Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Rosen vs Romney: That's what she saidFollow

#152 Apr 20 2012 at 12:27 PM Rating: Decent
lolgaxe wrote:
PigtailsOfDoom wrote:
When Obama wins the election, I'll stop worrying about how Mitt manages his finances.
Why worry? It doesn't matter what someone runs as, once they're in office they become homogenized right into the middle and the only difference is the self-imposed label of the people praising and scapegoating them.


Bush sure as hell didn't go center. It anything, he seemed to get more crazy conservative as time went on, compared to what he originally said he was going to do when he was running back in 2000.
____________________________
Proudmoore US server:
Popina, 90 Priest
Digits, 86 Shaman
Thelesis, 85 Mage
Willowmei, 85 Druid
Necralita, 85 DK
Shrika, 72 Warlock
Jaquelle, 54 Paladin
Grakine, 32 Hunter
The MMO-Zam's FB group. Please message me first so I know who you are.
#153 Apr 20 2012 at 12:30 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
Avatar
*****
10,403 posts
PigtailsOfDoom wrote:
lolgaxe wrote:
PigtailsOfDoom wrote:
When Obama wins the election, I'll stop worrying about how Mitt manages his finances.
Why worry? It doesn't matter what someone runs as, once they're in office they become homogenized right into the middle and the only difference is the self-imposed label of the people praising and scapegoating them.


Bush sure as hell didn't go center. It anything, he seemed to get more crazy conservative as time went on, compared to what he originally said he was going to do when he was running back in 2000.


Bush was kind of crazy period.

If anything though, my impression (rightly or wrongly) of Mitt was that he would be more likely to trend centrist as opposed to trending conservative if left to his own devices.
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#154 Apr 20 2012 at 12:35 PM Rating: Good
Sage
****
4,041 posts
Mitt will always trend towards capitalist and that's about it.
#155 Apr 20 2012 at 12:58 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
I'm less worried about the ideas coming from his own head than I am about him being a rubber stamp president for a batshit-conservative Congress. Not that I have any great faith in his own ideas, of course. They just worry me less.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#156 Apr 20 2012 at 2:54 PM Rating: Good
Encyclopedia
******
30,870 posts
Kavekk wrote:
lolgaxe wrote:
PigtailsOfDoom wrote:
When Obama wins the election, I'll stop worrying about how Mitt manages his finances.
Why worry? It doesn't matter what someone runs as, once they're in office they become homogenized right into the middle and the only difference is the self-imposed label of the people praising and scapegoating them.


Looks like we've got ourselves a badasscynic over here...


Burn him! How dare he suggest that our mighty mighty political battles are meaningless! Smiley: mad Die!
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#157 Apr 20 2012 at 3:03 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
30,870 posts
PigtailsOfDoom wrote:
lolgaxe wrote:
PigtailsOfDoom wrote:
When Obama wins the election, I'll stop worrying about how Mitt manages his finances.
Why worry? It doesn't matter what someone runs as, once they're in office they become homogenized right into the middle and the only difference is the self-imposed label of the people praising and scapegoating them.


Bush sure as hell didn't go center. It anything, he seemed to get more crazy conservative as time went on, compared to what he originally said he was going to do when he was running back in 2000.


I'm honestly curious for examples of what Bush said prior to taking office compared to what he did afterwards, but your statement absolutely applies to Obama. Remember the whole reaching across the aisle, post-partisan, post-racial, bit? Remember the whole limiting lobbyist access, cleaning up Washington bit? Hell. Obama somehow managed to fail to meet nearly every public promise he made during the campaign. Now, to be fair to him, no one on the right or left believed that what he said publicly was what he would actually do, but that just made it more amusing:

Obama makes promise to do X
Conservative: He's not going to do X! He's going to do Y instead.
Liberal: No he's not. You just heard him promise. He's going to do X. So why are you opposing him?
Conservative: Because he's not going to do X. Hell. You don't want him to do X. You want him to do Y. You're just saying that so that he'll get elected and then do Y instead.
Liberal: That's crazy! You're a crazy stupid racist person. You know that (insert laughter here).

Obama gets elected and does Y instead of X
Conservative: See! He did Y instead of X, just like I said!
Liberal: Well, of course he did Y. That was the right thing to do. Why would you think otherwise?
Conservative: But... You. Gah!!!


