Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Talking Points Memo)   Government reaches debt agreement. Or, 'how Obama got steamrolled by everyone'   (tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com ) divider line
    More: News  
•       •       •

27292 clicks; posted to Main » on 31 Jul 2011 at 9:25 PM (4 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



1056 Comments     (+0 »)
 


Oldest | « | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2011-08-02 08:20:55 AM  

The Numbers: Republicans aren't going to vote 'no'


polination.files.wordpress.com

The Numbers: I have no real idea what you're blithering about here; of course they are failures worth mentioning - what possible other standard could you judge performance by if not actual achievements? You think we should be satisfied with: 'well, he really wanted to do it but some people said no so he had to give up'?


How about stuff he actually does on purpose that sucks?

Faulting him for not ending inherited wars instantaneously, or not being able to raise taxes on the rich, is faulting him for stuff that nobody else in Washington could do, and very few would even want to do.
 
2011-08-02 08:23:41 AM  

Yankees Team Gynecologist: Faulting him for not ending inherited wars instantaneously, or not being able to raise taxes on the rich, is faulting him for stuff that nobody else in Washington could do, and very few would even want to do.


My point being, those are things that are wrong with the Washington status quo, not really any individual. If you're talking about individuals, you have to think comparatively if you want a useful discussion about present issues.
 
2011-08-02 11:16:25 AM  

Yankees Team Gynecologist: The Numbers: Republicans aren't going to vote 'no'

[polination.files.wordpress.com image 524x302]

The Numbers: I have no real idea what you're blithering about here; of course they are failures worth mentioning - what possible other standard could you judge performance by if not actual achievements? You think we should be satisfied with: 'well, he really wanted to do it but some people said no so he had to give up'?

How about stuff he actually does on purpose that sucks?

Faulting him for not ending inherited wars instantaneously, or not being able to raise taxes on the rich, is faulting him for stuff that nobody else in Washington could do, and very few would even want to do.


Firstly - it is very telling that you felt the need to remove the context of my remark before responding to it. That rather suggests you've recognised the weakness in your own argument and are trying to hide it.

It is also important to note that this wasn't about introducing a tax rise, it was letting a tax cut expire. That's a massive difference in terms of what needs to be done to see taxes increased on the rich.

His election slogan was 'yes we can', not 'yes we can, but it'll be hard so I won't even try'. so no, he doesn't get a free pass when all he does is maintain the Washington status quo.
 
2011-08-02 07:55:41 PM  

The Numbers: Firstly - it is very telling that you felt the need to remove the context of my remark before responding to it. That rather suggests you've recognised the weakness in your own argument and are trying to hide it.


That wasn't context, that was you missing the larger obvious picture, the superset of what you were saying. These are the same 'tards who voted for what they knew was epic fail just to score points with their mongoloid teatard constituents (new window).

The Numbers: It is also important to note that this wasn't about introducing a tax rise, it was letting a tax cut expire. That's a massive difference in terms of what needs to be done to see taxes increased on the rich.


That's the easy part. What about the key part where he then has to get the reverse bill through Congress? You don't think Republicans and right-leaning Dems would hold it hostage unless it was modified to restore the tax cuts to everyone?

The Numbers: His election slogan was 'yes we can', not 'yes we can, but it'll be hard so I won't even try'. so no, he doesn't get a free pass when all he does is maintain the Washington status quo.


"Won't even try"? You want to call the health care bill "not trying"? Knock it all you want for not being liberal enough, but the major beats about pre-existing conditions and insurance exchanges are miles ahead of what anyone else would have done.

Why don't you explain the part where you somehow think he should have ended the wars instantaneously? How would that even work? You think McCain would have drawn down the troops in Iraq by over 2/3 by now?

Feel free not to grade on a curve if you don't want to. Your concern is duly noted.
 
2011-08-02 08:48:37 PM  
Yankees Team Gynecologist:
That wasn't context, that was you missing the larger obvious picture, the superset of what you were saying. These are the same 'tards who voted for what they knew was epic fail just to score points with their mongoloid teatard constituents (new window).

Shift the goalposts as much as you want, but it was an obvious attempt to avoid the context of the remark, which focused on a specific issue - tax cuts.

That's the easy part. What about the key part where he then has to get the reverse bill through Congress? You don't think Republicans and right-leaning Dems would hold it hostage unless it was modified to restore the tax cuts to everyone?

They'd try no doubt, but he'd be in a much stronger position to deal with those attempts.

"Won't even try"? You want to call the health care bill "not trying"? Knock it all you want for not being liberal enough, but the major beats about pre-existing conditions and insurance exchanges are miles ahead of what anyone else would have done.

Citing an example of when he did fight for something does not disprove the notion that he has given up on the fight for other things far too easily. Nor does it provide a justification for such willingness to capitulate.

Why don't you explain the part where you somehow think he should have ended the wars instantaneously?

I think I'll leave you to play with that strawman by yourself - not once have I said he should have ended the wars instantaneously.
 
2011-08-02 11:16:42 PM  

The Numbers: Shift the goalposts as much as you want, but it was an obvious attempt to avoid the context of the remark, which focused on a specific issue - tax cuts.


Republicans are going to vote no, period, whenever it suits them. Like I said, they have the low-hanging fruit teatard excuse--"we don't like it because it punishes 'job creators' and promotes 'class warfare.'"

It's that simple--they have voted no, they will vote no, and that includes tax cuts, period. Did you not understand this from the start, or are you avoiding it?

The Numbers: They'd try no doubt, but he'd be in a much stronger position to deal with those attempts.


How? If it falls through, he's left with tax hikes for all, which I personally don't mind but he sure as hell didn't want it. He obviously wanted raising taxes on the rich less than he wanted lowering/keeping low taxes on the rest.

This is basic strategy. If the re-cuts fell through, you'd be blaming him for that promise failure too. Of the two promises (repeal for the rich, extend for the rest) I don't think it's hard to argue that the latter was much more important to him.

The Numbers: Citing an example of when he did fight for something does not disprove the notion that he has given up on the fight for other things far too easily. Nor does it provide a justification for such willingness to capitulate.


As opposed to citing an example where you think he didn't?

Technically two examples, but your war one has to be the dumbest thing ever, considering that a) he was always against Iraq from the start and has been winding it down, and b) he actually campaigned on going harder in Afghanistan. Whether we like the policy or not, that's not an example of capitulating.

Meanwhile, here you go...again, I'm sure you can go on and on about how you supposedly think he's failing to be progressive enough. Your concern is duly noted.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/

The Numbers: I think I'll leave you to play with that strawman by yourself - not once have I said he should have ended the wars instantaneously.


You blamed him for "extending the wars."

What does not extending the wars mean?
 
Displayed 6 of 1056 comments


Oldest | « | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | » | Newest | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report