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.

(NBC News)   Noted San Francisco politician tells caucus "to embrace the suck"   (firstread.nbcnews.com) divider line 49
    More: Obvious, Nancy Pelosi  
•       •       •

1764 clicks; posted to Politics » on 13 Dec 2013 at 3:45 AM (39 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



49 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2013-12-12 09:26:47 PM
img.fark.net
 
2013-12-12 09:30:07 PM
I've got a caucus you can suck.
 
2013-12-12 09:35:11 PM
Ruined. Definitely ruined.
 
2013-12-12 09:40:42 PM
There ain't gonna be no Christmas this year.
 
2013-12-12 10:31:14 PM
If the last three days has taught me anything, it would be how to do it right.
 
2013-12-12 10:58:28 PM
Why don't we outsource Congress to India? I bet they do it better for less money.
 
2013-12-12 11:01:28 PM

NewportBarGuy: Why don't we outsource Congress to India? I bet they do it better for less money.


[imokwiththis.jpg]
 
2013-12-12 11:41:19 PM
This headline is bad and you should feel bad.
 
2013-12-13 12:36:49 AM
So I take it that she's not pleased with the budget, then.
 
2013-12-13 03:08:53 AM

NewportBarGuy: Why don't we outsource Congress to India? I bet they do it better for less money.


Yeah, none of us have ever experienced an Indian call center giving a customer the run-around, avoiding answering questions, and ultimately putting the customer on hold before hanging up on them.
 
2013-12-13 03:53:07 AM

HotWingAgenda: NewportBarGuy: Why don't we outsource Congress to India? I bet they do it better for less money.

Yeah, none of us have ever experienced an Indian call center giving a customer the run-around, avoiding answering questions, and ultimately putting the customer on hold before hanging up on them.


In other words, it would just be for less money, not better.
 
2013-12-13 04:23:26 AM
We need to pass the bill so we can see what's not in it.
 
2013-12-13 04:30:17 AM
Actually, that's not a bad thing to campaign on.

"Look, people, we know you didn't want to be laid off. We know people aren't hiring right now. We know you want to work. We know you need these benefits to put food on the table and help stave off eviction or foreclosure until the economy picks up again. But when you vote for Republicans, this is the best we can do."

I think Democrats need to do a better job of driving home the message of "this is a Republican budget that's being shoved down our throats." The fact that it was hashed out between a Republican and a Democrat should be about as relevant as all of those addendums and amendments stuck into the ACA by Republicans who then proceeded to vote against the entire bill and rant about how horrible all those addendums and amendments are.
 
2013-12-13 04:45:14 AM

The atmosphere after the "deal"
Was, to Pelosi, quite surreal.
Stifling all retorts,
She told her cohorts,
"Well, fark it, we all have to deal!"

 
2013-12-13 05:03:49 AM
Giving rightwing ass monkeys what they want and calling it compromise has been the centerpiece of Democratic policy for 12 years
 
2013-12-13 05:04:46 AM
My guess is that the Dems never actually expected the budget to pass the House; that it was just a political play. The Tea Party types would step up, kill the deal, and the Dems would then have insurance so that when the government shutdown came, they could be sure even those too dumb to see previous Republican obstructionism would know who to blame for it.

But the budget did pass the House, and now they have a stinker of their own making hanging around their necks.

/After that Hillary article the other day, I'm voting Green from now on.
 
2013-12-13 05:09:26 AM

Cathedralmaster: After that Hillary article the other day, I'm voting Green from now on.


That'll show 'em!
 
2013-12-13 05:21:51 AM
'Embrace the suck'

I believe we have a new combination of words here.

Otherwise, not an informative article.
 
2013-12-13 06:34:10 AM
 
2013-12-13 06:46:59 AM
Ohhh myyy!

Welcomce to San Francisco.
Embracing and sucking since 1776.
 
2013-12-13 06:57:36 AM
If Mme. Pelosie hates it and the Tea Party hates it, it must be a pretty good budget compromise.
 
2013-12-13 07:07:13 AM

Nabb1: If Mme. Pelosie hates it and the Tea Party hates it, it must be a pretty good budget compromise.


Eh, the Tea Party hates it because it exists.  Their puppet masters were issuing objections before it was written.
 