Yeah. That's pretty much how it's gone.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#158 Apr 20 2012 at 3:30 PM Rating: Good
***
1,877 posts
gbaji wrote:
PigtailsOfDoom wrote:
lolgaxe wrote:
PigtailsOfDoom wrote:
When Obama wins the election, I'll stop worrying about how Mitt manages his finances.
Why worry? It doesn't matter what someone runs as, once they're in office they become homogenized right into the middle and the only difference is the self-imposed label of the people praising and scapegoating them.


Bush sure as hell didn't go center. It anything, he seemed to get more crazy conservative as time went on, compared to what he originally said he was going to do when he was running back in 2000.


I'm honestly curious for examples of what Bush said prior to taking office compared to what he did afterwards, but your statement absolutely applies to Obama. Remember the whole reaching across the aisle, post-partisan, post-racial, bit? Remember the whole limiting lobbyist access, cleaning up Washington bit? Hell. Obama somehow managed to fail to meet nearly every public promise he made during the campaign. Now, to be fair to him, no one on the right or left believed that what he said publicly was what he would actually do, but that just made it more amusing:

Obama makes promise to do X
Conservative: He's not going to do X! He's going to do Y instead.
Liberal: No he's not. You just heard him promise. He's going to do X. So why are you opposing him?
Conservative: Because he's not going to do X. Hell. You don't want him to do X. You want him to do Y. You're just saying that so that he'll get elected and then do Y instead.
Liberal: That's crazy! You're a crazy stupid racist person. You know that (insert laughter here).

Obama gets elected and does Y instead of X
Conservative: See! He did Y instead of X, just like I said!
Liberal: Well, of course he did Y. That was the right thing to do. Why would you think otherwise?
Conservative: But... You. Gah!!!


Yeah. That's pretty much how it's gone. always gone.


FIFY
____________________________
#swaggerjacker
#159 Apr 20 2012 at 3:42 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Smiley: laugh You so cute, Gbaji
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#160 Apr 20 2012 at 4:02 PM Rating: Good
Encyclopedia
******
30,870 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Smiley: laugh You so cute, Gbaji


Do you see how I didn't just put your name in there and wrote "liberal" instead? Cause I'm subtle like that! Smiley: nod
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#161 Apr 20 2012 at 4:16 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Subtle like Glenn Beck. And sharp as Sarah Palin! Smiley: laugh
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#162 Apr 20 2012 at 5:21 PM Rating: Good
Encyclopedia
******
30,870 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Subtle like Glenn Beck. And sharp as Sarah Palin! Smiley: laugh


I'm not sure whether to pull my glasses off and cry, or exclaim "Yeah sure, Yabetcha!".
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#163 Apr 20 2012 at 6:46 PM Rating: Excellent
Gurue
*****
16,230 posts
Is gbaji drunk? He seems almost normal tonight.
#164 Apr 21 2012 at 2:13 AM Rating: Decent
Sage
**
622 posts
I'm going to give Obama a pass on the whole reaching across the aisle bit. That needs to work both ways, and when one side refuses to budge, the other can't be blamed for not making a compromise.
#165 Apr 21 2012 at 9:04 PM Rating: Decent
I totally agree. And the fact remains that he DID reach across the aisle. More than he should have, I think. With the healthcare bill, he could have left the public option in. There was a small enough amount of republicans in both the house and the senate, that it would have gone through without a filibuster. It still ticks me off when I think about it.
____________________________
Proudmoore US server:
Popina, 90 Priest
Digits, 86 Shaman
Thelesis, 85 Mage
Willowmei, 85 Druid
Necralita, 85 DK
Shrika, 72 Warlock
Jaquelle, 54 Paladin
Grakine, 32 Hunter
The MMO-Zam's FB group. Please message me first so I know who you are.
#166 Apr 21 2012 at 9:33 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Um, the GOP did filibuster the bill. It only passed the Senate during the short window where they had sixty votes. Then they lost that when Kennedy died and the House had to pass the Senate version because a compromise version would have been blocked when it came back to the Senate with Brown in office.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#167 Apr 22 2012 at 1:03 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
30,870 posts
xantav wrote:
I'm going to give Obama a pass on the whole reaching across the aisle bit. That needs to work both ways, and when one side refuses to budge, the other can't be blamed for not making a compromise.


