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.

(Yahoo)   Cold Front: How Obama Girl's indecision symbolizes the end of Obama fever   (news.yahoo.com) divider line 173
    More: Obvious, obama, Amber Lee Ettinger, cold fronts, Obama Republicans, Crush on Obama, American nationalism, electoral calendar 2008, indecision  
•       •       •

3503 clicks; posted to Politics » on 11 Jun 2012 at 9:53 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



173 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-06-11 12:57:09 PM

derpdeederp: HeartBurnKid: People change in 4 years. News at 11.

/at 18, I was a libertarian.
//by the time I was 22, once the world had its way with me, I was a liberal.

And at 50 you will be a conservative.


Wrong again, boyo. I'm 52 years old and more liberal even than I was at 22 (which was already pretty liberal). Everything that's happened to me over the years - a couple decades of practicing law, raising a child, owning property, saving for retirement - has confirmed my liberal philosophy.
 
2012-06-11 01:09:29 PM

TV's Vinnie: Cletus C.:

LOL! McCain lost because he was meant to be the fall guy.



Approves of this message.
timstvshowcase.com
 
2012-06-11 01:16:23 PM

BMulligan: derpdeederp: HeartBurnKid: People change in 4 years. News at 11.

/at 18, I was a libertarian.
//by the time I was 22, once the world had its way with me, I was a liberal.

And at 50 you will be a conservative.

Wrong again, boyo. I'm 52 years old and more liberal even than I was at 22 (which was already pretty liberal). Everything that's happened to me over the years - a couple decades of practicing law, raising a child, owning property, saving for retirement - has confirmed my liberal philosophy.


I'm pushing 40 and I've gotten more liberal over the years, not less. The notion that one becomes more conservative as one becomes older is utter horseshiat that conservatives tell themselves to try to justify their philosophy.
 
2012-06-11 01:18:01 PM

Don't Troll Me Bro!: Oh, it's this talking point again. Yeah, run with that.


Look, everybody! People are just as unenthused with their candidate as we are with ours! See? It's just like we've been telling you all this time! Both sides are bad! So you know what to do!
 
2012-06-11 01:19:23 PM
<b><a href="http://www.fark.com/comments/7156254/77413285#c77413285" target="_blank">derpdeederp</a>:</b> <i>HeartBurnKid: People change in 4 years. News at 11.

/at 18, I was a libertarian.
//by the time I was 22, once the world had its way with me, I was a liberal.

And at 50 you will be a conservative.</i>

Not if "conservative" continues to mean what it has come to mean.
 
2012-06-11 01:20:36 PM
<b><a href="http://www.fark.com/comments/7156254/77410040#c77410040" target="_blank">Maud Dib</a>:</b> <i>HeartBurnKid: People change in 4 years. News at 11.

/at 18, I was a libertarian.
//by the time I was 22, once the world had its way with me, I was a liberal.

Did the world at least have the courtesy to call you afterwards?</i>

Are you kidding? I didn't even get a reacharound.
 
2012-06-11 01:37:54 PM
This article:

t3.gstatic.com
 
2012-06-11 01:55:49 PM

WombatControl: hillbillypharmacist: WombatControl: And that's if you're a liberal -- if you're a conservative, Obama stands opposed to damn near everything you value.

Obama must be quite talented to be able to take political action that is opposite both liberal and conservative ideologies.

Well, either that, or you're full of sh*t.

Maybe you should try to understand the argument first...

I gave specific examples of why liberal should be (and are) pissed at Obama: not closing Gitmo, not reigning in the war on terrorism, etc. Those are things that some conservatives give begrudging respect for -- which is why I argued that as a conservative Obama stands for "damn near everything" that conservatives object to.


It's a good thing we have people like you around to tell us what we should be pissed at Obama for.

Haahahhahahaaaaahahahaaaa.
 
2012-06-11 02:00:14 PM

WombatControl: Those are things that some conservatives give begrudging respect for


Ha ah hah ahahaha

The fact that Obama did something that they would do themselves only makes them hate Obama more.
 
2012-06-11 02:02:52 PM

WombatControl: Is anyone that suprised by this (other than the Obama dead-enders, anyway)?

The unemployment rate for people in their 20's is something like 12%. From 18-22 it's even higher - 17% IIRC. And that doesn't count the underemployment rate, where you graduate with crushing student loan debt but still end up folding clothes at the Gap and barely making ends meet. That's the Obama economy these days - and if you were one of the young voters who voted for Obama in 2008 on the hopes that he'd change the world for the better, you'de have to be a fool not to be disillusioned.

Obama promised to close Guantanomo - he didn't do it, and the facility is being expanded.

Obama promised to put tighter controls on executive authority and the war on terror - and now he's runnig drone strikes and has "kill lists" being sent out from the Oval Office.

Obama promised to reign in Wall Street - now he's begging them for money and hasn't done a damn thing to end "too big to fail."

