Senate Republicans force delay on spending bill

zimmer · Mar 6, 2009

That's the way it is done... slow them down at every point of entry... throw sand in the gears... use every delay tactic in the book. Make them fight hard for Marx and his vessel... make them stand on the floor and defend Karl Marx and his ideological shadow President No You Can't.

Give no millimeter on any front.

Have Rush and Talk radio carry the water to the public.

Trillion here, trillion there, half a trillion here, tax increases during a recession, socialist health care coming, money for Palestinian Terrorists, Disneyland foreign policy with the Russians and Iran.. and trying to use Rush as a wedge... LOL... Obama has the ears of Dumbo... now the policies to match.

Senate Republicans force delay on spending bill

WASHINGTON – Senate Republicans, demanding the right to try to change a huge spending bill, forced Democrats on Thursday night to put off a final vote on the measure until next week. The surprise development will force Congress to pass a stopgap funding bill to avoid a partial shutdown of the government.

Republicans have blasted the $410 billion measure as too costly. But the reason for GOP unity in advance of a key procedural vote was that Democrats had not allowed them enough opportunities to offer amendments.

Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., canceled the vote, saying he was one vote short of the 60 needed to close debate

Hatuey · Mar 6, 2009

zimmer said:
That's the way it is done... slow them down at every point of entry... throw sand in the gears... use every delay tactic in the book. Make them fight hard for Marx and his vessel... make them stand on the floor and defend Karl Marx and his ideological shadow President No You Can't.

Can you define socialism yet?

PeteEU · Mar 6, 2009

This is so funny... Republicans delaying their own pork spending bill to piss of the Democrats and put the economy into a bigger hole.. talk about eating your own.

zimmer · Mar 6, 2009

Hatuey said:
Can you define socialism yet?

Can you find one instance it has worked?
Using any definition you like.

I leave the world open to you folks... give you the world, and you can't find a significant program or socialist state or institution that works... over the long term.

And I did say let's stick to a time since industrialization, say 150 years back.
The start of Ulysses S. Grant's Presidency.

Pete:
Democrats have begun to talk about this wasteful spending.

Remember... everything targeted, no earmarks, no waste, no pork.
Them's Obama's werds.
He done did make th'claim.
LOL...

Yes we can... bull**** the American people...
...for a while.

This president has a lot of BS to account for.
Eees time'll come Señor.
Eees time'll come.

Renae · Mar 6, 2009

I'd be more impressed if the GOP had held themselves to such regard when they were in power, but I'll take this resurgence because it helps to stop the impending horror of Obamanism.

Hatuey · Mar 6, 2009

zimmer said:
Can you find one instance it has worked?

So you can not define socialism? Check.

GottaHurt · Mar 6, 2009

Hatuey said:
So you can not define socialism? Check.

And you can't find one instance in which it worked. Checkmate.

danarhea · Mar 6, 2009

GottaHurt said:
And you can't find one instance in which it worked. Checkmate.

1) I like the Republicans standing up to excess spending for a change, so I am in agreement.

2) However, your answer to Hatuey is very dishonest. Before he can answer your question, you should define what you believe Socialism is so he can answer your question.

GottaHurt · Mar 6, 2009

danarhea said:
1) I like the Republicans standing up to excess spending for a change, so I am in agreement.

2) However, your answer to Hatuey is very dishonest. Before he can answer your question, you should define what you believe Socialism is so he can answer your question.

1) In total agreement.

2) zimmer laid it out here:

zimmer said:
Can you find one instance it has worked?

Using any definition you like.

danarhea · Mar 6, 2009

GottaHurt said:
1) In total agreement.

2) zimmer laid it out here:

Since there are many definitions of Socialism, Hatuey was only asking for a clarification. If zimmer is unable to clarify, then perhaps he does not know what he is talking about.

GottaHurt · Mar 6, 2009

danarhea said:
Since there are many definitions of Socialism, Hatuey was only asking for a clarification. If zimmer is unable to clarify, then perhaps he does not know what he is talking about.