And when one side insists on pushing an agenda that they know is 100% in opposition to the other side's principles, that other side can't be blamed for not making a compromise either. To reach across the aisle means that you have to actually propose something the other guy wants/likes. Obama not only did not do this, he arguably did the exact opposite of it.


What the Dems did was the equivalent of taking a vegetarian out to a steak restaurant, ordering the porterhouse for them, then getting angry at them for refusing to pay their half of the bill.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#168 Apr 22 2012 at 1:03 PM Rating: Decent
What? Didn't the healthcare bill get passed before the 2010 elections? I could have sworn it did. And with the 2008 elections, I'm almost positive we had a filibuster proof house and senate.
____________________________
Proudmoore US server:
Popina, 90 Priest
Digits, 86 Shaman
Thelesis, 85 Mage
Willowmei, 85 Druid
Necralita, 85 DK
Shrika, 72 Warlock
Jaquelle, 54 Paladin
Grakine, 32 Hunter
The MMO-Zam's FB group. Please message me first so I know who you are.
#169 Apr 22 2012 at 1:05 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
30,870 posts
PigtailsOfDoom wrote:
What? Didn't the healthcare bill get passed before the 2010 elections? I could have sworn it did. And with the 2008 elections, I'm almost positive we had a filibuster proof house and senate.


As Joph said. Kennedy died and the GOP picked up his seat. Honestly though, the very idea that the only way to pass something is with a filibuster proof majority should be your first hint that what you're doing is extremely partisan.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#170 Apr 22 2012 at 1:08 PM Rating: Decent
Yeah, and like I said, I thought that happened after the health care bill got passed.

And frankly, I don't give a sh*t if putting the public option in the health care bill would have been partisan or not. It should have been in there. A lot of people wanted it, and it would have been a nice middle ground for those of us who wanted universal health care and those of us who didn't.
____________________________
Proudmoore US server:
Popina, 90 Priest
Digits, 86 Shaman
Thelesis, 85 Mage
Willowmei, 85 Druid
Necralita, 85 DK
Shrika, 72 Warlock
Jaquelle, 54 Paladin
Grakine, 32 Hunter
The MMO-Zam's FB group. Please message me first so I know who you are.
#171 Apr 22 2012 at 1:24 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
30,870 posts
PigtailsOfDoom wrote:
Yeah, and like I said, I thought that happened after the health care bill got passed.


A version which was not intended to be the final version passed in the Senate. A different version passed in the House. Normally, you have a back and forth process as they determine the final version of the bill which can pass both houses, but when the Dems lost that seat, they realized they couldn't do this, and used a questionable reconciliation process to just make the bill that passed the senate the final version, massive flaws and all. At the end of the day, it was more important for the Dems to pass something called "health care reform" than to pass an actual working bill into law.

Which speaks volumes about their mindset.

Quote:
And frankly, I don't give a sh*t if putting the public option in the health care bill would have been partisan or not. It should have been in there. A lot of people wanted it, and it would have been a nice middle ground for those of us who wanted universal health care and those of us who didn't.


I find it telling that you admit that you don't care if it would be partisan, but then declare it a "nice middle ground". That statement is why claims that Obama reached across the aisle are pretty laughable.


I'll also point out that the inclusion or not of a public option was only one of a long long list of things that conservatives disliked about the health care reform bill. The mandates were a bigger issue. In keeping with my vegetarian served steak theme, the public option was like wanting to put bacon on top of the steak, then taking it off and wondering why the vegetarian is still not happy with his meal.

Edited, Apr 22nd 2012 12:25pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#172 Apr 22 2012 at 1:31 PM Rating: Good
Needs More Smut
Avatar
*****
19,496 posts
It is the middle ground. It's also still partisan, because Republicans no longer have any claim to any part of the middle ground.
____________________________
FFXI: Catwho on Bismarck. Once again a top bard on the server: Dardaubla 90 on 1/6/2014
Thayos wrote:
I can't understand anyone who skips the cutscenes of a Final Fantasy game. That's like going to Texas and not getting barbecue.

FFXIV: Katarh Mest on Lamia - Member of The Swarm and the League of Extraordinary Crafters
#173 Apr 22 2012 at 1:36 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
As Joph said. Kennedy died and the GOP picked up his seat. Honestly though, the very idea that the only way to pass something is with a filibuster proof majority should be your first hint that what you're doing is extremely partisan.

