Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst ... 23456 LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 54

Thread: Dems mount effort to label house GOP as 'The BP 114'

  1. #31
    Sage
    Harry Guerrilla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Not affiliated with other libertarians.
    Last Seen
    09-01-17 @ 02:38 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    28,955

    Re: Dems mount effort to label house GOP as 'The BP 114'

    Quote Originally Posted by somepeoplesay View Post
    From The Hill.



    So the Democrats have finally decided to leave their bi-partisan fantasy world, maybe Obama finally realized that the Republicans will oppose anything and everything he does? Now, if they also choose to highlight some crazy tea-party rhetoric, we're in for some real fireworks in November.
    Bi partisan is usually a political attempt at saying, "they won't do what we want them to."
    No one is being "bi partisan."

    As for the BP fund, is a stupid idea and still is.
    Last edited by Harry Guerrilla; 06-21-10 at 05:46 PM.
    I was discovering that life just simply isn't fair and bask in the unsung glory of knowing that each obstacle overcome along the way only adds to the satisfaction in the end. Nothing great, after all, was ever accomplished by anyone sulking in his or her misery.
    —Adam Shepard

  2. #32
    Hippie Hater
    texmaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Dallas TEXAS
    Last Seen
    08-20-15 @ 01:17 AM
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    3,969

    Re: Dems mount effort to label house GOP as 'The BP 114'

    Quote Originally Posted by Guy Incognito View Post
    Because the Republicans will turn on any of their own who vote with the Democrats on any issue. You've got to admire their party discipline, even if it's largely used for nefarious purposes.
    Paging Joe Lieberman

    My God its been a while since I've seen this much hypocracy in one thread.

    As many have pointed out its not the fact that Dems aren't including Republicans because they never have and vise versa. It is the lies Obama and the Democrats put out there about a "transparent" and "different kind of politician" that make it all the more amusing.
    Last edited by texmaster; 06-21-10 at 05:42 PM.
    Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.

    John Adams

  3. #33
    Noblesse oblige
    Ockham's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    New Jersey
    Last Seen
    01-27-17 @ 07:23 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    23,909
    Blog Entries
    4

    Re: Dems mount effort to label house GOP as 'The BP 114'

    Quote Originally Posted by the makeout hobo View Post
    Why can't something be done to try to win over blue dogs AND moderate republicans?
    Well, the Blue Dogs tried that until Pelosi and Reid batted them around a bit and they fell in line, like good little soldiers during the Health Care debacle. Blue Dogs are a misnomer at this point - they calculate who can vote party line, and they do so depending on when they're up for re-election.
    “I think if Thomas Jefferson were looking down, the author of the Bill of Rights, on what’s being proposed here, he’d agree with it. He would agree that the First Amendment cannot be absolute.” - Chuck Schumer (D). Yet, Madison and Mason wrote the Bill of Rights, according to Sheila Jackson Lee, 400 years ago. Yup, it's a fact.


  4. #34
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,940

    Re: Dems mount effort to label house GOP as 'The BP 114'

    Quote Originally Posted by somepeoplesay View Post
    - He removed the public option from the Health Care Bill
    Because Blue Dogs wouldn't go along with the vote while it was in there, thus keeping them from voting it in.

    - He sent 1200 troops to the border due to conservative whining
    This is a legitimate one, however you present it as "due to conservative whining" when even the MSNBC piece about it suggest it was to pre-empt a Republican attempt to send a larger number. Still, this one at least falls mildly within the realm.

    - He arguably fired Van Jones
    Arguably key there, and this was a PR move not a bipartisan one.

    - Flipped on the 9/11 trial in New York due to more conservative whining
    Tenuous at best since you had the city he was moving it to having a number of its people complaining and the Mayor of the city himself petitioning the President not to put it there due to the safety and financial concerns. This had far more to do with dealing with local politics of NY then it had to do with attempting to be "bipartisan" with conservatives.

    - Caved on providing real sex education, chose to continue the failed "abstinence-only" policy because of conservative christian whining
    I'm confused on this? The most I've seen is that Obama's not actively pushed for legislation that changed it. Are we seriously going to consider not bothering with legislation "bipartisan" effort? If so, suddenly your stance on George Bush looks far different. Hey, GWB didn't get rid of that failed program of Welfare...he was bipartisan. Got a link to Obama openly pushing for abstinence only education to be placed in a bill?

    - Finally, he caved on restricting offshore drilling due to more conservative whining, how'd that work out?
    Oh, you mean the switch where he allowed off shore drilling........and in the exact same stroke disallowed drilling in other places of the United States thus playing a shell game where he can say "Look, we're allowing more domestic drilling" while simultaneously going "look, we're disallowing more domestic drilling".

    Oh, and wonderful ignorant comment there. Lets see, since no actual additional off shore drilling substantially occurred, and had nothing to do with the current problem in the Gulf, I'd say its hard to really say how that work out.