Using any definition you like

That's a ball in hand in billiards. A wide open net in hockey. A slam dunk in hoops or Walter from the 1 in football.

If you can't score with that "gimme", then you should take up photography or something.

Smoke[MaxX] · Mar 6, 2009

GottaHurt said:
Using any definition you like

That's a ball in hand in billiards. A wide open net in hockey. A slam dunk in hoops or Walter from the 1 in football.

If you can't score with that "gimme", then you should take up photography or something.

In China, the Chinese Communist Party has led a transition from the command economy of the Mao period to an economic program they term the socialist market economy or "socialism with Chinese characteristics."

Via Wikipedia on Socialism.

I'm no econ major, so I don't know exactly how to measure success, but by going by these tables (First website to pop up via google search of "debt by country" the US has 40x the debt that China has, 4.5% of the reserve of foreign exchange/gold, and is not even ranked in the top 100 countries by current account balance, while China has a very sizable lead over every other country.

Not to mention, we're going through this huge economic crisis that appears to affect the whole world, but does not really seem to hurt China as much.

obvious Child · Mar 6, 2009

danarhea said:
Since there are many definitions of Socialism, Hatuey was only asking for a clarification. If zimmer is unable to clarify, then perhaps he does not know what he is talking about.

Zimmer's historical posting suggests this is indeed true. Furthermore, given history with people who outright refuse to define it, they don't define it so they can change the definition to raise the bar whenever anyone actually does provide an example that refutes their argument.

Dishonest, but frankly, not surprising.

obvious Child · Mar 6, 2009

GottaHurt said:
Using any definition you like

That's a ball in hand in billiards. A wide open net in hockey. A slam dunk in hoops or Walter from the 1 in football.

If you can't score with that "gimme", then you should take up photography or something.

Sweden. The highway system of America. Police. Firefighters. African pygmy culture. South American Andes villages.

oh wait. I forgot, you refuse to define "succeed."

obvious Child · Mar 6, 2009

zimmer said:
Can you find one instance it has worked?
Using any definition you like.

I leave the world open to you folks... give you the world, and you can't find a significant program or socialist state or institution that works... over the long term.

Memory short is yours.

I remember our discussion over this where you deliberately ignored several working examples I gave.

To refresh your memory, here is the link to that thread.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/us-pa...-has-socialism-ever-succeeded-one-time-7.html

Pitwolfy · Mar 6, 2009

Can someone tell me what the defininition of "is" is ???

obvious Child · Mar 6, 2009

Pitwolfy said:
Can someone tell me what the defininition of "is" is ???

laugh if you want, but discussion is meaningless when people refuse to define key words and criteria. I've seen this before. Someone says something never works but doesn't define it. Then when someone provides a relatively good example that does work the OP then says it doesn't without providing criteria for what constitutes success. This way the OP in this case zimmer can constantly bash Socialism as a failure without ever defining it or saying what success is. There's no value to a discussion like that.

If people can simply unilaterally redefine words and criteria, why bother talking to them?

Truth Detector · Mar 6, 2009

obvious Child said:
Zimmer's historical posting suggests this is indeed true. Furthermore, given history with people who outright refuse to define it, they don't define it so they can change the definition to raise the bar whenever anyone actually does provide an example that refutes their argument.

Dishonest, but frankly, not surprising.

I believe I defined it in the thread Zimmer started for anyone who wanted to use the term to defend Socialism. But alas, no one wants to attempt to defend it because Socialism is such a failure.

ANY Government mandated program can be used as an example of failure; how about Food Stamps, Housing Projects, Social Security and Medicare. Where would you like to start?

They are all rife with fraud and do NOTHING to improve people's lives but instead create a dependent class of citizens beholding to the Governments largess.

I am hardly suprised that people who infest this forum with their Socialist blather avoid Zimmers challenge. :roll:

Pitwolfy · Mar 6, 2009

obvious Child said:
laugh if you want, but discussion is meaningless when people refuse to define key words and criteria. I've seen this before. Someone says something never works but doesn't define it. Then when someone provides a relatively good example that does work the OP then says it doesn't without providing criteria for what constitutes success. This way the OP in this case zimmer can constantly bash Socialism as a failure without ever defining it or saying what success is. There's no value to a discussion like that.

If people can simply unilaterally redefine words and criteria, why bother talking to them?

My point was this.......maybe the poster just assumes that one already knows what the definition of socialism is and that the person asking for a definition is just being argumentative and obtuse.

Just a thought..........

obvious Child · Mar 6, 2009

Truth Detector said:
I believe I defined it in the thread Zimmer started for anyone who wanted to use the term to defend Socialism. But alas, no one wants to attempt to defend it because Socialism is such a failure.

This is incorrect. As evident by his other thread, we have provided several working Socialism models. Apparently he's trying to wash rinse repeat model here hoping no one is going to go back and pull them out again.

And if Socialism is such a failure, why do you use the police, firefighters and highway systems of America?

After all, they are communally owned, centrally planned/distributed and for all citizens.

ANY Government mandated program can be used as an example of failure; how about Food Stamps, Housing Projects, Social Security and Medicare. Where would you like to start?

Food stamps and housing projects aren't socialism. They are specific welfare to specific groups. Socialism would be applied to the entire society. Furthermore, housing projects are sometimes contracted out removing the centrally planned element of socialism. And Social Security is failing because politicians for decades raided it. There are literally hundreds of billions of dollars that have yet to be repaid represented by IOUs in a filing cabinet in an office across the river. And medicare is also specific to certain groups within a society. Try again.

I am hardly suprised that people who infest this forum with their Socialist blather avoid Zimmers challenge. :roll:

lol. Jailman and zyplhin are correct about you. :rofl

obvious Child · Mar 6, 2009

Pitwolfy said:
My point was this.......maybe the poster just assumes that one already knows what the definition of socialism is and that the person asking for a definition is just being argumentative and obtuse.

Just a thought..........

I could see how you could come to that conclusion, however, Zimmer's historical musings on the issue paint a picture of clear and absolute ignorance of what Socialism and its degrees entail.

As I've stated before, Rathi and I both state that a functioning society requires some level of socialism to operate. Don't like Socialism, well, how did 1990s Somalia work?

TheNextEra · Mar 6, 2009

zimmer said:
That's the way it is done... slow them down at every point of entry... throw sand in the gears... use every delay tactic in the book.

Funny when Dems did this conservatives call them Obstructionists, but when Republicans do it, conservatives cheer.

My how the hypocrisy flows.

jallman · Mar 6, 2009

TheNextEra said:
Funny when Dems did this conservatives call them Obstructionists, but when Republicans do it, conservatives cheer.

My how the hypocrisy flows.

Funny when the Republicans pushed big pieces of legislation against objection liberals called foul and said they weren't playing fair, but when Democrats do it, liberals cheer.

My how the hypocrisy flows.

TheNextEra · Mar 6, 2009

jallman said:
Funny when the Republicans pushed big pieces of legislation against objection liberals called foul and said they weren't playing fair, but when Democrats do it, liberals cheer.

My how the hypocrisy flows.

So you're saying conservatives are hypocrites, got it.

jallman · Mar 6, 2009

TheNextEra said:
So you're saying conservatives are hypocrites, got it.

Of course, the point went right over your head. But then, it is rather hard to catch a clue when your blinders are pulled so tight over your eyes.

Senate Republicans force delay on spending bill

Educating the Ignorant

Rule of Two

Educating the Ignorant

Rule of Two

Sexual Deviant

Slayer of the DP Newsbot

Sexual Deviant

Slayer of the DP Newsbot

Sexual Deviant

Active member

Equal Opportunity Hater

Equal Opportunity Hater

Equal Opportunity Hater

Active member

Equal Opportunity Hater

Active member

Equal Opportunity Hater

Equal Opportunity Hater