When you need a filibuster proof majority to pass a bill largely based on a GOP model from the 1990s and put into effect by a Republican governor, it's totally because it's so extremely partisan Smiley: laugh
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#174 Apr 22 2012 at 1:40 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
30,870 posts
catwho wrote:
It is the middle ground.


How? How the hell can you declare something that is 5 steps past anything the GOP is willing to accept as the "middle ground".

Quote:
It's also still partisan, because Republicans no longer have any claim to any part of the middle ground.


Um... You apparently have failed to grasp the concept of "middle ground".
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#175 Apr 22 2012 at 2:15 PM Rating: Good
gbaji wrote:
catwho wrote:
It is the middle ground.
How? How the hell can you declare something that is 5 steps past anything the GOP is willing to accept as the "middle ground".
If the GOP adamantly refuses to be taxed in any way to pay for health care for those who cannot afford it, well then there can't BE any middle ground can there? There can't BE any compromise can there? You can't reach across the aisle if the other guys are walled up in their "no-fort" CAN you?

The current GOP is NOT representative of anything even close to the middle. How can you possibly rationalize otherwise?
____________________________
gbaji wrote:
I'm smarter then you. I know how to think. I've been trained in critical thinking instead of blindly parroting what I've been told.
#176 Apr 22 2012 at 11:53 PM Rating: Good
Seriously. There's a reason liberal pundits are calling them "the party of No." They don't seem to care two sh*ts about improving the lives of their constituents. They just are hell bent on saying no to anything the Democrats put forth, no matter what it is. It's pretty messed up when you can't even get the Violence Against Women Act renewed.
____________________________
Proudmoore US server:
Popina, 90 Priest
Digits, 86 Shaman
Thelesis, 85 Mage
Willowmei, 85 Druid
Necralita, 85 DK
Shrika, 72 Warlock
Jaquelle, 54 Paladin
Grakine, 32 Hunter
The MMO-Zam's FB group. Please message me first so I know who you are.
#177 Apr 23 2012 at 6:59 AM Rating: Good
******
41,289 posts
gbaji wrote:
Um... You apparently have failed to grasp the concept of "middle ground".
"Do it exactly as the Republicans say or bust" ?
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#178 Apr 23 2012 at 8:24 AM Rating: Good
Official Shrubbery Waterer
*****
14,003 posts
So, if the Democrats can't find a "middle ground" with the GOP, they should just shrug, give themselves a hearty pat on the back for trying, and pass into law one of the most unpopular bills in recent history?
Jophiel wrote:
When you need a filibuster proof majority to pass a bill largely based on a GOP model from the 1990s and put into effect by a Republican governor, it's totally because it's so extremely partisan
The Heritage Foundation != The GOP.

Also, the difference between State-level and Federal-level is not insignificant.
____________________________
Almalieque wrote:
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
I'm biased against statistics

#179 Apr 23 2012 at 8:34 AM Rating: Good
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Demea wrote:
So, if the Democrats can't find a "middle ground" with the GOP, they should just shrug, give themselves a hearty pat on the back for trying, and pass into law one of the most unpopular bills in recent history?

Well, yeah, I guess. What's the alternative? If the GOP just pouts and refuses to budge, the Democrats should just throw up their arms and give up?

Quote:
Jophiel wrote:
When you need a filibuster proof majority to pass a bill largely based on a GOP model from the 1990s and put into effect by a Republican governor, it's totally because it's so extremely partisan
The Heritage Foundation != The GOP.

But Gingrich was with the GOP when he was championing the individual mandate and leading the fight against "Hillarycare", right? He was even kind enough to compare it to the mandate to own auto insurance, something that would be considered silly-talk when raised by Democrats sixteen years later.

Although Gbaji treats Heritage Foundation links as his Bible so thanks for pointing out that they were also involved in this "extremely partisan" plan Smiley: smile

Quote:
Also, the difference between State-level and Federal-level is not insignificant.

But it's not really a "partisan" difference. Pretending that this was some giant Democratic engineered socialist "take-over" is ridiculous but I guess it makes for good bumper stickers.

