlled Senate is sitting on it. Seems like a viable approach to me.


You mean because the GOP refuses to compromise on anything at all anymore? Because they want things "their way", and refuse to do anything else? Yep, we know.


It's interesting how "compromise" seems an awful lot like "doing everything we want and not doing anything we don't want". If it were up to Republicans, we'd eliminate about half of the non-discretionary budget tomorrow. Heck. They originally set their sights on just a measly 100B in cuts because they figured that was as much as they could get passed. They then compromised that down to just 61B.

But that's not enough? The reality is that any cuts of any amount to any program that some liberal group wants will be howled over and equated to some kind of crime against humanity. So let's stop with the ridiculous "the GOP wont compromise!" bit. The Left has saddled us with absolutely insane amounts of new spending in the last few years, but you wont compromise by letting the GOP cut even 61B? Really?


Who's refusing to compromise? And which side do you think the majority of American citizens are going to side with?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#221 Mar 30 2011 at 4:20 PM Rating: Good
***
1,000 posts
gbaji wrote:
Technogeek wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Of course they know how Congress works. They also know how public opinion works. Obviously, they have no expectation of this passing. The whole point is to make sure that the public knows *why* the budget is being delayed by highlighting the fact that the Dem controlled Senate is sitting on it. Seems like a viable approach to me.


You mean because the GOP refuses to compromise on anything at all anymore? Because they want things "their way", and refuse to do anything else? Yep, we know.


It's interesting how "compromise" seems an awful lot like "doing everything we want and not doing anything we don't want". If it were up to Republicans, we'd eliminate about half of the non-discretionary budget tomorrow. Heck. They originally set their sights on just a measly 100B in cuts because they figured that was as much as they could get passed. They then compromised that down to just 61B.

But that's not enough? The reality is that any cuts of any amount to any program that some liberal group wants will be howled over and equated to some kind of crime against humanity. So let's stop with the ridiculous "the GOP wont compromise!" bit. The Left has saddled us with absolutely insane amounts of new spending in the last few years, but you wont compromise by letting the GOP cut even 61B? Really?


Who's refusing to compromise? And which side do you think the majority of American citizens are going to side with?


Yes yes, I know you think the GOP is the only one with "principles", and they are always right. Just because other peoples principles aren't the same as yours, does not mean they are not principles. The act of governing, requires that the people get together and meet somewhere in the middle.

I see far more examples lately of liberals making moves to compromise that conservatives. The whole mantra of the GOP the last election cycle was "no compromises!". Sorry, but they have no clue how to govern.

____________________________
Come on Bill, let's go home
[ffxisig]63311[/ffxisig]
#222 Mar 30 2011 at 5:12 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Heck. They originally set their sights on just a measly 100B in cuts because they figured that was as much as they could get passed. They then compromised that down to just 61B.

Umm... no. They never intended to cut a real $100B. They told the Tea Partiers that it would be $100B, then Ryan said it'd only have to be $85B because it the budget wasn't as large as they had thought. Then pro-rated that to $50B because it wasn't a full year's budget. Then Ryan finally decided that $32B counted as $100B worth of cuts when you work the math the right way.

Mind you, all of this was BEFORE they released any sort of budget plan to "compromise" on. This was purely because they realized that they could never hold up the promises they made during the election. I posted about this back in February.

On Jan 31, 2011, I wrote:
The $100 billion the GOP promised to cut out of the budget has already been reduced to $50 billion. First they said the 2011 budget wasn't as large as they first though so they only need to cut $85bil. But since it'll be a short budget year, they can pro-rate much of that and cut only $50bil. So there ya go -- $100bil in cuts for the low price of only $50bil removed from the budget.
On Feb 2, 2011, I wrote:
Whoops, never mind. Ryan released his plan and now he's only cutting $32bil.


What happened then is that the Tea Partiers got into an uproar over this amount of cuts and forced Ryan & Boehner into the uncomfortable position of having to cut far, far more than they ever planned or or thought they had any chance of passing. Then they let it get cluttered with policy riders that had nothing to do with saving money (since they only mention allocation) but everything to do with using the budget to push an agenda. Now the GOP House leadership is panicking because they know they'll never get the cuts the Tea Party is demanding and they fear they're going to get blamed for the shutdown (polls put it at about a 9-14 point spread in favor of blaming the GOP over Obama).

Who told you that this was the result of some "compromise" and why did you believe them without bothering to look up any of the facts?

Heh... reading along, apparently even the GOP Senate was laughing at Cantor and his ridiculous understanding of Congress.
The Hill wrote:
The plan was quickly derided by both Democrats and Senate Republicans, however, who responded by offering a civics lesson to their House colleagues.

“My reaction to that is ultimately the whole body including the executive branch has to sign on here or we're just whistling in the wind,” Sen. Dan Coats (R-Ind.) said.

Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.) said: “To be the law of the land, a bill has to pass the Senate and be signed by the president.”

Hours after the Cantor announcement, a House GOP Appropriations subcommittee chairman, Rep. Mike Simpson (R-Idaho), said he hadn’t heard about it. Told of the plan, he laughed and said: “If we can do that, can’t we just deem the budget balanced?”


Edited, Mar 30th 2011 6:18pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#223gbaji, Posted: Mar 30 2011 at 6:59 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Huh?! Where? Where do you see this? Where are there liberals saying "Health care was so important to us that we'll give up spending in these areas to pay for it". I don't recall that happening. Or maybe "Green energy jobs will cost more, but we'll pay for it by cutting these other things we're doing". Nope. Didn't see that either.
#224varusword75, Posted: Mar 31 2011 at 8:27 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Jophed,
#225 Mar 31 2011 at 8:44 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
varusword75 wrote:
It didn't hurt the GOP when they shut down the govn in the 90's

Tee-hee.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#226 Mar 31 2011 at 12:00 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,933 posts
Jophiel wrote:
varusword75 wrote:
It didn't hurt the GOP when they shut down the govn in the 90's

Tee-hee.


Varus inaccuracies aside, the situation is a **** of a lot different today than it was then. The ridiculous overspending of the Dems and a greater sense that we need to knock that off and fast will likely result in greater blame being placed on the spenders and not those trying to cut spending. But I'm sure that wont stop 90% of the media in this country constantly insisting otherwise. I'm just not sure that the voting public is going to buy it this time.


Oh and Technogeek? I'm still waiting for those examples of compromise coming from the Dems. Cause from where I'm sitting, it looks like the "don't spend more" crowd has already compromised to the tune of like 1.7 Trillion dollars. You'd think that 61 Billion would be an easy and tiny amount to give back in the other direction, right?

BTW: This incredibly unreasonable position of the left which is why this isn't going to be like it was in the 90s.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 72 All times are in CDT
Anonymous Guests (72)