Nadie_AZ: We tried the tax cuts route. It didn't work.

Can we try the other route, now? Please? A lot of white Republicans will lose their social security, disability, unemployment and medicare. You sure you want that, Republicans?

They don't care about anyone but the people paying them. They just front it with racism to get all the other white folk to vote for them.

/Republicans: Not racist, but #1 with racists!

Well, I'm glad someone's getting a laugh out of all this...

Thursday night, Democrats filibustered a Republican-backed provision of President Obama's jobs bill, because the GOP proposed to pay for it by slashing $30 billion worth of funds for federal programs.

So the Democrats basically said "Jobs are less important than funding our existing pork".

That's going to look great come election season.

Riche
They pussied out, despite the fact that they farking KNEW the republican MINORITY were going to keep abusing the hell out of the rules for their own benefit and to the detriment of the nation.

They did nothing because they understand they won't be a majority forever and want to be able to do the same shiat to republicans down the road.

It's politcal theatre nothing else.

Shaggy_C: Thursday night, Democrats filibustered a Republican-backed provision of President Obama's jobs bill, because the GOP proposed to pay for it by slashing $30 billion worth of funds for federal programs.

So the Democrats basically said "Jobs are less important than funding our existing pork".

That's going to look great come election season.

Cutting funding for programs (Eliminating jobs) is a good way to create jobs?

When did robbing Peter to pay Paul ever work?

"messaging legislation"?

wont_eat_bugs: From what I've been able to glean, Democrats are defending 23 seats in 2012 and the Republicans are defending 10. We could see an overwhelmingly Republican Senate in 2013 if things don't improve.

THIS

wont_eat_bugs: From what I've been able to glean, Democrats are defending 23 seats in 2012 and the Republicans are defending 10. We could see an overwhelmingly Republican Senate in 2013 if things don't improve.

Oh gods save us from that.

Dems suck, but they suck less than Repubs.

wont_eat_bugs: From what I've been able to glean, Democrats are defending 23 seats in 2012 and the Republicans are defending 10. We could see an overwhelmingly Republican Senate in 2013 if things don't improve.

That would be a given if Obama and the Democrats weren't proposing legislation that has 60% or higher approval among the voters and the GOP shutting them all down. It's not as clear cut this time around because Obama is checking off things that people want (bringing troops home, end DADT) and you have a retarded group of politicians fighting for the GOP nomination.

wont_eat_bugs: From what I've been able to glean, Democrats are defending 23 seats in 2012 and the Republicans are defending 10. We could see an overwhelmingly Republican Senate in 2013 if things don't improve.

Which is why things won't improve. The GOP will kick and scream and stomp its way into a majority in the Senate, retain the House, and spend the next four years daring Obama to veto horseshiat bill after horseshiat bill. Then in 2016, Pres. Christie will come to save us all from the feckless, incompetent Democratic Administration. And we will fall for it, because we are idiots, plus by then we'll all be starving unemployed idiots.

SurfaceTension: Call me when there's a senatorial beat down, or a duel at 20 paces.

Preston Brooks II: Electric Bugaloo?

/seriously I'm waiting for history to repeat itself

Riche: Goddamnitsomuch. You're the leader of the senate, Reid. Stand the fark up and lead for once in your pathetic life.

The picture accompanying the article says it all... Reid is a simpering milquetoast in a baggy, wrinkled suit who's just clinging to his job out of fear and desperation. If this was Glengarry Glen Ross, Reid would be the Jack Lemon character.

From the article about Reid setting a new precedent linked to in this article:
McConnell's goal has been to embarrass Democrats - to force a vote of some kind on the jobs bill President Obama sent to Congress weeks ago, and watch it go down in flames. Reid's goal has been to thwart McConnell, and to call his own vote in the coming days on a modified version of Obama's bill with broader caucus support. That will help Democrats make the case that Republicans alone stand in the way of the American Jobs Act.

This is what is wrong with our current system political parties. Both sides "goals" are to make the other side look dumb. Unfortunately both sides are just making themselves look dumb in the process and no-one wins. Both sides should be working together to make the country better, not just trying to one-up the other side. Can we recall them all and start over?

I never really cared for Nancy Pelosi. Grandmother Power, really? But she could whip the unwieldly House into better shape than Reid ever could the more staid Senate. Hell, Pelosi beat out Boehner for better control over the House, and the Republicans are far more likely to act in lockstep.

Dazrin: From the article about Reid setting a new precedent linked to in this article:
McConnell's goal has been to embarrass Democrats - to force a vote of some kind on the jobs bill President Obama sent to Congress weeks ago, and watch it go down in flames. Reid's goal has been to thwart McConnell, and to call his own vote in the coming days on a modified version of Obama's bill with broader caucus support. That will help Democrats make the case that Republicans alone stand in the way of the American Jobs Act.

This is what is wrong with our current system political parties. Both sides "goals" are to make the other side look dumb. Unfortunately both sides are just making themselves look dumb in the process and no-one wins. Both sides should be working together to make the country better, not just trying to one-up the other side. Can we recall them all and start over?

I'll buy the "both sides" bit when the Dems start offering bills containing only tax hikes and NO cuts in spending; especially cuts to social programs...

Shaggy_C: Thursday night, Democrats filibustered a Republican-backed provision of President Obama's jobs bill, because the GOP proposed to pay for it by slashing $30 billion worth of funds for federal programs.

So the Democrats basically said "Jobs are less important than funding our existing pork".

That's going to look great come election season.

How's your grandma going to feel when the Dems run ads that the Republicans think her Social Security and Medicaid are pork?

pwhp_67: Dazrin: From the article about Reid setting a new precedent linked to in this article:
McConnell's goal has been to embarrass Democrats - to force a vote of some kind on the jobs bill President Obama sent to Congress weeks ago, and watch it go down in flames. Reid's goal has been to thwart McConnell, and to call his own vote in the coming days on a modified version of Obama's bill with broader caucus support. That will help Democrats make the case that Republicans alone stand in the way of the American Jobs Act.

This is what is wrong with our current system political parties. Both sides "goals" are to make the other side look dumb. Unfortunately both sides are just making themselves look dumb in the process and no-one wins. Both sides should be working together to make the country better, not just trying to one-up the other side. Can we recall them all and start over?

I'll buy the "both sides" bit when the Dems start offering bills containing only tax hikes and NO cuts in spending; especially cuts to social programs...

I will readily admit the republicans are most of the problem, but certainly not all of it. It is both sides who are at fault. Just because the democrats in office tend to have no spines, perhaps because of it, they don't get a pass on this.

Nadie_AZ: We tried the tax cuts route. It didn't work.

Can we try the other route, now? Please?

How about handing the president almost a trillion in stimulus funds to see what he can do?

MusicMakeMyHeadPound: SurfaceTension: Call me when there's a senatorial beat down, or a duel at 20 paces.

Preston Brooks II: Electric Bugaloo?

/seriously I'm waiting for history to repeat itself



I post this picture only because I live in his former district and I applaud your knowledge of US Congressional History.

USCLaw2010: I post this picture only because I live in his former district and I applaud your knowledge of US Congressional History.

I wonder how modern republicans feel about that. Because the guy was a democrat, so it'd make him look bad, but it's pretty 'them' to beat a man into unconsciousness because he doesn't agree with you, but he was pro-slavery, but they could frame it as a states' rights issue. What to do, what to do.

/vote republican

As a Kentuckian, I safely assume my state's senators are mostly to blame.


/Goddamit so much, sister-farking, meth-huffing KY voters.

Dazrin: pwhp_67: Dazrin: From the article about Reid setting a new precedent linked to in this article:
McConnell's goal has been to embarrass Democrats - to force a vote of some kind on the jobs bill President Obama sent to Congress weeks ago, and watch it go down in flames. Reid's goal has been to thwart McConnell, and to call his own vote in the coming days on a modified version of Obama's bill with broader caucus support. That will help Democrats make the case that Republicans alone stand in the way of the American Jobs Act.

This is what is wrong with our current system political parties. Both sides "goals" are to make the other side look dumb. Unfortunately both sides are just making themselves look dumb in the process and no-one wins. Both sides should be working together to make the country better, not just trying to one-up the other side. Can we recall them all and start over?

I'll buy the "both sides" bit when the Dems start offering bills containing only tax hikes and NO cuts in spending; especially cuts to social programs...

I will readily admit the republicans are most of the problem, but certainly not all of it. It is both sides who are at fault. Just because the democrats in office tend to have no spines, perhaps because of it, they don't get a pass on this.

So one side eats babies, and the other side doesn't do enough to draw attention to baby eating.

I'm going to say you need to get rid of the baby eaters, not bring in louder people to oppose baby eating.

Dafatone: Dazrin: pwhp_67: Dazrin: From the article about Reid setting a new precedent linked to in this article:
McConnell's goal has been to embarrass Democrats - to force a vote of some kind on the jobs bill President Obama sent to Congress weeks ago, and watch it go down in flames. Reid's goal has been to thwart McConnell, and to call his own vote in the coming days on a modified version of Obama's bill with broader caucus support. That will help Democrats make the case that Republicans alone stand in the way of the American Jobs Act.

This is what is wrong with our current system political parties. Both sides "goals" are to make the other side look dumb. Unfortunately both sides are just making themselves look dumb in the process and no-one wins. Both sides should be working together to make the country better, not just trying to one-up the other side. Can we recall them all and start over?

I'll buy the "both sides" bit when the Dems start offering bills containing only tax hikes and NO cuts in spending; especially cuts to social programs...

I will readily admit the republicans are most of the problem, but certainly not all of it. It is both sides who are at fault. Just because the democrats in office tend to have no spines, perhaps because of it, they don't get a pass on this.

So one side eats babies, and the other side doesn't do enough to draw attention to baby eating.

I'm going to say you need to get rid of the baby eaters, not bring in louder people to oppose baby eating.

Alright, if you want to make that kind of argument...one side eats babies, the other just kills them.

It isn't that the democrats aren't being loud enough, it is that they aren't doing their jobs when they just fold.

/And our office is having a fire drill, time to call it quits. Have a good one.

I'm not sure the average voter would understand the article.

USCLaw2010: MusicMakeMyHeadPound: SurfaceTension: Call me when there's a senatorial beat down, or a duel at 20 paces.

Preston Brooks II: Electric Bugaloo?

/seriously I'm waiting for history to repeat itself



I post this picture only because I live in his former district and I applaud your knowledge of US Congressional History.

David Broderick was the Senator killed in a duel (by a California judge who felt Broderick wasn't "Democrat" enough) that SurfaceTension was referring to. The 1850s were an especially farked up decade for this country (complete with "Know Nothing" party the likes of the Teatards and a "Rent is too damned high" movement in New York - seriously)

However the Brooks/Sumner incident happened on the Senate floor, so I happen to see it as the pinnacle of that era's plight.

/I started out as a History major...

Riche: The democratic majority had the power to change the SERIOUSLY farked up senate rules after the last election with a simple majority vote.

They pussied out, despite the fact that they farking KNEW the republican MINORITY were going to keep abusing the hell out of the rules for their own benefit and to the detriment of the nation.

Goddamnitsomuch. You're the leader of the senate, Reid. Stand the fark up and lead for once in your pathetic life.

So how do TWO "jobs bills" get voted down by a simple democrat majority in the Senate when the democrats have a majority IN the Senate?

Anyone?

Anyone?