Edited, Apr 23rd 2012 9:38am by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#180 Apr 23 2012 at 9:20 AM Rating: Good
Meat Popsicle
Avatar
*****
10,403 posts
Obama has had the most success finding a centrist position when he doesn't have to drag the rest of the party along. Things that don't have to go through congress and get put up for a vote and what not. Like when he went with the compromise position on off-shore drilling, and decided to expand it on a limited scale.

Then the oil rig blew up like 3 weeks later.
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#181 Apr 23 2012 at 10:30 AM Rating: Good
Official Shrubbery Waterer
*****
14,003 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Demea wrote:
So, if the Democrats can't find a "middle ground" with the GOP, they should just shrug, give themselves a hearty pat on the back for trying, and pass into law one of the most unpopular bills in recent history?

Well, yeah, I guess. What's the alternative? If the GOP just pouts and refuses to budge, the Democrats should just throw up their arms and give up?

The effort to "compromise" has been only a token one, and only for public perception. If Democrats (or Republicans) were serious about finding "middle ground," they'd spend less time publicly calling their opponents names and more time actually negotiating. It just so happens that Democrats controlled Congress at the time so they got their way, but the GOP certainly isn't blameless, and I never meant to imply that they were.

Quote:
Quote:
Jophiel wrote:
When you need a filibuster proof majority to pass a bill largely based on a GOP model from the 1990s and put into effect by a Republican governor, it's totally because it's so extremely partisan
The Heritage Foundation != The GOP.

But Gingrich was with the GOP when he was championing the individual mandate and leading the fight against "Hillarycare", right? He was even kind enough to compare it to the mandate to own auto insurance, something that would be considered silly-talk when raised by Democrats sixteen years later.

The individual mandate is a good idea in theory, but that doesn't mean that it's constitutional. And trying to draw a connection between health insurance and auto insurance is silly-talk.

Plus, pointing out that the current GOP position is at odds with a previously-held position isn't really all that meaningful. Remember the Dixiecrats? Opinions change with the times.

Quote:
Quote:
Also, the difference between State-level and Federal-level is not insignificant.

But it's not really a "partisan" difference. Pretending that this was some giant Democratic engineered socialist "take-over" is ridiculous but I guess it makes for good bumper stickers.

Just as ridiculous as the Democrats claiming to have "reached across the aisle". Good politics, but not reflective of reality.
____________________________
Almalieque wrote:
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
I'm biased against statistics

#182 Apr 23 2012 at 10:42 AM Rating: Good
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Demea wrote:
The effort to "compromise" has been only a token one, and only for public perception.

Without bothering to argue that, it doesn't answer the question. Should one party hold themselves captive to the petulance of the other party even when they have the means to move forward on their own? I'd say no.

Even a "token" effort beats the hell out of a party too busy promising that this will be the president's "Waterloo" and guarantee his defeat to actually concern themselves with improving the legislation.

Quote:
Plus, pointing out that the current GOP position is at odds with a previously-held position isn't really all that meaningful. Remember the Dixiecrats? Opinions change with the times.

"The times" haven't been that far off given that, again, the current GOP nominee for president embraced the same idea for his own state. And who said it could be the model for future programs.

Again, and to restate the point, there's no sane way this can be called "extremely partisan". It can be called that by people stretching their hyperbole skills because they want to make some point or another but the facts just don't support it.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#183 Apr 23 2012 at 10:50 AM Rating: Decent
Official Shrubbery Waterer
*****
14,003 posts
Quote:
Again, and to restate the point, there's no sane way this can be called "extremely partisan". It can be called that by people stretching their hyperbole skills because they want to make some point or another but the facts just don't support it.

I never disagreed with this statement, only pointed out that claming that the Democrats "reached across the aisle" on the issue was a blatant falsehood as well.
____________________________
Almalieque wrote:
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
I'm biased against statistics

#184 Apr 23 2012 at 11:14 AM Rating: Good
Will swallow your soul
******
27,899 posts
Demea wrote:
Quote:
Again, and to restate the point, there's no sane way this can be called "extremely partisan". It can be called that by people stretching their hyperbole skills because they want to make some point or another but the facts just don't support it.

I never disagreed with this statement, only pointed out that claming that the Democrats "reached across the aisle" on the issue was a blatant falsehood as well.