2013-12-13 07:14:48 AM

Alphax: 'Embrace the suck'

I believe we have a new combination of words here.


No, it's not new. Although, interestingly, it's modern military parlance, which you wouldn't immediately expect from Ms. Pelosi.
 
2013-12-13 07:19:09 AM

Laobaojun: Ohhh myyy!

Welcomce to San Francisco.
Embracing and sucking since 1776.


San Francisco has been a city since 1776?
 
2013-12-13 07:20:54 AM
"We need to get this off the table, so we can go forward,"

It sucks. Nobody's gonna be happy with it but it's the best we can do with this pack of lunatics in the House at this time so go with it?

So... cancel the balloon drop and victory music?

*makes a note*
 
2013-12-13 07:22:00 AM

Gonz: Alphax: 'Embrace the suck'

I believe we have a new combination of words here.

No, it's not new. Although, interestingly, it's modern military parlance, which you wouldn't immediately expect from Ms. Pelosi.


Huh.  I did not know that.
 
2013-12-13 07:33:15 AM
This extremely mediocre bill is literally the best we can do unless/until the repubs are driven out of the House and the Democrats can control Congress and the White House (it would be awfully nice if Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas were found dead of a Molly overdose during an erotic auto-asphyxiation session too). The danger then of course would be the Democrats would go overboard in the opposite direction, but the evidence of the past twenty years or so shows that the Democrats have evolved and matured as a political party while the repubs have regressed and show evidence of institutional Alzheimer's, The Democrats also have the salutary example of the repubs from 2000-2006 of what happens when a party is given carte blanche and gleefully and voluntarily goes off the rails.

Alternately, the American people can buy the repub line and give them control of Congress in 2014. Stupider things have happened. A stupider thing happened in 2010, for instance. In that event, we would deserve exactly what we would get, and God help us all. On a positive note, repub plutocrats are seriously reconsidering their mistake in promoting the Tea Party and are concluding that a slightly left-leaning Congress might actually be better than putting an apocalyptic terror group in charge of the government . Given the importance of money in today's election cycle, the withdrawal of billionaire backing might be enough to throw the election to the Democrats.
 
2013-12-13 07:38:26 AM

Nabb1: If Mme. Pelosie hates it and the Tea Party hates it, it must be a pretty good budget compromise.


If the fire chief and the raving lunatic arsonist both hate it, it must be a pretty good fire safety program.
 
2013-12-13 07:39:41 AM

NewportBarGuy: Why don't we outsource Congress to India? I bet they do it better for less money.


Have you ever read anything about internal Indian politics?  They make us look like we have our shiat together.
 
2013-12-13 07:46:21 AM
i.imgur.com
 
2013-12-13 08:00:52 AM

ox45tallboy: I think Democrats need to do a better job of driving home the message of "this is a Republican budget that's being shoved down our throats."


Except for the fact it's not a Republican budget.

This bill gives Democrats most of what they want which is why they're the ones that will be voting for it while the usual conservatives will be railing against it. That Democrat voters keep falling for the "oh shucks, we gotta compromise with those rascally Republicans by ramming down their throat a bill they don't want and it's all their fault" is a testament to the smooth and unwrinkled mass of gray matter found inside their precious little skulls.

Nabb1: If Mme. Pelosie hates it and the Tea Party hates it, it must be a pretty good budget compromise.


Except she doesn't hate it. She's posturing. If she were a car salesman, the next part of the act is she has to go talk with her manager to see if she can even sell a car at such a low low price. The key to all of this is to watch what they do and not what they say they're doing.
 
2013-12-13 08:04:47 AM

Lackofname: Laobaojun: Ohhh myyy!

Welcomce to San Francisco.
Embracing and sucking since 1776.

San Francisco has been a city since 1776?


That would make sense as the Spanish were sending missionaries up from present day southern Arizona. Tucson was also founded the same year.

I've little hope for the House until the next election. Damn, I've little hope then as well.
 
2013-12-13 08:18:27 AM

Gonz: Alphax: 'Embrace the suck'

I believe we have a new combination of words here.

No, it's not new. Although, interestingly, it's modern military parlance, which you wouldn't immediately expect from Ms. Pelosi.


*click*

"Embrace the suck": Translation: The situation is bad, but deal with it.

