Page 5 of 6 FirstFirst ... 3456 LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 54

Thread: Obama warns of need for stimulus bill right away

  1. #41
    Sage
    Hatuey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:28 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    42,018

    Re: Obama warns of need for stimulus bill right away

    Quote Originally Posted by Pitwolfy View Post
    My opinion? Absolutely! But I am not alone in this!

    Charles Krauthammer - The Fierce Urgency of Pork
    Appeal to a guy I've never heard of? Noted and ignored?
    I refuse to accept the view that mankind is so tragically bound to the starless midnight of racism and war that the bright daybreak of peace and brotherhood can never become a reality. - MLK

  2. #42
    Professor

    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Last Seen
    02-13-09 @ 05:15 PM
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    1,942

    Re: Obama warns of need for stimulus bill right away

    Quote Originally Posted by Hatuey View Post
    Wow where do I start off with your incoherent posts that like three people in this entire forum ever seem to read. You, your dog and that Treth Rejictor kid. Anyways alright let's see.

    'Eliminating minority rights'

    From your article :

    Since when is it the minority's right to co-write bills? Last time I heard lawmakers write bills. Try to get them passed. No such thing as a right to include minority party politicians in the process. But what 'minority rights' are you talking about?
    Nice duck.

    50 House Democrats are pissed that the Dem leadership in the House are effectively doing away with minority participation, hence, they're demanding that bipartisanship be restored.

    I was not arguing that minority rights and participation include authoring bills. I was simply saying that the poster you dismissed out of hand was entirely correct about the Dem leadership ramming bills through and provided as evidence of this 50 Democrats complaining that the process has been limited to a few lawmakers and completely eliminated bipartisanship.

    The poster you responded to had a valid point as I clearly demonstrated. Don't dismiss him with a bad rhetorical quip and then create a strawman argument to dismiss mine.

    [quote]So your article is about fiscal conservative democrats bitching they're not being let in bills presented by their coworkers? Since when is this 'a right'? [/qoute]

    Well, one, I didn't claim a right for those in the majority. And by minority rights I meant minority participation in the legislative process. And I am right here as 50 House Democrats, not Republicans, are carping because the Dem leadership has effectively eliminated bipartisanship and stuck bill writing to just a few legislators. Congress doesn't work this way and it's a reflection of rules changes imposed by the Dem leadership.

    50 House democrats aren't demanding that bipartisanship be restored. 50 house democrats are demanding they be included in writing bills. Big difference. Read your own article.
    I did, you obviously didn't otherwise, you would have read:
    “Committees must function thoroughly and inclusively, and cooperation must ensue between the parties and the houses to ensure that our legislative tactics enable rather than impede progress,” the members wrote. “In general, we must engender an atmosphere that allows partisan games to cease and collaboration to succeed
    This is not a demand for bipartisanship to be restored?

    The poster made no point. She compared the Republican bully tactics of anti-Americanism yells to saying a bill needs to be passed. Care to try again?
    No, she compared them to the same behavior that she said Democrats criticized Bush for.

    See?
    They've put it out there and are trying to bully it through using the same tactics they criticized Bush for.
    Try again what?

    More incoherence from a guy who's name makes as much sense as a girls bathroom sign at an Indian restaurant. Anyways do tell what does Obama's administration encouraging dissent among democrats have to do with the posters claim that the Democrats are engaging in the same tactics as Bush?
    Can't you read?

    My point was not about Obama encouraging dissent. It is about Democrats becoming fed up with how the Dem congressional leadership is suppressing participation not only among Republicans, but Democrats, too.

    Seriously, didn't you read what I posted?

    Appeal to authority? Source?
    Source?
    WaPo?

    Source?
    Senator Coburn.

    I was already against this?
    I don't know, were you? I was responding to your unqualified comment which you cried that voting against the stimulus bill was merely party politics and completely dismissing as illegitimate any criticism of the bill at all.

    Source?
    Fox News reported:
    House Republican Leader John Boehner issued a statement over the weekend noting that the stimulus bill wending its way through Congress provides $4.19 billion for "neighborhood stabilization activities."