If we're still talking about the health care plan that passed, I'd just point out that it was first proposed by the Republicans. They only came down against it when it was re-proposed by the Democrats.

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

#185 Apr 23 2012 at 11:41 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Demea wrote:
I never disagreed with this statement, only pointed out that claming that the Democrats "reached across the aisle" on the issue was a blatant falsehood as well.

You mean aside from going with a GOP-created and implemented plan rather than a single-payor system or something similar.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#186 Apr 23 2012 at 2:49 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
30,870 posts
Friar Bijou wrote:
gbaji wrote:
catwho wrote:
It is the middle ground.
How? How the hell can you declare something that is 5 steps past anything the GOP is willing to accept as the "middle ground".
If the GOP adamantly refuses to be taxed in any way to pay for health care for those who cannot afford it, well then there can't BE any middle ground can there?


And if the Dems adamantly insist on forcing people who earn money to pay for benefits for those who don't, there can't BE any middle ground can there?

See how it works both ways? Finding a middle ground means looking at the things that both parties agree on, instead of focusing on the areas we don't. What Obama did was deliberately push an agenda that he knew was partisan and he knew neither side could agree on and made that the centerpiece of his first 2 years in office.

That was his choice. That was the Dems choice. If he'd wanted to reach across the aisle, he could have actually had his party and the GOP sit down and look at issues like health care, the economy, energy policy, etc and find the areas where they agreed and move forward on those things. He not only did not do this, he did the exact opposite of this.


Quote:
There can't BE any compromise can there? You can't reach across the aisle if the other guys are walled up in their "no-fort" CAN you?


Sure. But do you see how this goes both ways? How does deliberately focusing on the aspects of various political issues that are the most partisan and the most divisive meet his claim of "bridging the partisan divide". There's a whole hell of a lot of governance that is not so strongly disagreed upon. He choose his agenda. Not the GOP. It's more than unfair to blame the GOP for the fact that his agenda met with partisan resistance. Did anyone think that it wouldn't? So doesn't that make him responsible for the partisan outcome?

Quote:
The current GOP is NOT representative of anything even close to the middle. How can you possibly rationalize otherwise?


Um... Because we exist in an adversarial political system? If the GOP were tomorrow to adopt a "middle position" on say funding for contraception, or gun control, or taxes, do you think that the Dems will then meet them in the middle? If you do, you are an idiot because that's not how it works. You take the far side and then compromise towards the middle (where you can) or find areas where you can agree when you can't. That's how the system works.

What the Dems did was make their own far left demands and when the GOP didn't agree, declared the GOP the "party of No", and then proceeded with their far left agenda anyway. Now, we can certainly say that if they had the political power to do so, then that's their choice. But if you buy the whole "GOP==party of no" line, you are a sucker. That whole bit was invented so as to preemptively distract you from noticing how partisan the Dems were being. See, by doing that, then every time the GOP opposes something the Dems are doing, it's not that what the Dems are doing is a monumentally stupid thing to do, but it's just the GOP being the party of no.


Which would be a clever bit of political razzle dazzle if it weren't for the unfortunate fact that most of what the Dems did in 2009 and 2010 was actually monumentally stupid. I can see being snowed by their BS at the time, but for anyone to still repeat that tired "party of no" line today just smacks of an amazing ability to bury your head in the sand.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#187 Apr 23 2012 at 2:52 PM Rating: Good
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
And if the Dems adamantly insist on forcing people who earn money to pay for benefits for those who don't, there can't BE any middle ground can there?

Ask Romney or Gingrich. They seem cool with it.

Quote:
What Obama did was deliberately push an agenda that he knew was partisan

I guess Romney is "severely liberal" these days as well as "severely conservative". Etch-A-Sketch! Smiley: laugh
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#188 Apr 23 2012 at 4:28 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
30,870 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
And if the Dems adamantly insist on forcing people who earn money to pay for benefits for those who don't, there can't BE any middle ground can there?

Ask Romney or Gingrich. They seem cool with it.

Quote:
What Obama did was deliberately push an agenda that he knew was partisan

I guess Romney is "severely liberal" these days as well as "severely conservative". Etch-A-Sketch! Smiley: laugh


Jesus Joph. You seriously need to get your head out of the "Romney care is just like Obamacare" punch bowl. That's some pretty tired rhetoric there.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#189 Apr 23 2012 at 5:24 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Well, that sure was convincing. I mean, you used a derivative of the Kool-Aid meme and everything! Smiley: clap
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#190 Apr 23 2012 at 5:50 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
30,870 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Well, that sure was convincing. I mean, you used a derivative of the Kool-Aid meme and everything! Smiley: clap


This coming from a guy dismissing a whole set of questionable agenda choices by the Obama administration with a simple "Obamacare is Romneycare" handwave?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#191 Apr 23 2012 at 5:58 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Was I? Here I thought I was refering to your "OMG IT WAS SO EXTREME PARTISAN!!!!!~BBQ" bitchfest about the health care bill.

But I suppose when you're completely wrong, the best thing for you to do is change the subject and throw a tizzy that I was "handwaving" away your new topic Smiley: laugh
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#192 Apr 23 2012 at 6:22 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
30,870 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Was I? Here I thought I was refering to your "OMG IT WAS SO EXTREME PARTISAN!!!!!~BBQ" bitchfest about the health care bill.


And here I thought I was replying to the "OMG! The GOP was so partisan to oppose that bill" bitchfest that was already going on? You're right though, saying it takes two sides for something to be partisan is just so so crazy and out there. It's just crazy talk! Smiley: lol

Quote:
But I suppose when you're completely wrong, the best thing for you to do is change the subject and throw a tizzy that I was "handwaving" away your new topic Smiley: laugh


Yeah... So when I provide a list of areas in which Obama failed to deliver and the best you can do is zero in on just one of them, then zero in on just one aspect of it, and dismiss it because that one part of that one thing is sorta kinda similar to something else Romney did, I'm not supposed to call that a handwave? No. I think I will continue to call that exactly what it is: It's a handwave dismissal, and a pretty weak one at that.

The whole "Obamacare is Romneycare" bit was weak a year ago Joph. Maybe you missed a memo or something?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#193 Apr 23 2012 at 6:33 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Yeah... So when I provide a list of areas in which Obama failed to deliver and the best you can do is zero in on just one of them, then zero in on just one aspect of it, and dismiss it because that one part of that one thing is sorta kinda similar to something else Romney did, I'm not supposed to call that a handwave?

I'm sorry... were you under some bizarre impression that I felt a need to follow along whatever little trails you decide to lay?

I was responding to a particular remark of yours. The fact that you're cornered on it and can't come up with a better exit than to cry about some other topic isn't really my problem.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#194 Apr 24 2012 at 7:08 AM Rating: Excellent
******
41,289 posts
gbaji wrote:
The whole "Obamacare is Romneycare" bit was weak a year ago Joph.
You mean when the Republicans were spouting it?
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#195 Apr 24 2012 at 7:11 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Don't confuse Gbaji's knee-jerk defenses with facts, yo. You didn't answer every other word he said in this thread to his satisfaction so using facts is just handwaving and stuff!
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#196 Apr 24 2012 at 3:53 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
30,870 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Demea wrote:
I never disagreed with this statement, only pointed out that claming that the Democrats "reached across the aisle" on the issue was a blatant falsehood as well.

You mean aside from going with a GOP-created and implemented plan rather than a single-payor system or something similar.


Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
What Obama did was deliberately push an agenda that he knew was partisan

I guess Romney is "severely liberal" these days as well as "severely conservative". Etch-A-Sketch! Smiley: laugh


Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Yeah... So when I provide a list of areas in which Obama failed to deliver and the best you can do is zero in on just one of them, then zero in on just one aspect of it, and dismiss it because that one part of that one thing is sorta kinda similar to something else Romney did, I'm not supposed to call that a handwave?

I'm sorry... were you under some bizarre impression that I felt a need to follow along whatever little trails you decide to lay?

I was responding to a particular remark of yours. The fact that you're cornered on it and can't come up with a better exit than to cry about some other topic isn't really my problem.


No. You responded to broad statements about how Obama's claim to reach across the aisle was false and his agenda was partisan with the same consistent silly/tired "Romneycare == Obamacare" bit. Um... That's great Joph. I think it's a stupid comparison because it fails to take into account the whole state versus federal level aspect (and several differences in the laws themselves), but how exactly does that address Obama's economic policy? Does it address his stimulus bill (which was just as partisan). Does it address his energy policy?


Health care is just one of a whole list of things that make up Obama's agenda, and upon which we can establish a clear pattern of partisan behavior. If it were just the one thing, it would be a stretch to use that to make the kind of broad statements about Obama's approach to governing that I (and other conservatives) have made. So you responding to those statements with a stupid handwave response about just one aspect of just one issue is pretty absurd.


Is Romney the same as Obama on energy policy? Is he the same on economic policy? Education? Welfare? Military? No? So what exact value does your input have on the partisan nature of Obama's agenda? Pretty much zero. I guess I find it somewhat amusing that your best defense of Obama's term in office is to find the one thing he did that is kinda sorta similar to something the guy running against him did. That's pretty darn pathetic if you stop and think about it. I'd think that if I were liberal and wanted to support my guy's agenda, I'd be looking for all the things he's done that is different from what the other guy has done (or plans to do) and show how those differences make him better.

It speaks volumes about how even liberals don't think their own agenda is very good when the best argument they have is to find things they are doing that is similar to what the GOP says they'd do differently. I mean, stop and think about it. You have to know that's a pretty pathetic argument. Hell. It's practically an admission by liberals that conservative ideas are the ones that win elections when all you seem to do is find ways to argue that what your guys are doing is really the same as what the conservatives talk about. Like I said: Weak as hell.


Don't you ever want to declare your principles and stand on them? No word games. Just say what you believe and then say why that's the better choice. Ever? Cause it seems like liberals work really hard to avoid doing this. Which seems strange and dishonest.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#197 Apr 24 2012 at 4:54 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
That was a whole lot of words to cry about and avoid admitting that there was nothing "extremely partisan" about the health care bill except that the GOP was more worried about politics and "Waterloo" than doing what was right for the American people.

I hope it made you feel better.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#198 Apr 24 2012 at 5:41 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
30,870 posts
Jophiel wrote:
That was a whole lot of words to cry about and avoid admitting that there was nothing "extremely partisan" about the health care bill except that the GOP was more worried about politics and "Waterloo" than doing what was right for the American people.


First off, there were many partisan things about the health care bill, and no amount of oversimplifying the issue to a single component of that bill that kinda sorta if you look at it sideways is similar to something Romney signed in Massachusetts changes that fact.

Secondly, do you see how making that (weak) argument about just the health care bill does not really answer the core point that Obama claimed during his campaign that he would be a post-partisan president and would reach across the aisle to find common ground with Republicans but has demonstrably failed to do this? Cause that was the point I was making. So if your best counter is that he was extremely partisan in a whole bunch of different areas, but there's this one bill he signed that was only just mostly partisan, you really aren't saying anything. Unless you think that "sure your honor, my client did rob 5 banks, but in one of them he didn't shoot anyone" is a great defense?

Quote:
I hope it made you feel better.


It's not about how I feel. It's about whether Obama has met the claims he made while running for office. He clearly has not only not come close to doing so, but certainly appears to have actively done the opposite when it comes to some of them. Let's also not forget that the non-partisan angle is only one of several that he's failed to meet. There's also the whole "post racial" thing, which he's consistently failed to achieve. Then there's the whole "not hiring lobbyists" bit. And the whole "eliminating waste fraud and abuse" bit. I could probably think of a few more if I thought I needed to in order to make my point.

In that context, obsessing over what is a pretty weak comparison between Romneycare and Obamacare as your best answer really does come across like a desperate attempt to change the subject.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#199 Apr 24 2012 at 5:50 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
And again, more crying and denial Smiley: laugh It's okay... just admit that the GOP's refusal was purely political and we'll all be saying the truth.

Quote:
really does come across like a desperate attempt to change the subject.

lolirony. Once again, thanks for letting me know exactly when I struck a nerve with you by trying to use the same lines and praying they work as well for you as they just did for me Smiley: laugh
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#200 Apr 25 2012 at 7:38 AM Rating: Decent
Official Shrubbery Waterer
*****
14,003 posts
Last word.
____________________________
Almalieque wrote:
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
I'm biased against statistics

#201 Apr 25 2012 at 7:52 AM Rating: Excellent
******
41,289 posts
Banana.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 54 All times are in CDT
feelz, JennockFV, Timelordwho, Anonymous Guests (51)