Ooh, cool. TY.
 
2013-12-13 08:22:15 AM

HotWingAgenda: NewportBarGuy: Why don't we outsource Congress to India? I bet they do it better for less money.

Yeah, none of us have ever experienced an Indian call center giving a customer the run-around, avoiding answering questions, and ultimately putting the customer on hold before hanging up on them.


I've had more good than bad experience from overseas call centers so I don't have anything strong opinions either way.

What has been a disaster where I work has been attempts to outsource development and QA.  We've tried three times, and no matter how technically competent the overseas staff was there was a lack of awareness of changing priorities and an inability to understand our products and respond to the needs of our customers.  On the in-house side we struggle with understanding our customers, conveying that to people 5000 miles away in a different culture was futile.  We brought overseas staff stateside to learn our side of things and they were fine.  When they went back home, things just seemed to fizzle out.

That said, one of our customers subcontracted some of their work to an Argentinian outfit whom I had to work with and they were great.  Expensive, but great.
 
2013-12-13 10:33:45 AM
Good thing we got rid of that sequester, that was just extreme, draconian, crazy, brutal.  I don't think we would have survived it.
 
2013-12-13 11:51:59 AM

Lackofname: Laobaojun: Ohhh myyy!

Welcomce to San Francisco.
Embracing and sucking since 1776.

San Francisco has been a city since 1776?


From wikipedia:

San Francisco (Spanish for "Saint Francis") was founded on June 29, 1776....

So yeah, San Francisco is a a few days older than the United States.
 
2013-12-13 11:59:26 AM

HotWingAgenda: NewportBarGuy: Why don't we outsource Congress to India? I bet they do it better for less money.

Yeah, none of us have ever experienced an Indian call center giving a customer the run-around, avoiding answering questions, and ultimately putting the customer on hold before hanging up on them.


Pretty much what congress is doing now,  so I don't see the difference.
 
2013-12-13 12:08:07 PM
History lesson: The Bush tax cuts for the rich that blew up the deficit had to have a built in expiration date because the Republicans passed them with only 50 votes in the Senate via reconciliation rules.

The first time they automatically expired was in 2010. However Obama fought hard to see them extended:

If Rep. Peter DeFazio, D-Ore., is to be believed, President Obama is casting the upcoming House vote on the tax cut deal in very stark terms.

"The White House is putting on tremendous pressure, making phone calls," DeFazio said on CNN's Parker Spitzer. "The president's making phone calls saying that's the end of his presidency if he doesn't get this bad deal."


The excuse floated back then was that they had no choice but to give the Republicans what they wanted despite controlling the House, Senate, and White House because otherwise they couldn't have gotten an unemployment extension. (Despite the fact that Republicans had already voted for unemployment extensions on seven previous occasions)

When those tax cuts came up to expire again at the end of last year, the Democrats came up with a whole new excuse and immediately started screaming about how it would be the FISCAL CLIFF!!1!! if we didn't save them again.

They proceeded to work with Republicans in the House to make those tax cuts permanent, so they will never be in danger of expiring again.

Now that those Bush tax cuts we used to pretend to detest are safe forever, look how much they care for entitlements and unemployment extensions.

Embrace bending over, poors. Embrace having both parties fight over who gives the best knob job, one percent.
 
2013-12-13 12:20:27 PM

Mrbogey: Except for the fact it's not a Republican budget.


Ryan didn't exactly get his butt kicked in the negotiations. Yes, he didn't get everything he wanted, but he was able to elicit a few major concessions:

Link
Democrats must accept a deal that does not include an extension of federal unemployment benefits... Democrats also will have to deal with the reality that the bipartisan agreement does not include the closing of a single corporate tax loophole...

Link
The sequester's cuts to mandatory spending are unaffected... The deal doesn't include any extension of unemployment insurance -- and no such extension is forthcoming. During the negotiations, Republicans proved hostile even to limited extensions in unemployment insurance....Democrats didn't get any new taxes... Democrats flatly got beat on sequestration...Ryan entered the negotiations with a much stronger hand than Murray.

Calling this not a Republican budget is simply inaccurate. Sure, it's not the "Ryan budget" supported by Romney that slashed every entitlement and increased defense spending, but it's far closer to what the Republicans wanted than the what the Democrats. Republicans hate it only because it concedes ANYTHING to the Democrats, and they feel their majority entitles them to refuse to negotiate.

Mrbogey: This bill gives Democrats most of what they want which is why they're the ones that will be voting for it while the usual conservatives will be railing against it. That Democrat voters keep falling for the "oh shucks, we gotta compromise with those rascally Republicans by ramming down their throat a bill they don't want and it's all their fault" is a testament to the smooth and unwrinkled mass of gray matter found inside their precious little skulls.


Yeah, I think you might do well to review what's actually in the budget. The Democrats are used to compromise, so they'll go along with it. The same Republicans who shut down the government aren't going to vote for ANYTHING which remotely resembles a compromise with the Democrats. Your statement is simply inaccurate.

Mrbogey: Except she doesn't hate it. She's posturing. If she were a car salesman, the next part of the act is she has to go talk with her manager to see if she can even sell a car at such a low low price. The key to all of this is to watch what they do and not what they say they're doing.


Oh, so Democrats don't want to raise any taxes? Democrats don't want unemployment benefits extended? Democrats want to increase military spending instead of lowering it? Democrats like mandatory spending at sequester levels?

Sorry dude, but I disagree with what you've posted here.
 
2013-12-13 12:33:22 PM

ox45tallboy: Oh, so Democrats don't want to raise any taxes?


The Democrats didn't just extend the Bush tax cuts so Billionaires pay less taxes as a percentage than their secretaries?

They didn't make them permanant this time?

ox45tallboy: Democrats don't want unemployment benefits extended?


They didn't announce in advance that they weren't willing to fight for it?

Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL), the No. 2 Democrat in the Senate, said Sunday that Democrats have not yet decided that an extension for longterm unemployment benefits must be part of the budget deal.


ox45tallboy: Democrats want to increase military spending instead of lowering it?


Earlier this week, speaking to a crowd of Marines, President Obama condemned the effects of sequestration, arguing that these dramatic cuts are "not how a great nation should be treating its military
 
2013-12-13 12:57:51 PM

BullBearMS: ox45tallboy: Oh, so Democrats don't want to raise any taxes?

The Democrats didn't just extend the Bush tax cuts so Billionaires pay less taxes as a percentage than their secretaries?

They didn't make them permanant this time?


Sorry, dude, but no one has "done" anything. It's in the budget. It hasn't even been voted on. On top of that, the negotiations were done in secret, although it's not difficult to tell who wanted what based on statements by the individuals doing the negotiating and public statements by their party members. So I do not believe that your statement is accurate.

BullBearMS: They didn't announce in advance that they weren't willing to fight for it?

Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL), the No. 2 Democrat in the Senate, said Sunday that Democrats have not yet decided that an extension for longterm unemployment benefits must be part of the budget deal.


I's rather disingenuous to say that because someone gave something up in negotiations, they didn't "want" it. You might as well say that every Republican who voted to reopen the government and avoid default on the national debt must have "wanted" Obamacare. Your quote even shows that the Democrats did want it, but weren't willing to scrap the whole negotiation process unless they got every single thing they wanted.

BullBearMS: ox45tallboy: Democrats want to increase military spending instead of lowering it?

Earlier this week, speaking to a crowd of Marines, President Obama condemned the effects of sequestration, arguing that these dramatic cuts are "not how a great nation should be treating its military


You might do well to check on exactly what he was referring to. Do you realize how many military families survive on food stamps because the pay is so crappy, and that said food stamps, and other government programs used by military families (such as WIC) were cut during the sequester?

Obama was talking to the soldiers, who are simply not affected whether the government war machine buys more or fewer tanks built by military contractors and parks them in the desert. Soldier pay was not reduced during the sequester, only the money used for 3rd party support contractors, who were laid off. Soldiers were affected by the reduction in anti-poverty programs they survive on because we pay them crap.

I'm sorry, but your statement is factually inaccurate.
 
2013-12-13 01:03:01 PM

ox45tallboy: BullBearMS: ox45tallboy: Oh, so Democrats don't want to raise any taxes?

The Democrats didn't just extend the Bush tax cuts so Billionaires pay less taxes as a percentage than their secretaries?

They didn't make them permanant this time?

Sorry, dude, but no one has "done" anything. It's in the budget. It hasn't even been voted on. On top of that, the negotiations were done in secret, although it's not difficult to tell who wanted what based on statements by the individuals doing the negotiating and public statements by their party members. So I do not believe that your statement is accurate...


Ummm... Yes...

The Bush tax cuts for the rich have indeed been made permanent already.
 
2013-12-13 01:05:43 PM

ox45tallboy: I's rather disingenuous to say that because someone gave something up in negotiations, they didn't "want" it.


No. What's disingenuous is to claim that they did want it aterthey announce in advance that they are willing to do without it.

Meanwhile, they were ready to fight like hell for the Bush tax cuts.

FISCAL CLIFF!!!

They were also willing to shut the whole Government down over forcing everyonge to buy for profit insurance.
 
2013-12-13 01:26:02 PM

BullBearMS: Ummm... Yes...

The Bush tax cuts for the rich have indeed been made permanent already.


If you're referring to the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012 that made most of the Bush Tax Cuts permanent (except the highest marginal rate), that happened a year ago, not "this time". Your statement is still inaccurate. However, Democrats were not able to negotiate a raise in the rates on taxation of investment income, something they have stated on numerous occasions would be beneficial and more fair.

It's rather silly to blame the party who went into the negotiations wanting something, but were not able to achieve it along with all of the other things that they did achieve, rather than he party that fought against said item.

BullBearMS: No. What's disingenuous is to claim that they did want it aterthey announce in advance that they are willing to do without it.


So, to keep with your car salesman analogy, if the husband and wife agree before going into the meeting with the salesman that they're willing to live with a car color they don't like, and they can do without keyless entry, then they really don't want those things? That's silly.

BullBearMS: Meanwhile, they were ready to fight like hell for the Bush tax cuts.


wut

BullBearMS: They were also willing to shut the whole Government down over forcing everyonge to buy for profit insurance.


Oh. I see. The Senate Democrats should have given the Republicans everything they wanted, otherwise it was their fault what the Republicans did in retaliation. Interesting. You aren't by any chance infromed by Fox News, are you?

You have posted a silly post and this thread is now sillier for you having posted it.
 
2013-12-13 02:12:17 PM

ox45tallboy: However, Democrats were not able to negotiate a raise in the rates on taxation of investment income, something they have stated on numerous occasions would be beneficial and more fair.


Still lying?

Those rates would have expired automatically at the end of last year with the rest of the Bush tax cuts i the Democrats hadn't worked to save them and make them permanent.

OMG if we let them expire it's the FISCAL CLIFF!!!1!!
 
2013-12-13 02:15:39 PM

ox45tallboy: BullBearMS: Meanwhile, they were ready to fight like hell for the Bush tax cuts.

wut


The Democrats renewed the Bush tax cuts twice.

Once in 2010 when they were first due to expire and the Democrats controlled the House, Senate, and White House.

Again, at the end of last year when they still controlled the Senate and White House.

There was not a damn thing the Republicans could have done to stop them from expiring either time.
 
2013-12-13 02:58:31 PM

BullBearMS: There was not a damn thing the Republicans could have done to stop them from expiring either time.


Wow, you've convinced me. I'm voting Republican next time, those guys really want to raise taxes on the wealthy and they would have gotten away with it, too, if not for those wacky House Dems and that President.
 
2013-12-13 04:32:46 PM

Lackofname: Laobaojun: Ohhh myyy!

Welcomce to San Francisco.
Embracing and sucking since 1776.

San Francisco has been a city since 1776?


Ja.  Well, town, at least.  The things ya learn when you fact check before you post.  It was news to me too.
 
2013-12-13 05:49:07 PM

ox45tallboy: BullBearMS: There was not a damn thing the Republicans could have done to stop them from expiring either time.

Wow, you've convinced me. I'm voting Republican next time, those guys really want to raise taxes on the wealthy and they would have gotten away with it, too, if not for those wacky House Dems and that President.


I know, right?

Thank goodness the Democrats are willing to lie to us before they work with the Republicans to fark us over.

Because it's not the farking us over part we mind.

It's when the people doing it aren't Democrats.
 
Displayed 49 of 49 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report