    He said the money was previously limited to state and local governments, but that Democrats now want part of it to be available to non-profit entities. That means groups like ACORN would be eligible for a portion of the funds.
    At worst, I should have qualified my comment that the bill includes more than $4 billion for groups like ACORN.

    Appeal to popularity? Noted. Ignore.
    Miss the point, again, eh? That's the trouble with you intellectual dishonest posters like you...you ignore the actual arguments that your opponents post.

    I was arguing against your point that opposition to this stimulus bill was just partisan politics. I cited the cratering public support not as evidence that the bill stinks, but to note that opposition to the bill ain't merely partisan politics as this country ain't split 60/40 Republicans and Democrats. In other words, the criticisms and opposition to this bill are legitimate and not the illegitimate partisan rancor you suggest that it is.

    How? Easy. Republicans realized that they'd rather have the votes of whites in the Southern/Midwest U.S. then those of Mexicans. How else do you explain their massive loses this year among Hispanic populations?
    Bwaahahhahahaaaaaaa...you're clearly ignorant of the issue altogether. I like how you just ignored the question entirely.

    The point was/is that despite the mass protests and rallies for amnesty as well as Presidential support and heavy congressional support (Kennedy, for example) for amnesty in 2007 (I said 2008 earlier, my bad), it could not be done because members of congress were crushed by constituent outrage preventing any action being taken.

  3. #43
    Professor

    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Last Seen
    02-13-09 @ 05:15 PM
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    1,942

    Re: Obama warns of need for stimulus bill right away

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    In the way its termed here, "party politics" and "partisans" seem to imply they're voting against it ONLY becuase they're republican, and the republican party in congress is joining together to vote against this.

    However, whether or not that is the case for all of them is up for debate. They could very easily feel that the things inside this bill are not going to stimulate the economy and would instead HURT this country, and vote against it based on their principles.

    Now, if you're meaning "partisan" and "party politics" in that way (IE voting against something because it goes against their parties views) then the Democrast are ALSO being partisans and playing party politics by all voting for it because its filled with Democrat principles and refusing to give up any of those principles from the bill.
    Don't worry, Hatuey will deliberately misrepresent your comment, too.

    What you posted is just a longer way of saying what i already did...

    Hatuey is simply dismissing any and all criticism and opposition to the spending as merely political partisanship. He doesn't believe that there is any legitimate debate to be had about this spending.

  4. #44
    Sage
    Hatuey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:28 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    42,018

    Re: Obama warns of need for stimulus bill right away

    Quote Originally Posted by JMak View Post
    Nice duck.
    Thanks. It's a l'orange. I know. Elitist. But hey. Some of us can still afford it.

    50 House Democrats are pissed that the Dem leadership in the House are effectively doing away with minority participation, hence, they're demanding that bipartisanship be restored.
    Again. READ your own article :

    Since last year, many senior House Democrats — many of them subcommittee chairmen — have grown overly frustrated with how only small and select bands of legislators have been responsible for writing bills, such as the $700 billion Wall Street bailout as well as much of the $819 billion economic stimulus bill.
    So House Democrats are mad that Democrats writing legislation aren't allowing them in on it. SHOW me how it is a 'minority's right' to be included in writing bills?

    I was not arguing that minority rights and participation include authoring bills.
    Bull**** :

    Quote Originally Posted by JMak
    This doesn't address what is a valid point regarding the Democrats changing the rules to effectively eliminate minority rights in the legislative process.
    Now show me how it is violation of a non-existent right for the Blue Dogs to be included in writing bills. Which is what your article is about. A bunch of old dust bin Democrats complaining that they aren't being included in the process.

    I was simply saying that the poster you dismissed out of hand was entirely correct about the Dem leadership ramming bills through and provided as evidence of this 50 Democrats complaining that the process has been limited to a few lawmakers and completely eliminated bipartisanship.
    And that's not what your article is talking about. It is about blue dog Democrats bitching about not being allowing in on writting bills. This isn't a right. What is a right is for a house member to write a bill without having to include any of his coworkers.

