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

Thread: Cutting the President Slack Is So Old School

  1. #41
    Student
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Wisconsin
    Last Seen
    03-14-09 @ 03:23 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    283

    Re: Cutting the President Slack Is So Old School

    Quote Originally Posted by Truth Detector View Post
    Obviously the FACTS and these Liberal journals do not agree with your denial. Carry on; your clown like attempts to re-write the record is illustrative of partisan hackery gone wild.
    I really think you have no understanding of what a fact is.

    When someone disagrees with your preconceived notions, even showing you countervailing-facts, you run away calling your questioner names telling him/her to 'carry on.'

    You will never experience any growth if you keep that up. You'll stay at the bottom of the intellectual food chain if you don't change.

  2. #42
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Ventura California
    Last Seen
    11-15-11 @ 11:17 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    8,706

    Re: Cutting the President Slack Is So Old School

    Quote Originally Posted by Decker View Post
    You will never experience any growth if you keep that up. You'll stay at the bottom of the intellectual food chain if you don't change.
    What profound irony coming from someone who claims that Bush stole an election when the FACTS do not support your wild-eyed assertions.

    The bottom of the intellectual food chain appears to be where you and many of your Liberal friends on this forum forage.

    Carry on; your clown like attempts to suggest that any of your blather remotely resembles coherent honest debate are laughable at best, pathetic in that you can't even see the irony of your own hyperbole and overblown, desperate partisan rhetoric.

  3. #43
    ANTI**ANTIFA
    ReverendHellh0und's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Temple of Solomon
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:18 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    75,592

    Re: Cutting the President Slack Is So Old School

    Quote Originally Posted by Truth Detector View Post
    What profound irony coming from someone who claims that Bush stole an election when the FACTS do not support your wild-eyed assertions.

    The bottom of the intellectual food chain appears to be where you and many of your Liberal friends on this forum forage.

    Carry on; your clown like attempts to suggest that any of your blather remotely resembles coherent honest debate are laughable at best, pathetic in that you can't even see the irony of your own hyperbole and overblown, desperate partisan rhetoric.



    Stop it TD!


    Don't you know, only us Right wingers are Partisan...... How dare you!
    Let evil swiftly befall those who have wrongly condemned us

  4. #44
    Professor
    WillRockwell's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Last Seen
    07-10-10 @ 09:48 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    1,950

    Re: Cutting the President Slack Is So Old School

    Quote Originally Posted by Truth Detector View Post

    Carry on; your clown like attempts to suggest that any of your blather remotely resembles coherent honest debate are laughable at best, pathetic in that you can't even see the irony of your own hyperbole and overblown, desperate partisan rhetoric.
    You are a poor advocate for "coherent honest debate", as you can't even stay on topic, much less carry on a discussion in a civil tone. This is not a name-calling contest, and I still haven't heard a representative from the right offer a single example of a Republican administration which was dogged from inauguration day by a concentrated Democratic effort to cause it to fail.

  5. #45
    Banned Goobieman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Last Seen
    03-22-15 @ 02:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    17,343

    Re: Cutting the President Slack Is So Old School

    Quote Originally Posted by WillRockwell View Post
    I still haven't heard a representative from the right offer a single example of a Republican administration which was dogged from inauguration day by a concentrated Democratic effort to cause it to fail.
    Yes, you have.
    You've simply refused to accept the soundness of the claim.

  6. #46
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Tiamat's better half
    Last Seen
    10-28-11 @ 01:41 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    15,998

    Re: Cutting the President Slack Is So Old School

    Moderator's Warning:
    Cutting the President Slack Is So Old SchoolQuit with all the personal attacks. On the other hand I do need some practice handing out infractions if anyone insists on keeping it up.

  7. #47
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,971

    Re: Cutting the President Slack Is So Old School

    Quote Originally Posted by WillRockwell View Post
    Well that's just not true. A quick search of articles from the first month of the Bush presidency proves that Democrats were making an effort to contribute to bipartisan governance. Sure, they were angry about the stolen election, but rather than call for the failure of the Bush administration they looked at their own mistakes and tried to find a way to contribute.


    Just quit with the tired stolen election crap. It contributes nothing and just deflects from the actual topic, which isn't surprising that you're doing it because your initial topic is bunk.

    Again, you've yet to show me an official statement by the GOP stating they wish the failure of the Obama Administration.

    As well, the situation is strikingly different. In 2001 Republicans did not have control of the entire congress, with Democrats having equal footing [and soon after majority] in the senate. This caused them to be forced, politically, to take a different approach which is shown in your articles that you cherry picked.

    Additionally, there was no major legislation coming down the pike like this Stimulus Bill in 2000 that is so radically charged in regards to the views by each party on how to go forward with it.

    Finally, as will be noted in the cherry picked articles again, Bush's administration right out the gate wasn't coming out going "We won the election" when the other side was giving input that they didn't want to listen to or telling their party who and who they should be listening too. He was not getting up making speeches roasting the previous administration in every paragraph. Bush was making strong pushes to actually be bipartisan and be respectful and open to both sides.

    Lets see what else was in here, other than a quote from a guy that ended up essentially being thrown out of the party.

    Now, since you still haven't provided an actual official documentation that the elected GOP's stance is to obstruct and cause the Obama Administration to fail I must imagine you're speaking of the constituency. If that's the case, what does your article say about the Democrat constituency during this time?

    the party's core constituency, enraged by the presidential standoff in Florida, is demanding muscular opposition to Mr. Bush.
    and in regards to the people in power?

    That sentiment has already been signaled by the challenges to some of the incoming president's most ideologically charged cabinet selections, notably his choice of John Ashcroft for attorney general.
    In regards to it being a completely different climate and thus politicly they could not be as vocal of obstructionists as they, or their constituents would like.

    ''Look, we don't control any part of the Congress and we don't control the executive branch,'' Mr. Gephardt said. ''Just by definition of things, we have to rethink everything we were out there on in the election, and think what our agenda should be now.''
    And as to why they didn't want to be seen as obstructionists? Was it because they were trying to cut the president slack? No, it was political for fear of having this happen to them.

    Newt Gingrich and his uncompromising Republican followers were punished at the polls when they were blamed by the public for the government shutdown of 1995 and for the partisan zeal of impeachment.
    along with further political reason

    Yet if Democrats fight hard and then splinter significantly when they vote, some strategists say they risk sending an early message of weakness to Mr. Bush. Democrats say they are well aware that their only negotiating leverage with the president is their ability to use filibusters in the Senate to stop legislation
    And what else did Lieberman say?

    ''On the other hand, we have to be prepared to draw the line when there is no real agreement and not just reach an agreement for the sake of accommodation.''
    Seems like the Republicans drawing a line on the stimulus due to the large amount of non-stimulus things added to it instead of reaching an agreement for the sake of accomodating the new president.

    Not to mention, this sentiment was pretty much only in the Senate which is not surprising as it was the only place where politicly it was the smart move. In the house:

    While Democratic House members on the left want the party to fight uncompromisingly against Mr. Bush
    with statements from representitives such as this

    Representative Jesse L. Jackson Jr., an Illinois Democrat, has been warning senators that they ignore the strong feelings of the party's base at their own peril"...He lambasted the Senate as ''the only group in town talking of bipartisanship.''
    It was clear from your article that if you read it instead of cherry pick it that the Democratic Base wanted Bush's failure and to impeed him, the Democratic House Members wanted to fight uncompromisingly against him, and only the Senate for purely political and not noble reasons wanted to act bipartisan with him.

    As to your second, as I said, Bush's tone was far different than Obama's and was percieved as such:

    Mr. Bush's use of soothing words and symbolic acts has not been matched since Ronald Reagan's first days. In addition, the new president has surpassed both Mr. Reagan, his own father and Bill Clinton in making Congressional diplomacy an opening priority.
    Not to mention this being a wonderful example of an early (albiet backhanded) insult to Bush right out of the gate, showing they're as petty as current republicans can be

    Democrats who had envisioned him stumbling into town are now admiring him for staying ''on message,'' even if they dislike the message. Mr. Bush has also seemed smarter and verbally sharper than they expected.
    Not to mention both point out that Bush did little of anything controversial in his first two weeks; far different than Obama and the Stimulus package. And the one thing that was controversial was Ashcroft. What was the vote by Democrats in the Senate?

    8 yays, 42 Nays. 84%. More than the Stimulus got, but by under 10%. And still moer than 3/4th's against it.

    Sorry, you're flat out wrong. Save for the Senate who was doing it pretty much through public channels more than through votes and for political reasons primarily if not only, the majority of Democrats in this country seemed to be roundly in favor of Bush's Administration to fail in regards to its policies. Gephart, as shown in your article, warned him against tax cuts. He was roundly told there'd be opposition to misile defense. He was warned against further stances on abortion. He was opposed on his changes to environmental laws and his appointment to Aschcroft.

    No, much like today, Democrats then for the most part wanted the failure of the Bush Administration's policies just as many republicans wish that for Obama's now. The simple fact was politicaly at that time they had to go about such in the Senate in a different way then the current situation.

  8. #48
    Student
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Wisconsin
    Last Seen
    03-14-09 @ 03:23 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    283

    Re: Cutting the President Slack Is So Old School

    Quote Originally Posted by Goobieman View Post
    Yes, you have.
    You've simply refused to accept the soundness of the claim.
    During the Bush years, I think the democrats were appalling as an opposition party. Bush got his ruinous tax cuts. He got retroactive immunity for FISA crimes. He got his War Powers Resolution authorization to attack Iraq. He got his Military Commissions Act immunity for past acts of torture. He got his medicare bill (granted the president's actuary withheld the bill's costs from congress to get it) but he got it.

    What are some examples over the past 8 years of the democrats standing up to Bush and denying him any legislation he requested/supported?

  9. #49
    Phoenecian
    Indy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Chicago
    Last Seen
    03-22-13 @ 04:36 PM
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    2,089

    Re: Cutting the President Slack Is So Old School

    Quote Originally Posted by Reverend_Hellh0und View Post
    Your kidding right?


    Please show me where they supported Bush.


    Your thesis is nonsense.


    Lets see, maybe in the last US crisis... does 9/11 ring any bells? Nah, I'm sure your selective memory doesn't allow you to see the truth in the OP's statement.
    Affiant further sayeth not.

  10. #50
    ANTI**ANTIFA
    ReverendHellh0und's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Temple of Solomon
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:18 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    75,592

    Re: Cutting the President Slack Is So Old School

    Quote Originally Posted by Indy View Post
    Lets see, maybe in the last US crisis... does 9/11 ring any bells? Nah, I'm sure your selective memory doesn't allow you to see the truth in the OP's statement.




    Yeah that lasted about a week. Sorry. See hautey's little chart.
    Let evil swiftly befall those who have wrongly condemned us

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
  •