    These were your amazing examples of "Bipartisanship"? First, "Bipartisanship" to you apparently means "Giving in to whining" which is the most ignorant and childish explanation to why something happened I've ever seen and lacks any actual desire to have a real conversation. Second, your examples of "bipartisanship" seem to be a collection consisting of a move to get his OWN party on his side, a move to try and keep his opponents from pushing for an even larger action, removing political baggage that was harming his poll numbers, acquiescing to a cities dispute with the federal government mandating a trial to be held in their city, choosing not to make something a priority in his first 18 months to alter, and allowing something while simultaneously disallowing it elsewhere for a net wash.

    Yes, stunning bipartisanship there.



    Thanks for proving my point. Its nothing but politics as usual, non-existent attempts at bipartisanship that are in no way aims at reaching across the aisle, working with the other side, or finding post partisan solutions but instead actions taken to mitigate "whining" which is translation to "negative public image" that have little to no real legislative effect in any way.

  5. #35
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,940

    Re: Dems mount effort to label house GOP as 'The BP 114'

    Quote Originally Posted by the makeout hobo View Post
    Why can't something be done to try to win over blue dogs AND moderate republicans?
    He can do it. It's just not attempting to be bipartisan or post partisan. Its not abandoning or giving up some of what he wants in an effort to get the other side to agree with him to form a piece of legislation that is agreeable to all sides. Its the realization that his views were unpassable as he couldn't even get his own party to agree with it and thus had to give up things to get ANY bit of what he wanted. It was not an attempt to work with the other side of the aisle, it was the realization that his side of the aisle wasn't even going along with what he was doing so he had to moderate what he wanted to get them with the hope that maybe some republicans would jump on board.

    When you're trying to convince YOUR OWN PARTY to come vote with you that's not a symbol of bipartisanship, that's a symbol of someone that was pushing for something too extreme in general and thus had to moderate themselves out of necessity to just get their OWN majority let alone the other side, not out of a desire to reach across the aisle.

  6. #36
    Educator
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Last Seen
    02-04-15 @ 11:02 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    808

    Re: Dems mount effort to label house GOP as 'The BP 114'

    Quote Originally Posted by somepeoplesay View Post
    - He removed the public option from the Health Care Bill
    Democrats in Congress effectively killed the public option...

    - He sent 1200 troops to the border due to conservative whining
    Who are unarmed..

    - He arguably fired Van Jones
    As he well should have.

    - Flipped on the 9/11 trial in New York due to more conservative whining
    Was not just Republicans against this either.

    - Caved on providing real sex education, chose to continue the failed "abstinence-only" policy because of conservative christian whining
    I don't care about this issue, so I won't really say anything here.

    - Finally, he caved on restricting offshore drilling due to more conservative whining, how'd that work out?
    Off-shore drilling is going to be a vital part of our life, like it or not. What petroleum based product are you willing to forgo?


    The truth is that the Republicans are obstructionists and view any vote with Obama as a vote with the enemy. They truly are the party of no and the epitome of what is wrong with partisan politics in this country, they value their own party gaining power over what's best for the country. At least when the Democrats were in the minority, they didn't threaten to filibuster every bill they didn't agree with.
    When Democrats were in the minority, the breakdown of the Senate was something like 49-50-1 or something like that. There is no real need for a filibuster in as many cases since it is hard to even get one party to agree on everything in a bill. You want to paint the Republicans as the party of "no", but you seem to think that anything they rightly disagree with makes them simply obstructionists. It seems you would rather the President do whatever he wanted.

  7. #37
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,940

    Re: Dems mount effort to label house GOP as 'The BP 114'

    ....

    You gotta be kidding me my entire post just got erased


    GHHHHHHHH


    Sorry, will respond a bit later. Just had 30 minutes vanish

  8. #38
    Guru

    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Last Seen
    05-13-11 @ 09:01 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    4,075
    Blog Entries
    3

    Re: Dems mount effort to label house GOP as 'The BP 114'

    [QUOTE=megaprogman;1058816147]I think that they were attempting to be bi-partisan. At least the president was and so long as the GOP and everyone else agreed with his proposals that would have been fine.

  9. #39
    Girthless
    RightinNYC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    New York, NY
    Last Seen
    01-23-11 @ 11:56 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    25,894

    Re: Dems mount effort to label house GOP as 'The BP 114'

    Which do you think will be more catchy with the public: The "BP 114" or the "BP #1"?

    People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.

  10. #40
    Sage
    apdst's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Bagdad, La.
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:46 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    76,317

    Re: Dems mount effort to label house GOP as 'The BP 114'

    Quote Originally Posted by megaprogman View Post
    I think that they were attempting to be bi-partisan. At least the president was. However, I believe that the gulf between dems and reps is bigger than most people give credence to.
    Obama's idea of bi-partisanship, is everyone else agreeing with him.
    Quote Originally Posted by Top Cat View Post
    At least Bill saved his transgressions for grown women. Not suggesting what he did was OK. But he didn't chase 14 year olds.

Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst ... 23456 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
  •