Obama promised to help turn the economy around - now all he can do is cherry-pick figures and tell people that the economy is doing "just fine."

And that's if you're a liberal -- if you're a conservative, Obama stands opposed to damn near everything you value.

The only real achievement that Obama can point to is killing bin Laden, which he constantly tries to take credit for, even though all he did is give the order. That counts for something, but not much in the long run.

All the Democrats have right now is fear - trying to convince people that somehow the Republicans are evil and would make things worse. But fear doesn't get voters to support you, and right now Obama's base is not energized and he's not pulling the kind of numbers with independents that suggests a win. He's barely ahead in likely voter polls, which on average understate Republican performance by 3-4%. If that trend holds true, he's probably running just behind Romney nationally.


I knew when his opposition was saying he must have forgotten about the ones killed in 9/11 that the dialogue was going to be too emotionally charged for it to actually happen.
 
2012-06-11 02:28:28 PM
GriffXX:

It has nothing to do with emotion - closing Gitmo was never realistic. What else do you do with a bunch of hardened terrorists? Turn them over to the Afghans? The ones they don't torture to death would probably end up being released. Try them in civilian courts? That went over like a wet fart in church when Obama proposed it.

I'm not surprised that Obama is prosecuting the war on terror like he's been doing - for the simple reason that he doesn't have much other choice. This isn't a war where there are a lot of good options other than using drone strikes and "kill lists" to keep al-Qaeda from reforming.

The reason why Gitmo isn't closed is because it's the least bad option for dealing with people like KSM. Obama was incredibly naive for thinking about closing it, assuming it wasn't an insincere political statement.
 
2012-06-11 02:31:32 PM
The most telling thing about that article is that nowhere in that steaming pile of drivel is there a quote from Obama Girl. The writer bases his analysis of her current opinion, and his subsequent extrapolation of that to a large chunk of the Democratic base, entirely on what she hasn't said.
 
2012-06-11 02:47:42 PM

WombatControl: The reason why Gitmo isn't closed is because it's the least bad option for dealing with people like KSM. Obama was incredibly naive for thinking about closing it, assuming it wasn't an insincere political statement.


He actually tried. The thing is, none of the private prisons on the mainland would take the prisoners. Logistically it just wasn't going to work to close it and they found that out pretty fast. I give him credit for trying as he said he would and don't bemoan him for the circumstances that prevented that from happening.

WombatControl: which is why I argued that as a conservative Obama stands for "damn near everything" that conservatives object to.


I think you have that kind of backwards. Conservatives are opposed to damn near everything Obama does not because the conservatives are against those things but because Obama endorses them. Seriously... Anything he is for, regardless of how beneficial it might be for us all, they are against. They're contrary to be contrary... and that's it.
 
2012-06-11 02:48:45 PM

WombatControl: That went over like a wet fart in church when Obama proposed it.


You conveniently left out "because Republicans in Congress wet their pants"
 
2012-06-11 02:59:18 PM

actualhuman: WombatControl: That went over like a wet fart in church when Obama proposed it.

You conveniently left out "because Republicans in Congress wet their pants"


No, because the NYPD, Homeland Security, and Mayor Bloomberg correctly figured out that holding such a trial in the middle of farking New York City was an epically stupid idea...

JohnnyC: I think you have that kind of backwards. Conservatives are opposed to damn near everything Obama does not because the conservatives are against those things but because Obama endorses them. Seriously... Anything he is for, regardless of how beneficial it might be for us all, they are against. They're contrary to be contrary... and that's it.


And that's the view of the left - which is why they don't have a clue why the opposition to Obama exists.

Here's a hint: when you lose Ted Kennedy's former Senate seat over health care, you should rethink pursuing healthcare. Obama doubled down. When you get your ass handed to you in the midterms, you should reevaluate your policies. Obama doubled down on them. When you see voters in North Carolina reject gay marriage, maybe it's politically stupid to endorse it. When you see Scott Walker win in Wisconsin on a platform of fighting excessive public spending, maybe you should not endorse more public spending and claim that the private economy is doing "just fine."

Obama's problem isn't that conservatives automatically oppose him, it's that he has no clue how to work across party lines and get things done. When he gets rebuked, he doesn't pull back and figure out what he can do, he just tries to bulldoze his way through the opposition. You don't accomplish anything as President if you take that view, especially not in a divided government. Clinton accomplished a great deal in the face of Republican opposition because he knew how to work with Republicans and get things done. Obama is clueless.
 
2012-06-11 03:04:40 PM

WombatControl: Here's a hint: when you lose Ted Kennedy's former Senate seat over health care, you should rethink pursuing healthcare.


Exactly. Everyone knows the citizens of Massachusetts are not too keen on healthcare reform. Think again, Debtbama.
 
2012-06-11 03:05:28 PM

WombatControl: JohnnyC: I think you have that kind of backwards. Conservatives are opposed to damn near everything Obama does not because the conservatives are against those things but because Obama endorses them. Seriously... Anything he is for, regardless of how beneficial it might be for us all, they are against. They're contrary to be contrary... and that's it.

And that's the view of the left - which is why they don't have a clue why the opposition to Obama exists.

Here's a hint: when you lose Ted Kennedy's former Senate seat over health care, you should rethink pursuing healthcare. Obama doubled down. When you get your ass handed to you in the midterms, you should reevaluate your policies. Obama doubled down on them. When you see voters in North Carolina reject gay marriage, maybe it's politically stupid to endorse it. When you see Scott Walker win in Wisconsin on a platform of fighting excessive public spending, maybe you should not endorse more public spending and claim that the private economy is doing "just fine."

Obama's problem isn't that conservatives automatically oppose him, it's that he has no clue how to work across party lines and get things done. When he gets rebuked, he doesn't pull back and figure out what he can do, he just tries to bulldoze his way through the opposition. You don't accomplish anything as President if you take that view, especially not in a divided government. Clinton accomplished a great deal in the face of Republican opposition because he knew how to work with Republicans and get things done. Obama is clueless.


I'm not sure you could whitewash history any more if you had Tom Sawyer pay a million guys to do it for him.
 
2012-06-11 03:06:57 PM

WombatControl: No, because the NYPD, Homeland Security, and Mayor Bloomberg correctly figured out that holding such a trial in the middle of farking New York City was an epically stupid idea...


I'm sure a change of venue was completely out of the question.

/You pants wetting, justice hating coward.
 
2012-06-11 03:19:27 PM

Serious Black: I'm not sure you could whitewash history any more if you had Tom Sawyer pay a million guys to do it for him.


Oh really? So I guess Bill Clinton didn't pass welfare reform in 1996, he didn't pass tax cuts that same year, he didn't pass SCHIP in 1997, etc.

Bullshiat - after 1994, Clinton didn't spend his whole time whining about "Republican obstructionism," he worked across the aisle to get things done, including SCHIP. Obama hasn't done any of that - he rarely meets with Congress, no less Congressional Republicans. Go ahead, compare the White House visitor logs between Clinton and Obama and see for yourself.

That's because Clinton had executive experience as a governor and knew how to accomplish things in government. Obama had none of that, and it shows.
 
2012-06-11 03:26:57 PM

WombatControl: Clinton accomplished a great deal in the face of Republican opposition because he knew how to work with Republicans and get things done


Yeah, and how did the Republicans thank him in return? Oh, right, they shut the government down, impeached him because IT WAS BOB DOLE'S TURN GODAMMIT, and tried years later to shift the blame for 9/11 on him when a Republican was in office when it happened.

You know, there's a saying in Texas, I think it's the same every where. Fool me once...
 
2012-06-11 03:35:54 PM

WombatControl:
That's because Clinton had executive experience as a governor and knew how to accomplish things in government. Obama had none of that, and it shows.


If you think the politics of today are the same as they were back then you're delusional.

And about the article, so vote Republican? Yeah, I'm going to vote for a man who quite literally stands for nothing. Pick an issue, he's been on either side of it at one point or another. He has no beliefs other than the belief that he deserves to be treated like a king.
 
2012-06-11 03:36:57 PM

WombatControl: Serious Black: I'm not sure you could whitewash history any more if you had Tom Sawyer pay a million guys to do it for him.

Oh really? So I guess Bill Clinton didn't pass welfare reform in 1996, he didn't pass tax cuts that same year, he didn't pass SCHIP in 1997, etc.

Bullshiat - after 1994, Clinton didn't spend his whole time whining about "Republican obstructionism," he worked across the aisle to get things done, including SCHIP. Obama hasn't done any of that - he rarely meets with Congress, no less Congressional Republicans. Go ahead, compare the White House visitor logs between Clinton and Obama and see for yourself.

That's because Clinton had executive experience as a governor and knew how to accomplish things in government. Obama had none of that, and it shows.


Notice that the number of filibusters has doubled since 2008, and that the previous record for number of filibusters has been shattered.
https://www.senate.gov/pagelayout/reference/cloture_motions/clotureCo u nts.htm

How would you explain the fact that they pledged (and did) to veto v everything until the Bush tax cuts were extended?

And by everything, I mean everything. My personal favorites:

http://articles.cnn.com/2010-12-09/politics/senate.9.11.responders_1_ s enate-gop-filibuster-republican-filibuster-first-responders?_s=PM:POLI TICS

http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/senate/163223-mo-dem-slams-cant o r-on-disaster-aid
 
2012-06-11 03:42:26 PM

WombatControl: Obama's problem isn't that conservatives automatically oppose him, it's that he has no clue how to work across party lines and get things done. When he gets rebuked, he doesn't pull back and figure out what he can do, he just tries to bulldoze his way through the opposition. You don't accomplish anything as President if you take that view, especially not in a divided government.


None of that even remotely reflects reality. He reached out for Republicans to work together with Democrats many many many times and regardless of the issue, Republicans were suddenly against things they themselves had proposed because Obama said he agreed with them on those points.

Your opinions are skewed heavily. You give a free pass to Republicans as if they have bargained honestly at all in the last three and a half years. They won't even stick to agreements they made (which I don't think anyone really believed they would be stick to) which is why provisions in those agreements were put in place if they tried to go back on their word (and they did).

By the way... I'm not a liberal. I'm an American. I have, what I consider to be, very moderate views on a lot of issues. I'm not and never have been a Democrat or a Republican. Some people call me partisan because I really do not trust or believe that the Republicans have the best interests of the American people in mind.

Essentially... I can't remember the last time a Republican even attempted to do something that benefited your average citizen's life. Not a single positive effort from them in so long that I can't actually recall the last time they did put forth legislation that was not designed to fark someone over (the poor, minorities, women, children, gays, education, relief efforts, areligious people or just people who hold other faiths than their own). Over the last few years they have done all they can to stall the economic recovery and throw a monkey wrench in anything they think MIGHT cast the President in a good light.

Keep in mind... I'm saying this from the position of an independent. It isn't like I'm judging them based on things they said they would do but haven't or prejudging them based on some partisan loyalty to another political party. I don't like them for what they have DONE and for what they are DOING. It has nothing to do with theories about their ideology, but their actions taken as a result of their increasingly more vicious ideology. If they want to be seen as doing good, they must actually do good. If they want to be seen as honest and trustworthy, they must tell the truth. If they want to be seen as the best choice for us to make as good leadership, they must display a desire for good governance.

Put very simply, Republicans have lost my respect and it will be very difficult if not impossible for them to earn it back.
 
2012-06-11 03:43:26 PM
Okay, I have no farking idea why spaces keep appearing in the links even if i fix them, but basically they blocked bills that would have provided health care for 9/11 first responders and Joplin tornado victims.
 
2012-06-11 03:45:15 PM

WombatControl: No, because the NYPD, Homeland Security, and Mayor Bloomberg correctly figured out that holding such a trial in the middle of farking New York City was an epically stupid idea...


You're right. Due process is for suckers!

Terrorists aren't magic. They are human. There should be no problem with trying them in a court in New York City.
 
2012-06-11 03:53:31 PM

JohnnyC: Essentially... I can't remember the last time a Republican even attempted to do something that benefited your average citizen's life. Not a single positive effort from them in so long that I can't actually recall the last time they did put forth legislation that was not designed to fark someone over (the poor, minorities, women, children, gays, education, relief efforts, areligious people or just people who hold other faiths than their own). Over the last few years they have done all they can to stall the economic recovery and throw a monkey wrench in anything they think MIGHT cast the President in a good light.


And that's the problem - because once you take that view, why compromise? If Republicans never have the best interests of the country at heart, then the only logical option is to get rid of them.

I suspect there are a lot of people in Congress and the White House that take that view, and that's why they haven't gotten their way.

Politics requires compromise, and neither side is willing to compromise because our political system has grown to a point where either government continues to grow indefinitely and then collapses under its own weight or we start looking at government realistically and cutting it down where we can.

That's why I tend to support the Republicans and why I'm a political conservative. Because I recognize that government growth happens at the expense of the private sector, and there comes a point where the government grows beyond the ability for the private sector to sustain it. We're rapidly reaching that point now, and once we cross it, the US will face a precipitous decline.

It doesn't matter how much you want to show you "care" by giving away free stuff, we can't afford it.

It doesn't matter how much you want to punish the rich by levying higher taxes on them, we can't close the budget gap through taxation.

It doesn't matter how evil you think Republicans are, the government can't keep growing indefinitely because what's stopping liberal plans isn't the GOP, it's basic actuarial math.

Either we can start making the painful reforms now (reforms that should have been done 10 years ago when they'd have been less painful), or we can face what Greece is going through. I'd rather have a little bit of pain now than a lot of pain in the future.

But I guess me and every other Republican doesn't really give a shiat about the country, so you'll just continue to ignore us...
 
2012-06-11 04:06:49 PM

JohnnyC: He actually tried. The thing is, none of the private prisons on the mainland would take the prisoners. Logistically it just wasn't going to work to close it and they found that out pretty fast. I give him credit for trying as he said he would and don't bemoan him for the circumstances that prevented that from happening.


I seriously doubt that private prisons would have turned down good money (federal even!) to house prisoners that are no dangerous than any other. The reason it didn't go over was because the GOP stirred up a NIMBY shiatstorm about "Obama bringing terrorists to America!" and the inevitable release of many if they were tried in the court system.
 
2012-06-11 04:07:14 PM
Hey moron, did you know that during the Debt Ceiling crisis, Democrats agreed to 10:1 ratio for spending cuts to tax increases? Republicans thought that wasn't good enough, even though they had proposed that ratio as a solution a few months prior.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/louiswoodhill/2011/08/17/10-in-spending-c u ts-for-1-in-tax-increases-no-thanks/

Also, I'm sorry that you cannot cope with the fact that Republicans blocked bills that would have given health care to 9/11 first responders and aid to tornado victims in Joplin.
 
2012-06-11 04:07:21 PM

WombatControl: That's why I tend to support the Republicans and why I'm a political conservative. Because I recognize that government growth happens at the expense of the private sector, and there comes a point where the government grows beyond the ability for the private sector to sustain it. We're rapidly reaching that point now, and once we cross it, the US will face a precipitous decline.


So, you're a Republican because you don't expanding government. Got it.

Say, do you ever wonder why you don't read much about the Department of Homeland Security when Clinton was president?
 
2012-06-11 04:15:15 PM
i172.photobucket.com
 
2012-06-11 04:21:52 PM

WombatControl: Serious Black: I'm not sure you could whitewash history any more if you had Tom Sawyer pay a million guys to do it for him.

Oh really? So I guess Bill Clinton didn't pass welfare reform in 1996, he didn't pass tax cuts that same year, he didn't pass SCHIP in 1997, etc.

Bullshiat - after 1994, Clinton didn't spend his whole time whining about "Republican obstructionism," he worked across the aisle to get things done, including SCHIP. Obama hasn't done any of that - he rarely meets with Congress, no less Congressional Republicans. Go ahead, compare the White House visitor logs between Clinton and Obama and see for yourself.

That's because Clinton had executive experience as a governor and knew how to accomplish things in government. Obama had none of that, and it shows.


Are you serious? Come on.

The stimulus was several hundred billion dollars smaller than many of Obama's economic advisers wanted almost entirely because the team knew Republicans would oppose something crossing the trillion mark, and it included hundreds of billions in tax cuts and other things that the Democratic Party has rarely considered a priority.

The health care law included a public option until it was tossed in favor of the individual mandate partly because, as Senator Grassley said, "I believe that there is a bipartisan consensus to have individual mandates;" less than a month later, the bipartisan consensus completely broke down because the individual mandate was deemed freedom-crushing and completely unconstitutional.

Richard Cordray, the head of the CFPB, had his confirmation indefinitely delayed not because Republicans in the Senate had any problems with him but because they wanted to gut the agency by denying it an executive who could carry out its powers.

Probably the most egregious of late is that the Republicans agreed to the funds that would be cut through a sequester in case an agreement couldn't be reached by the supercommittee, and when such an agreement was not reached, decided that the sequester should be torched even though it included 98% of what Speaker Boehner wanted.

What would a hypothetical President with executive experience have done in each of these cases?
 
2012-06-11 04:22:32 PM
"Poupard won a "YCA Article of the Year Award" for his 2010 interview with comic book legend Stan Lee and the "YCA Local Writer Award" for excellence in local coverage in the Metro Detroit area. He is a Featured Contributor in Arts & Entertainment and Travel."

l.yimg.com

And his blog sucks.
 
2012-06-11 04:34:35 PM
This article, and many like it, is total bullshiat.

There is no 3rd party to run to, you do not have the luxury of being indecisive on this issue.

If you are not voting to re-elect this administration, you are a jackass.

While President Obama still has a strong chance of winning the election, he will not be riding into his second term on the back of a donkey while people lay palm branches on the ground.

Honestly, (and BTW who the fark is the guy who wrote this article?) we felt that way because we knew Bush wasn't going to get up on TV with that deer-in-the-headlights look anymore and talk any more sh*t. At least, as President.
 
2012-06-11 04:36:21 PM
Serious Black:

1.) Remember when the stimulus was passed that the Democrats had a majority in Congress. They didn't need a single Republican vote to pass it. The reason why the stimulus wasn't larger was because Democrats didn't want to spend over $1 trillion. And for good reason, as the $768 billion we did spend did little more that pad Democratic contributor's wallets while failing to make a blip in the economy.

2.) Again, the health care bill passed with a token GOP vote in the House - if the Democrats wanted a single-payer option, they could have done it. The reason they didn't was because single-payer is a phenomenally bad idea, and there were a number of Democrats who didn't want to go along with it. The individual mandate was a "compromise" among the Democratic Party.*

3.) No, Cordray's nomination was blatantly unconstitutional. The Senate gets to decide when it's in recess, not the President, and by pulling a recess appointment when the Senate was in pro forma session, the President overstepped his authority. There's no real legal authority for Obama to do what he wanted to do.

Gee, sidestepping the Constitution to get his way - isn't that what the left accused Bush of doing all the time?

4.) The sequester was never binding - the President never followed the supercommittee's recommendation either. Neither side wanted to do it because it would have led to unpopular spending cuts on both sides - on welfare for Democrats and defense for Republicans.

What would a competent President have done? A competent President wouldn't have gotten into those situations in the first place - so that President wouldn't be saying that those "shovel ready" stimulus jobs didn't exist, or get his ass handed to him in a midterm because he pushed through a monumentally unpopular health care bill.

Specifically, a competent President would have backed off ObamaCare and forced a vote on the most popular provisions - make the Republicans try and kill those bills, then use that as political leverage to get what he wanted after the midterms. But Obama decided to push the whole package at once, which was politically stupid and cost the Democrats the election. It would be a bad mistake on its own, but when the same damn thing happened in 1994, Obama has no excuses.


* I strongly suspect that the hidden purpose of ObamaCare was to screw up healthcare so badly that it would lay a case for single-payer later on down the road, had the Democrats not massively misjudged how unpopulare it was.
 
2012-06-11 04:40:57 PM

WombatControl: ) Remember when the stimulus was passed that the Democrats had a majority in Congress.


*yawn*
 
2012-06-11 04:45:39 PM

Lurking Fear: Only the right discusses Obama as if here were the second coming of the messiah, and rejoice that voters realize he is not.

Still think he's going to beat Rmoney, if he regains control of his campaign.


Never seen the "sort of a god" comment then?
 
2012-06-11 04:48:55 PM

whidbey: WombatControl: ) Remember when the stimulus was passed that the Democrats had a majority in Congress.

*yawn*


Cabinet member?
 
2012-06-11 04:49:38 PM

jim32rr: whidbey: WombatControl: ) Remember when the stimulus was passed that the Democrats had a majority in Congress.

*yawn*

Cabinet member?


Are you Wombat Control's peanut gallery here, or what?
 
2012-06-11 04:55:19 PM

WombatControl: yet anotherwalloftext.jpg


i865.photobucket.com

Jesus tittyfarking christ, off to ignore land for you.
 
2012-06-11 04:57:26 PM

whidbey: jim32rr: whidbey: WombatControl: ) Remember when the stimulus was passed that the Democrats had a majority in Congress.

*yawn*

Cabinet member?

Are you Wombat Control's peanut gallery here, or what?


No, I just find it interesting that you responded with a *yawn* to the points offered. Figured you for a cabinet member trying to deflect, that's all
 
2012-06-11 04:58:35 PM

WombatControl: That's why I tend to support the Republicans and why I'm a political conservative. Because I recognize that government growth happens at the expense of the private sector, and there comes a point where the government grows beyond the ability for the private sector to sustain it. We're rapidly reaching that point now, and once we cross it, the US will face a precipitous decline.


What about the rest of it... the bigotry? sexism? And the idea that Democrats simply grow government is more of a talking point than a reality. Besides... isn't Homeland Security the biggest, most invasive, most expensive and wasteful endeavor we have undertaken in the last twenty years or so a Republican baby? Isn't that Republican expansion of government? So how do you reconcile the hatred, bigotry, and the fact that Republicans have expanded government more in recent memory.

My guess... you're financially well off, straight, white, Christian male... You pretend the ugly side of your party exists so you can justify your support of the parts that benefit you at the expense of your fellow Americans.
 
2012-06-11 05:00:44 PM

JohnnyC: You pretend the ugly side of your party doesn't exist so you can justify your support of the parts that benefit you at the expense of your fellow Americans.


Whoops... should have proofread better I suppose.
 
2012-06-11 05:07:45 PM

jim32rr: whidbey: jim32rr: whidbey: WombatControl: ) Remember when the stimulus was passed that the Democrats had a majority in Congress.

*yawn*

Cabinet member?

Are you Wombat Control's peanut gallery here, or what?

No, I just find it interesting that you responded with a *yawn* to the points offered. Figured you for a cabinet member trying to deflect, that's all


lol "points offered"

You two should have coffee sometime and discuss the Revolution.
 
2012-06-11 05:15:17 PM

JohnnyC: What about the rest of it... the bigotry? sexism?


Yup, the old bigotry and sexism card again. I've been to both Democratic and Republican functions, and I've had to work on both sides of the political aisle. There's no shortage of bigotry or sexism on the Democratic side.

And the idea that Democrats simply grow government is more of a talking point than a reality.

It was Democrats who passed the stimulus, ObamaCare, etc. And even when Bush spent big it was the Democrats criticizing him for not spending more. Neither party has a clean record on spending now, but it's only the Republicans who even bother talking about reducing the size and scope of government in any meaningful way.

Besides... isn't Homeland Security the biggest, most invasive, most expensive and wasteful endeavor we have undertaken in the last twenty years or so a Republican baby? Isn't that Republican expansion of government?

The idea of Homeland Security makes sense - part of the reason 9/11 happened was because government agencies weren't sharing intelligence and talking to each other. Mohammad Atta got pulled over a few days prior to 9/11 - if that cop knew he was on a watch list and had an expired visa, it's very possible 9/11 might never have happened.

I agree with you that the implementation of Homeland Security was a massive clusterfark. I'm all for abolishing the TSA immediately and turning the system back to private screeners. I'm all for eliminating wasteful spending on "homeland security" like giving states and local governments millions to buy SWAT gear that ends up more likely to harm an innocent civilian than to stop a crime.

But guess what - it's the Democrats that support all those things too. They wanted the TSA to have full civil service protection. They've been all for extending the drug war. If Homeland Security was so terrible, Obama had two years of total Democratic control to fix it. And he didn't. There's bipartisan support for reigning in the TSA, but that doesn't get done.

The simple fact is that the Democrats are just as much a part of this problem as the Republicans, and even more so.

So how do you reconcile the hatred, bigotry, and the fact that Republicans have expanded government more in recent memory.

And when did you stop beating your wife?

My guess... you're financially well off, straight, white, Christian male... You pretend the ugly side of your party exists so you can justify your support of the parts that benefit you at the expense of your fellow Americans.

And let me guess, you're someone who lives in a nice liberal enclave with your nice liberal friends reading your nice liberal paper and your nice liberal blogs whose never spent so much as a day considering the flaws in your nice liberal worldview.

Once again, the problem with nice liberals is that they're neither nice nor liberal - they're excessively dogmatic and unable to comprehend the other side of the argument. So they just call Republicans racists and sexists and don't bother to think about why their political preconceptions don't match what's going on in the world.
 
2012-06-11 05:28:33 PM

WombatControl: 1.) Remember when the stimulus was passed that the Democrats had a majority in Congress. They didn't need a single Republican vote to pass it. The reason why the stimulus wasn't larger was because Democrats didn't want to spend over $1 trillion. And for good reason, as the $768 billion we did spend did little more that pad Democratic contributor's wallets while failing to make a blip in the economy.


At the time ARRA was proposed and passed, Al Franken had not been seated because of an extensive recount, so the Democratic Party with the two independents caucusing with them only had 59 votes, or not enough to break a Republican call for cloture. They needed a Republican vote to break the filibuster. This is very well-documented.

2.) Again, the health care bill passed with a token GOP vote in the House - if the Democrats wanted a single-payer option, they could have done it. The reason they didn't was because single-payer is a phenomenally bad idea, and there were a number of Democrats who didn't want to go along with it. The individual mandate was a "compromise" among the Democratic Party.

As with the ARRA, the ACA had to get through a Republican filibuster, and the Democratic Party had the 60 votes necessary for a very fleeting window. By the time Al Franken was seated, Ted Kennedy had been in the hospital for some time and had not cast a vote since April. Robert Byrd was also in and out of the hospital during this period and unable to cast votes. Bottom line, until Robert Byrd and Paul Kirk (Kennedy's temporary successor) were seated, the Democratic Party was still unable to break a Republican filibuster without at least one vote from the other party. It was absolutely a compromise designed to get Republican support, especially given that there were four Republicans in the Senate at that time who co-sponsored the Wyden-Bennett Act that included an identical provision to the individual mandate (Robert Bennett, Lamar Alexander, Mike Crapo, and Lindsey Graham).

3.) No, Cordray's nomination was blatantly unconstitutional. The Senate gets to decide when it's in recess, not the President, and by pulling a recess appointment when the Senate was in pro forma session, the President overstepped his authority. There's no real legal authority for Obama to do what he wanted to do.

I'm not talking about his recess appointment. I'm talking about his initial nomination that was held up for months (if not over a year). Senator Richard Shelby (R-AL), the ranking member of the Senate Finance Committee, told him "I'm sure that you have a good background. You've got a fine family, too. But you're caught between a big, substantive debate here, as you well know." In short, they purposely held up his appointment because they didn't like what he would be able to do and wanted changes made to the CFPB. To the best of my knowledge, no such legislation was introduced to the Senate Finance Committee by any Republicans to do what they wanted. Why?

4.) The sequester was never binding - the President never followed the supercommittee's recommendation either. Neither side wanted to do it because it would have led to unpopular spending cuts on both sides - on welfare for Democrats and defense for Republicans.

What recommendation of the supercommittee was the President supposed to follow? Beyond that, I think it says something that the Democratic Party is willing to let unpopular cuts to welfare programs take place while the Republican Party is pitching a fit over cuts to defense programs and is trying to gut those cuts and shift them to even more cuts to welfare programs.

Specifically, a competent President would have backed off ObamaCare and forced a vote on the most popular provisions - make the Republicans try and kill those bills, then use that as political leverage to get what he wanted after the midterms. But Obama decided to push the whole package at once, which was politically stupid and cost the Democrats the election. It would be a bad mistake on its own, but when the same damn thing happened in 1994, Obama has no excuses.

I went back to KFF's monthly tracking poll and pulled out these components of ACA that were supported by 50% or more of Democratic, independent, and Republican respondents to the poll from January 2010:

- Small business tax credits,
- Health insurance exchanges,
- Guaranteed issue,
- Dependent coverage until age 26, and
- Ban on funding abortion.

The one I want to point out is the one I bolded, guaranteed issue. There is a very good reason why insurance companies that sell individual policies commonly refuse to offer coverage to people with pre-existing conditions (PREX). Nathaniel Hendren figured it out in his recent paper Private Information and Insurance Rejections. He used the Health and Retirement Survey conducted by the University of Michigan to figure out how accurately people from different groups could predict their future medical costs. People who were insurable because they had no PREX performed no better than random at guessing how much they would spend over the next few years. In contrast, people who were uninsurable because of PREX were much better than random and performed many magnitudes better than their insurable counterparts. In short, people with PREX know too much about how much they will spend on health care, so they know at what price a health insurance plan becomes a good deal. There is no way to make a medically underwritten health insurance policy actuarially sound. Forcing insurance companies to accept all comers literally will bankrupt them. Even if SCOTUS finds differently, IMO there's no way to separate guaranteed issue from the requirement that all individuals hold at least catastrophic health insurance.
 
2012-06-11 05:35:57 PM
WombatControl:

And when did you stop beating your wife?

...

Ha-Ha! That was funny! Did you know that Republicans are currently blocking the renewal of the Violence Against Women Act?

So I'm going to post this for the third time....Your party denied health care for 9/11 first responders and aid for Joplin tornado victims during their hissy fit over a 3% tax increase for the wealthiest of all Americans (which btw, is the single largest contributing factor to the deficit). They could have passed these bills and then went back to filibustering everything, but that is simply too reasonable to fly in today's GOP.

If your party is unwilling to agree that disaster victims deserve aid, which is among the most basic functions of government, how the fark can you argue that they are reasonable participants in a democracy?

There is simply no justification for any of this, it is pure unadulterated belligerence.
 
2012-06-11 05:38:48 PM
derpdeederp

And at 50 you will be a conservative.

doubt it.
 
2012-06-11 05:48:48 PM

busy chillin': derpdeederp

And at 50 you will be a conservative.

doubt it.


52 and if anything I'm more liberal.
Kinda hard to tell since the conservatives lost their fnckin' minds.
 
2012-06-11 05:57:41 PM

novalord2: WombatControl:

And when did you stop beating your wife?

...

Ha-Ha! That was funny! Did you know that Republicans are currently blocking the renewal of the Violence Against Women Act?

So I'm going to post this for the third time....Your party denied health care for 9/11 first responders and aid for Joplin tornado victims during their hissy fit over a 3% tax increase for the wealthiest of all Americans (which btw, is the single largest contributing factor to the deficit). They could have passed these bills and then went back to filibustering everything, but that is simply too reasonable to fly in today's GOP.

If your party is unwilling to agree that disaster victims deserve aid, which is among the most basic functions of government, how the fark can you argue that they are reasonable participants in a democracy?

There is simply no justification for any of this, it is pure unadulterated belligerence.


No, it's simple. We are at a point where government has to start following a budget and making priorities. This is what adults do.

You want to pay for disaster aid for tornado victims. Fine, that's a perfectly reasonable thing to do. Now be an adult and find a way to pay for it. And no, raising taxes is not a sensible solution. So maybe instead of funding cowboy poetry festivals and sex research, the government should put that funding towards a better and higher use.

Adults learn to draw priorities in what they spend on. It's not "belligerence" to suggest that the government does the same.
 
2012-06-11 06:17:31 PM
Of course, a 3% tax increase for the wealthy is a higher priority than health care for 9/11 first responders and disaster victims. Of course. Its what sensible adults would do. We simply could not spare some change out of a trillion dollar federal budget for these things!

And adults in a pinch never seek to increase revenue. Of course. Reverting the tax rate back to Clinton-era levels (a time of economic growth) is not the end of the world. You blame trivial spending categories (sex research and donkeys) on the defect, whilst ignoring huge budget categories that Republicans have absolute refused to touch (Defense, Tax Cuts)

I fondly remember this one time where some *insignificant* elected Republican named Dick Cheney said that "Reagan Proved Deficits Don't Matter." And that other time where some unimportant Senator named Mitch McConnel said in 2010 that the top priority was ensuring that Obama doesn't get a second term.

The deficit is of absolutely no importance to Republicans, or they would've cared during 8 consecutive years of deceit during Bush/Republican control of Congress.
 
Displayed 50 of 173 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report