    The poster you responded to had a valid point as I clearly demonstrated. Don't dismiss him with a bad rhetorical quip and then create a strawman argument to dismiss mine.
    Yawn. The poster's only argument was that Democrats were doing the same thing as Democrats. Wrong. Democrats aren't telling Republicans if they don't support the Stimulus they are anti-American or aiding and abetting terrorists etc. They are simply saying that they think this bill is necessary to help the economy.

    Well, one, I didn't claim a right for those in the majority. And by minority rights I meant minority participation in the legislative process. And I am right here as 50 House Democrats, not Republicans, are carping because the Dem leadership has effectively eliminated bipartisanship and stuck bill writing to just a few legislators. Congress doesn't work this way and it's a reflection of rules changes imposed by the Dem leadership.
    Minority participation in the legislative process? Seriously. You're annoying me now. All Republicans have to do is voice their concerns and vote or not vote. There is no right for them to participate in the drafting process of ANY bill brought up by Democrats. NONE.

    I did, you obviously didn't otherwise, you would have read:
    This is not a demand for bipartisanship to be restored?
    Again. Your article is about the Blue dogs complaining about not being included in the process. Which once again is not right.

    No, she compared them to the same behavior that she said Democrats criticized Bush for.

    See?
    1. Where are the Democrats calling Republicans anti-American?

    2. Where are the Democrats saying they are making the economy worse by not signing this bill?

    My point was not about Obama encouraging dissent. It is about Democrats becoming fed up with how the Dem congressional leadership is suppressing participation not only among Republicans, but Democrats, too.

    Seriously, didn't you read what I posted?
    - The Democrat leadership is suppressing participation. Please tell me SINCE WHEN part of 'participation' includes people forcing themselves into the writing of bills? Those 50 Democrats can write up their own version of the stimulus bill just like other groups of Democrats and Republicans have done.

    So a 192 report from MIT? No exact references?

    An opinion piece from Senator Coburn? Noted and dismissed.

    I don't know, were you? I was responding to your unqualified comment which you cried that voting against the stimulus bill was merely party politics and completely dismissing as illegitimate any criticism of the bill at all.
    Of course it is.

    You : 4 billion for ACORN - Your article :

    He said the money was previously limited to state and local governments, but that Democrats now want part of it to be available to non-profit entities. That means groups like ACORN would be eligible for a portion of the funds.
    Where are the 4 billion for ACORN? Or did you exaggerate this just like you did for 88 million to DESIGN a new ice breaker? Not study whether we need one.

    At worst, I should have qualified my comment that the bill includes more than $4 billion for groups like ACORN.
    Qualified. You mean be honest and say it's 4 billion for community groups?

    Miss the point, again, eh? That's the trouble with you intellectual dishonest posters like you...you ignore the actual arguments that your opponents post.
    You never had one. I'm sorry if that's too much trouble for you to understand. I guess that's the point with some of you internet sewer dwellers. You think you have point then rant and rant until somebody taps you on the shoulder and says that nobody really cares.

    I was arguing against your point that opposition to this stimulus bill was just partisan politics. I cited the cratering public support not as evidence that the bill stinks, but to note that opposition to the bill ain't merely partisan politics as this country ain't split 60/40 Republicans and Democrats. In other words, the criticisms and opposition to this bill are legitimate and not the illegitimate partisan rancor you suggest that it is.
    And it is is. Republicans won't vote for it cause they'll lose even more conservative votes. They didn't oppose Bush's stimulus plan. But they did this one because well Obama represents what Reagan means to Republicans.
    Bwaahahhahahaaaaaaa...you're clearly ignorant of the issue altogether. I like how you just ignored the question entirely. Your entire reason to bring it up is an appeal to popularity. Nothing more nothing less.

    The point was/is that despite the mass protests and rallies for amnesty as well as Presidential support and heavy congressional support (Kennedy, for example) for amnesty in 2007 (I said 2008 earlier, my bad), it could not be done because members of congress were crushed by constituent outrage preventing any action being taken.
    What? Do you even try to make sense out of your garbage anymore? The ONLY reason Republicans are voting against this is because well they already dropped the ball on the last stimulus checks they signed off on with President Bush. Party politics. Nothing more nothing less. If they signed off on this their chances of getting anywhere near real power again wouldn't come for 30 years.
    I refuse to accept the view that mankind is so tragically bound to the starless midnight of racism and war that the bright daybreak of peace and brotherhood can never become a reality. - MLK

  5. #45
    Advisor Pitwolfy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Tennessee
    Last Seen
    05-09-13 @ 08:42 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    456

    Re: Obama warns of need for stimulus bill right away

    Hatuey, noted and ignored.........also!
    My son: "Mom? Don't you have a butt to fix?"
    كافر

  6. #46
    Tavern Bartender
    Constitutionalist
    American's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Virginia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:45 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    76,262

    Re: Obama warns of need for stimulus bill right away

    Quote Originally Posted by Pitwolfy View Post
    Hatuey, noted and ignored.........also!
    Hi sweety, is Hatuey being difficult?
    "He who does not think himself worth saving from poverty and ignorance by his own efforts, will hardly be thought worth the efforts of anybody else." -- Frederick Douglass, Self-Made Men (1872)
    "Fly-over" country voted, and The Donald is now POTUS.

  7. #47
    Professor

    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Last Seen
    02-13-09 @ 05:15 PM
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    1,942

    Re: Obama warns of need for stimulus bill right away

    Quote Originally Posted by Hatuey View Post
    Thanks. It's a l'orange. I know. Elitist. But hey. Some of us can still afford it.

    Again. READ your own article :

    So House Democrats are mad that Democrats writing legislation aren't allowing them in on it. SHOW me how it is a 'minority's right' to be included in writing bills?
    No, I was citing as evidence that the Dem leadership is Congress have moved to squash participation and bipartisanship - which was the comlaint posted by the poster you were responding to,

    Bull**** :
    I see, you've abandoned the strawmen and now will simply tell me what i was really arguing?

    Now show me how it is violation of a non-existent right for the Blue Dogs to be included in writing bills. Which is what your article is about. A bunch of old dust bin Democrats complaining that they aren't being included in the process.
    You keep asking me to re-read what I posted, well, I suggest you do the same. What did I post?
    This doesn't address what is a valid point regarding the Democrats changing the rules to effectively eliminate minority rights in the legislative process. In fact, it's so bad that Democratic members of Congress wrote to Steny Hoyer complaining about the mad power being exercised by Pelosi.

    50 House Democrats...demanding that bipartisanship be restored. not 50 Republicans...but Democrats.

    So the poster does have a legit point that you ignorance precludes you from recognizing.


    That's what I wrote.

    I was not arguing that a certain group of Democrats have a right to participate in writing legislation nor that there's a minority right to co-author legislation.

    I was offering up evidence for the poster's point that the Democrats are bullying legislation through Congress.

    The evidence was this group of Democrats complaining that the Dem leadership was restricting participation, squashing bipartisanship by changing the legisltive rules.

    That is evidence that the Democrats leading the Congress are bullying.

    If you're not going to address my actual argument, then what the heck are you bothering with here?

    Divert. Deflect. And for what?

    And that's not what your article is talking about. It is about blue dog Democrats bitching about not being allowing in on writting bills. This isn't a right. What is a right is for a house member to write a bill without having to include any of his coworkers.
    You simply cannot read or you have a hard time actually addressing the arguments presented to you.

    The poster claimed that Democrats were bullying. You dismissed the claim with a rhetorical dump. I responded that it is a legit point and provided evidence supporting the poster's claim.

    How you get to me arguing that blue dog Dems have had a supposed right to co-author legislation taken away is, well, laughable as much as it is an example of dishonesty.

    Yawn. The poster's only argument was that Democrats were doing the same thing as Democrats.
    No it wasn't. The author claimed that the Democrats were bullying and behaving exactly like they had criticized Bush and the Republicans for in the past.

    I know you saw that comment because you quoted it and then I re-posted it for you. Why you keep ignoring it, well, I don't know.

    Democrats aren't telling Republicans if they don't support the Stimulus they are anti-American or aiding and abetting terrorists etc. They are simply saying that they think this bill is necessary to help the economy.
    You know as well as I do that's not what the poster was referring to when he/she explicitly claimed that Democrats were bullying through legislation.

    Minority participation in the legislative process? Seriously. You're annoying me now. All Republicans have to do is voice their concerns and vote or not vote. There is no right for them to participate in the drafting process of ANY bill brought up by Democrats. NONE.
    I'm not arguing that there is a right. The poster claimed that Democrats were bullying through legislation in a way they criticized Republicans for doing a few years ago. I posted evidence that, in fact, the Democratic leadership has changed the legislative rules reducing participation, cooperation, and bipartisanship (all things that the Democrats whined about when the GOP controlled Congress).

    Can you respond to an actual argument or not?

    Again. Your article is about the Blue dogs complaining about not being included in the process. Which once again is not right.
    Clown, the article demonstrates that the Democrats have changed the rules and are acting so heavy-handedly that even Democrats are bemoaning the lack of bipartisanship. In other words, it proves the poster's original claim.

    1. Where are the Democrats calling Republicans anti-American?
    Who cares about your totally rhetorical and non-factual claims?

    2. Where are the Democrats saying they are making the economy worse by not signing this bill?
    Who cares about your whiney and nonfactual comments?

    The point is that Democrats are bullying through legislation. I have proven that fact by citing, lol, Democrats complaining about precisely that.

    Why can't you respond to this actual argument?

    The Democrat leadership is suppressing participation. Please tell me SINCE WHEN part of 'participation' includes people forcing themselves into the writing of bills? Those 50 Democrats can write up their own version of the stimulus bill just like other groups of Democrats and Republicans have done.
    You just can't understand plain English, can you?

    So a 192 report from MIT? No exact references?
    I presented you the source.

    WTF?

    An opinion piece from Senator Coburn? Noted and dismissed.
    Mighty disingenuous of you.

    First, it ain't an opinion piece. I'm not sure how you determined that. Please explain.

    Second, are you saying that Senator's Coburn's claim that the fed government possesses $1.3 trillion in property in DC is false because you falsely concluded that it was included in an opinion piece?

    Dude, I presented a speech that Coburn made on the Senate floor yesterday.

    I know you're unable to address actual arguments, but there's no need to dismiss people simply because what they say doesn't confirm what you prefer to believe.

    Of course it is.
    Maybe you shouldn't post unequivocal statements?? Then you wouldn't be perceived as possessing certain positions. Try it sometime.

    You : 4 billion for ACORN - Your article :

    Where are the 4 billion for ACORN? Or did you exaggerate this just like you did for 88 million to DESIGN a new ice breaker? Not study whether we need one.

    Qualified. You mean be honest and say it's 4 billion for community groups?
    I see, you saw my qualifier and still asked why I exaggerated it? Mighty honest of you.

    You never had one. I'm sorry if that's too much trouble for you to understand. I guess that's the point with some of you internet sewer dwellers. You think you have point then rant and rant until somebody taps you on the shoulder and says that nobody really cares.
    LMAO!!

    And it is is. Republicans won't vote for it cause they'll lose even more conservative votes. They didn't oppose Bush's stimulus plan. But they did this one because well Obama represents what Reagan means to Republicans.
    And there you go, again...dismissing any criticism or opposition as illegitimate.

    Intellectual dishonesty seems to be your strong point.

    Your entire reason to bring it up is an appeal to popularity. Nothing more nothing less.
    And there you go, again. You've abandoned simply attributing strawmen to me to merely telling me what I was really arguing.

    Sorry, but it doesn't matter whether you approve of my rationale. What matters is the argument. It's exceedingly clear from my comments that I was not citing cratering public approval as support for my position. I was exceedingly clear in commenting that your dismissal of any criticism or opposition to this spending is merely partisan politics was wrong given that such cratering public support cannot be indicative of merely partisan feeling.

    You can now attempt to address actual arguments if you'd like.

    What? Do you even try to make sense out of your garbage anymore?
    Do you even try to address actual arguments?

    The ONLY reason Republicans are voting against this is because well they already dropped the ball on the last stimulus checks they signed off on with President Bush.
    Funny, but I see lots of Republicans...all of them in the House, for example, expressing quite different reasons for opposing this spending.

    But, hey, it's your nature to simply ignore what people are actually arguing in favor of attributing bogus arguments to them.

    Party politics. Nothing more nothing less. If they signed off on this their chances of getting anywhere near real power again wouldn't come for 30 years.
    Sorry, but your strawmen just don't add up.

    Try again.

  8. #48
    Banned Goobieman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Last Seen
    03-22-15 @ 02:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    17,343

    Re: Obama warns of need for stimulus bill right away

    Quote Originally Posted by JMak View Post
    No, I was citing as evidence that the Dem leadership is Congress have moved to squash participation and bipartisanship - which was the comlaint posted by the poster you were responding to,
    Silly you.
    "Bipartisanship" is nothing but a liberal buzzword.
    What it means depends on who is in power:
    When Republicans are in power, it means "We demand that you listen to us!!"
    When Dems are im power it means "You will agree with us".

  9. #49
    Student
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Wisconsin
    Last Seen
    03-14-09 @ 03:23 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    283

    Re: Obama warns of need for stimulus bill right away

    Quote Originally Posted by Goobieman View Post
    Silly you.
    "Bipartisanship" is nothing but a liberal buzzword.
    What it means depends on who is in power:
    When Republicans are in power, it means "We demand that you listen to us!!"
    When Dems are im power it means "You will agree with us".
    I don't think so. The republicans during the first 6 years of the Bush administration shut out the democrats...literally.

    When the democrats are in control, they cave to republicans like the spineless leaders they have...Pelosi and Reid.

    For god's sakes the first words out of Pelosi/Reid's mouths were that they were going to watch Obama like white on rice for the merest hint of impropriety.

    Where the heck was that vigilance when Bush was in power?

    It's like the republicans playing the fiscal responsibility card now after 8 years of spending like a drunken sailor.

  10. #50
    Slayer of the DP Newsbot
    danarhea's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:25 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    39,722

    Re: Obama warns of need for stimulus bill right away

    Quote Originally Posted by JMak View Post
    I don't get this.

    This doesn't address what is a valid point regarding the Democrats changing the rules to effectively eliminate minority rights in the legislative process. In fact, it's so bad that Democratic members of Congress wrote to Steny Hoyer complaining about the mad power being exercised by Pelosi.

    An excerpt:


    50 House Democrats...demanding that bipartisanship be restored. not 50 Republicans...but Democrats.

    So the poster does have a legit point that you ignorance precludes you from recognizing.

    And more:


    I guess the question is...do you have a point?



    That's right...you see nothing wrong with spending two more billion dollars on a zero emissions coal plant that MIT says we don't have the technology to build; or another half billion dollars on a new DHS building despite the feds having $1.3 trillion of buildings that they own that the Dem Congress won't permit to be sold off; or four hundred million on STD programs; or untold tens of billions more being spent on simple Democratic wish list goodies, like $4 billion to ACORN.

    Yeah, the GOP's resistance to this spending and the cratering public support for it are just partisan politics...not legit arguments against totally wasteful spending.



    No? So how do you explain the absolute total failure of Congress to pass an amnesty bill two years ago while legal and illegal immigrants were taking to the streets demanding such amnesty and despite Bush's clear support for it?



    Your ignorant, blind partisan opinions have also been noted.
    You know, we bash each others' heads frequently, but you know what? On this, you are absolutely right. Bush whored himself out for his constituents. Obama promised change. What is Obama doing? Whoring himself out for future votes in the next election.

    What change?
    The ghost of Jack Kevorkian for President's Physician: 2016

Page 5 of 6 FirstFirst ... 3456 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •