• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Obama warns of need for stimulus bill right away

another Freeper thread. You guys have fun, play nice, ok?:2wave:
 
Sure thing! You're post is amazing and full of wonderful insight that added great to the discussion! thanks so much!
 
WillRockwell said:
another Freeper thread. You guys have fun, play nice, ok?:2wave:
Click to expand...

No, its pointing out the red haring Obama is using to try to get people on board his fatasmic train of more yearly government spending.

If a politician plays on fear and try's to hurry through legislation, I can nearly always say it is bad legislation. This time it is true more than any other.
 
WillRockwell said:
another Freeper thread. You guys have fun, play nice, ok?:2wave:
Click to expand...

A couple of months ago, when Bush pushed through the first stimulus package, I am absolutely certain that, instead of saying "have fun", you would have been bashing hard, right alongside the rest of us. So what happened this time? Ah, someone in the White House with a D next to his name, instead of an R.

So tell me this - What did you think of Bush's stimulus? And if you hate it, then why do you like Obama's stimulus now? I look forward to an answer, that I am sure that, now that you are backed into a corner, you won't be giving.
 
danarhea said:
So tell me this - What did you think of Bush's stimulus? And if you hate it, then why do you like Obama's stimulus now? I look forward to an answer, that I am sure that, now that you are backed into a corner, you won't be giving.
Click to expand...


What Bush did was not stimulus, it was payback to his base, a treasury hijacking worthy of George Clooney. If you remember, the administration said, give us this much, now, no questions asked. The entire request fit on 3 typed pages.
The current administration is at least attempting to craft a stimulus package, and they have asked for Republican help. Instead, the Republicans have chosen to reject bipartisan meetings and present their own ideas, which are not available for scrutiny.
Now, exactly what makes you think I am "backed into a corner"?
 
WillRockwell said:
What Bush did was not stimulus, it was payback to his base, a treasury hijacking worthy of George Clooney.
Click to expand...
And this differers from The Obama's package because...?

Oh wait, I know... (D)
 
WillRockwell said:
What Bush did was not stimulus, it was payback to his base, a treasury hijacking worthy of George Clooney. If you remember, the administration said, give us this much, now, no questions asked. The entire request fit on 3 typed pages.
The current administration is at least attempting to craft a stimulus package, and they have asked for Republican help. Instead, the Republicans have chosen to reject bipartisan meetings and present their own ideas, which are not available for scrutiny.
Now, exactly what makes you think I am "backed into a corner"?
Click to expand...



No, they have NOT asked for help. They've put it out there and are trying to bully it through using the same tactics they criticized Bush for. Just because Republicans won't sign off on the BS strewn through this bill doesn't make them partisan. I've written my senator and told him if his name was on the bill, he'd lose my vote!! It's a bad bill that will cost this country in the long run. More so than these bogus threats the POTUS is trying to ram down our throats.

I don't buy it for a minute and I daresay that a lot of others don't either!


:cool:
 
Pitwolfy said:
No, they have NOT asked for help.
Click to expand...

Of course they did. They were asked for their help in passing the bill. Vote for it. What more do they need to give?

They've put it out there and are trying to bully it through using the same tactics they criticized Bush for.
Click to expand...

When Democrats are calling Republicans anti-American for voting against this, then MAYBE you'll have some sort of clue and point.

Just because Republicans won't sign off on the BS strewn through this bill doesn't make them partisan.
Click to expand...

Of COURSE it does. They're voting against it because of party politics. Making them partisans.

I've written my senator and told him if his name was on the bill, he'd lose my vote!!
Click to expand...

You know your senator doesn't care about your vote right? And just so you know.

It's a bad bill that will cost this country in the long run. More so than these bogus threats the POTUS is trying to ram down our throats.

I don't buy it for a minute and I daresay that a lot of others don't either!
:cool:
Click to expand...

Opinion? Noted.
 
WillRockwell said:
What Bush did was not stimulus, it was payback to his base, a treasury hijacking worthy of George Clooney. If you remember, the administration said, give us this much, now, no questions asked. The entire request fit on 3 typed pages.
The current administration is at least attempting to craft a stimulus package, and they have asked for Republican help. Instead, the Republicans have chosen to reject bipartisan meetings and present their own ideas, which are not available for scrutiny.
Now, exactly what makes you think I am "backed into a corner"?
Click to expand...

Huh?

Totally eliminating federal income taxes for 4 million plus low-income taxpayers is hijacking the treasury? Cutting the tax rate for the 15% tax bracket into two brackets at 10% and 15% was a treasury hijacking? Cutting taxes across the board with the largest rate reductions coming to the folks at the bottom is a treasury hijacking?

What is this world coming to?

Meanwhile, Obama's bill includes:

$2 billion to build a zero-emissions coal plant that the people at MIT says we don't have the technology to build and that the WaPo acknowledges the technology isn't there.

There was a nearly $250 million payback to the largest Hollywood studios that Republicans wwere able to strip out.

$88 million to study, study whether we should buy a new ice breaker for the Coast Guard.

Nearly $500 billion to build DHS a new building despite the feds owning up to $1.3 trillion of property in the DC area. In addition, another $250 million is allocated for new furnishings for that building. And another hundred million for a new DHS security training facility in West Virginia despite their being 4 duplicate facilities already built...it's that DHS doesn't have their own.

$850 million for Amtrak. 'Nuff said.

$160 million for Job Corps to create 338 new jobs = $1.5 million per job.

Yeah, this is all high priority stimulus spending and not hijacking our tax dollars...errr...the tax dollars of generations not even born, yet.

It's sickening how some people here think,
 
WillRockwell said:
What Bush did was not stimulus, it was payback to his base, a treasury hijacking worthy of George Clooney. If you remember, the administration said, give us this much, now, no questions asked. The entire request fit on 3 typed pages.
The current administration is at least attempting to craft a stimulus package, and they have asked for Republican help. Instead, the Republicans have chosen to reject bipartisan meetings and present their own ideas, which are not available for scrutiny.
Now, exactly what makes you think I am "backed into a corner"?
Click to expand...

I think the poor guy fell into his BS pulpit. Better to be in your corner. I did see the pubs weighing in on th bill...on the "Today Show",and ,"GMA'. I guess if we want to find out the truth:rofl we`ll have to tune in to," Rush Limbaugh".
 
Hatuey said:
When Democrats are calling Republicans anti-American for voting against this, then MAYBE you'll have some sort of clue and point.
Click to expand...

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:
A group of more than 50 House Democrats has penned a letter to Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) imploring him to “restore this institution” and see that the House returns to a “regular order” process of legislating.
Click to expand...

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:
Rep. Jim Cooper (D-TN) -- one of the lead Blue Dogs -- made a startling admission to lefty Liberadio on Sunday, suggesting the White House quietly encouraged him to buck House leadership on the stimulus.

Cooper was one of 11 Dems to vote no -- joining every GOP House member.

"Well, I probably shouldn’t tell you this, but I actually got some quiet encouragement from the Obama folks for what I’m doing," said Cooper, one of about 55 House Democrats to sign a letter criticizing Speaker Nancy Pelosi for suspending normal debate and committee rules on the $819 billion package.
Click to expand...

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

Of COURSE it does. They're voting against it because of party politics. Making them partisans.
Click to expand...

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.

You know your senator doesn't care about your vote right? And just so you know.
Click to expand...

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?

Opinion? Noted.
Click to expand...

Your ignorant, blind partisan opinions have also been noted.
 
JMak said:
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.
Click to expand...

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 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.
Click to expand...

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?

Democratic leaders have acknowledged that the “regular order” process of methodically developing and writing bills in subcommittees and committees has been abandoned recently. But they have defended the handling of such sensitive and important legislation by only an exclusive group of leadership and senior lawmakers as a necessary tactic during exceptional times.

They have also said that, despite the truncated process, Pelosi has made extraordinary efforts to solicit and include ideas from the caucus — a view many rank-and-file Democrats shared.
Click to expand...

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'?

An excerpt:

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

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.

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

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?

And more:

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

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? Isn't that the OPPOSITE of what Bush and Co did during their administration? Discourage dissent? But please I'll let you continue this incoherent post. I'll expect another classical non-sequitur from you somewhere before the end of your post.

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;
Click to expand...

Appeal to authority? Source?

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;
Click to expand...

Source?

or four hundred million on STD programs;
Click to expand...

I was already against this?

or untold tens of billions more being spent on simple Democratic wish list goodies, like $4 billion to ACORN.
Click to expand...

Source?

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.
Click to expand...

Appeal to popularity? Noted. Ignore.

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.
Click to expand...

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?
 
Hatuey said:
Of COURSE it does. They're voting against it because of party politics. Making them partisans.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Hatuey said:
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?
Click to expand...

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.

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.
Click to expand...

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.”
Click to expand...

This is not a demand for bipartisanship to be restored? :doh

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?
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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?
Click to expand...

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?
Click to expand...

Source?
WaPo?

Source?
Click to expand...
Senator Coburn.

I was already against this?
Click to expand...

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?
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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?
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...
 
Zyphlin said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
JMak said:
Nice duck.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

Bull**** :

JMak said:
This doesn't address what is a valid point regarding the Democrats changing the rules to effectively eliminate minority rights in the legislative process.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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? :doh
Click to expand...

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?
Click to expand...

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?
Click to expand...

:rofl - 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.

Source?
WaPo?
Click to expand...

So a 192 report from MIT? No exact references?

Senator Coburn.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

Of course it is.

Fox News reported:
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Hatuey, noted and ignored.........also! :bright:
 
Hatuey said:
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?
Click to expand...

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**** :
Click to expand...

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

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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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?
Click to expand...

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?
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

You just can't understand plain English, can you?

So a 192 report from MIT? No exact references?
Click to expand...

I presented you the source.

WTF?

An opinion piece from Senator Coburn? Noted and dismissed.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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?
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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?
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

Sorry, but your strawmen just don't add up.

Try again.
 
JMak said:
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,
Click to expand...
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".
 
Goobieman said:
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".
Click to expand...
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.
 
JMak said:
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.
Click to expand...

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?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom