Divided We Fall

[peach174]

Well, you can't pass a Health Care Bill, in the middle of the night, against the majority of the nation, with little or no input of the other side and expect lines not to be draw-en.

Horseshit. On so many levels.

One, the bill was "against the majority of the nation" only when you combine those who were against any comprehensive health care reform with those who thought the bill wasn't nearly liberal enough.

Two, the only reason there was little or no input from the other side is because the other side refused to offer any beyond "kill the bill."

Three, in spite of the fact that Democrats passed the bill by themselves, it is still from start to finish a Republican bill, lacking every feature that progressives might have preferred (e.g. a public option), and the only reason Republicans opposed it is because they would politically committed to oppose anything and everything.

The Majority is the Majority no matter what. Even under President Clinton when the majority was against that health care bill, it was respected and not passed. Because the majority did not want it. It wasn't forced like this one was.

You didn't watch the committee meetings did you? The majority of Dems killed almost every single bill brought up by Republicans. So their bills did not even get to the floor for a vote at all.
This Health Care Bill is a Democratic Bill all the way, through and through. They own it, it is their baby.

 

[The T]

Well, you can't pass a Health Care Bill, in the middle of the night, against the majority of the nation, with little or no input of the other side and expect lines not to be draw-en.

Horseshit. On so many levels.

One, the bill was "against the majority of the nation" only when you combine those who were against any comprehensive health care reform with those who thought the bill wasn't nearly liberal enough.

Two, the only reason there was little or no input from the other side is because the other side refused to offer any beyond "kill the bill."

Three, in spite of the fact that Democrats passed the bill by themselves, it is still from start to finish a Republican bill, lacking every feature that progressives might have preferred (e.g. a public option), and the only reason Republicans opposed it is because they would politically committed to oppose anything and everything.

The Majority is the Majority no matter what. Even under President Clinton when the majority was against that health care bill, it was respected and not passed. Because the majority did not want it. It wasn't forced like this one was.

You didn't watch the committee meetings did you? The majority of Dems killed almost every single bill brought up by Republicans. So their bills did not even get to the floor for a vote at all.
This Health Care Bill is a Democratic Bill all the way, through and through. They own it, it is their baby.

HillaryCare was just put on the back-burner...for another day...But what we have is worse...

 

[Dragon]

The Majority is the Majority no matter what.

What I'm saying is that there was no majority. A minority of the people wanted a more progressive approach to health-care reform. A minority liked the ACA as written. A minority were philosophically opposed to any significant government involvement. The only way you get a majority is to improperly and deceptively combine the third group with the first one.

That is, not to put it too strongly, bullshit.

You didn't watch the committee meetings did you? The majority of Dems killed almost every single bill brought up by Republicans

I watched some of them, and read about the GOP proposed amendments afterwards. The Republicans knew their amendments would be killed, and intended that they be killed. Those amendments existed only to slow the process down. None of them were serious attempts to improve the bill.

 

[The T]

Funny how even a relatively sane and rational Republican like Wiseacre sees Obama as a hard-line, inflexible partisan, while to us on the left he comes across as a totally unsatisfactory limp noodle without a vertebra to his name.

Clearly, Snowe's reasoning doesn't apply to the president (regardless of party) since he is elected by all of the states.

What would you call a President who deliberately called conservatives 'the enemy'? There is no clearer 'partisan' than your messiah.

I don't have a "messiah," and if I did he certainly wouldn't be Obama, and I don't recall him calling conservatives "the enemy," and would appreciate a link or citation of him doing so. In context, please.

No...he called the 'private sector' businesses "the enemy".

He has stayed true to his writings.

Anything else YOU want to deflect?

 

[Dragon]

No...he called the 'private sector' businesses "the enemy".

A different claim, but again: link or cite, please. In context.

 

[Greenbeard]

You didn't watch the committee meetings did you? The majority of Dems killed almost every single bill brought up by Republicans. So their bills did not even get to the floor for a vote at all.

The Republican alternative legislation got a floor vote in the House. It lost 258-176.

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2009/roll885.xml

In the Senate, those who watched the committee markups were treated to the bizarre show of Republicans opposing their own amendments when the Democrats agreed to incorporate them into the legislation.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nz5AmhI9g7o]Unique position[/ame]

 

[The Infidel]

Funny how even a relatively sane and rational Republican like Wiseacre sees Obama as a hard-line, inflexible partisan, while to us on the left he comes across as a totally unsatisfactory limp noodle without a vertebra to his name.

Clearly, Snowe's reasoning doesn't apply to the president (regardless of party) since he is elected by all of the states.

What would you call a President who deliberately called conservatives 'the enemy'? There is no clearer 'partisan' than your messiah.

I don't have a "messiah," and if I did he certainly wouldn't be Obama, and I don't recall him calling conservatives "the enemy," and would appreciate a link or citation of him doing so. In context, please.

No...he called the 'private sector' businesses "the enemy".

A different claim, but again: link or cite, please. In context.

Obama?s turnout pitch to Latinos: Get out there and punish your ?enemies? « Hot Air

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rAhwTQ784IY]OBAMA TO LATINOS: 'PUNISH OUR ENEMIES' - YouTube[/ame]

 

[The T]

What would you call a President who deliberately called conservatives 'the enemy'? There is no clearer 'partisan' than your messiah.

I don't have a "messiah," and if I did he certainly wouldn't be Obama, and I don't recall him calling conservatives "the enemy," and would appreciate a link or citation of him doing so. In context, please.

No...he called the 'private sector' businesses "the enemy".

A different claim, but again: link or cite, please. In context.

Obama?s turnout pitch to Latinos: Get out there and punish your ?enemies? « Hot Air

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rAhwTQ784IY"]OBAMA TO LATINOS: 'PUNISH OUR ENEMIES' - YouTube[/ame]

Outta REP for ya...

 

[The T]

No...he called the 'private sector' businesses "the enemy".

A different claim, but again: link or cite, please. In context.

You mean you haven't read 'Dreams From My Father"

SHAME upon you...

he wrote it.

 

[Wiseacre]

Funny how even a relatively sane and rational Republican like Wiseacre sees Obama as a hard-line, inflexible partisan, while to us on the left he comes across as a totally unsatisfactory limp noodle without a vertebra to his name.

Clearly, Snowe's reasoning doesn't apply to the president (regardless of party) since he is elected by all of the states.

First, I am not nor have I ever been a republican or associated with any republican party, candidate, PAC, or any other group.

Second, I do think Snowe's general viewpoint applies to the president and every other elected official.

Third, I cannot imagine anyone who has heard any of Obama's speeches since he took office and not realize the man is 100% totally partisan in his positions on every subject. As an example, look at the way he treated Paul Ryan's budget a few weeks after it came out. With Ryan sitting right in front of him Obama rips him; it was inexcuseable IMHO, a president should be willing and able to work with the other side. But this president will only work with repubs if they see things his way or if he can cherry pick one or two off and call it bipartisanship.

 

[hortysir]

snippet:

One difficulty in making the Senate work the way it was intended is that America’s electorate is increasingly divided into red and blue states, with lawmakers representing just one color or the other. Before the 1994 election, 34 senators came from states that voted for a presidential nominee of the opposing party. That number has dropped to just 25 senators in 2012. The result is that there is no practical incentive for 75 percent of the senators to work across party lines.

The great challenge is to create a system that gives our elected officials reasons to look past their differences and find common ground if their initial party positions fail to garner sufficient support. In a politically diverse nation, only by finding that common ground can we achieve results for the common good. That is not happening today and, frankly, I do not see it happening in the near future.

Olympia Snowe: Why I’m leaving the Senate - The Washington Post

Case in point

vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

Give the GOP a chance to do what, exactly?

They had their chance between 2001 and 2007, resulting in two failed, illegal wars, a deficit, and bigger government.

Some might go so far as to say GOP policies resulted in the December 2007 recession; I won’t make that claim but it’s certainly damning evidence.

If this was supposed to be a ‘plague on both houses’ thread, it’s a major fail.

Case in point:
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

Compromise is a dirty word to most of the right who actually destroy their own for engaging in such treason to the ideology and you are going to complain that democrats refuse to cooperate? Knuckle under to threats and cave-in to pressure you mean? Democrats have compromised on plenty, they are just not going to assist republicans in their mission to dump the poor and the old any further, republicans are going to have to finish that one by themselves.

Even more finger-pointing
vvvvvvvvvvvvvv

Oh bullshit.... Democrats NEVER compromise.

Its always the right that has to 'compromise'.


Your last sentence is just a bit more evidence that you are a hack.

Looks like Senator Snowe has a point

 

[Greenbeard]

As an example, look at the way he treated Paul Ryan's budget a few weeks after it came out. With Ryan sitting right in front of him Obama rips him; it was inexcuseable IMHO, a president should be willing and able to work with the other side.

If I were Ryan, I wouldn't want someone describing that budget out loud, either.

Snowe was right to oppose it.

 

[Wiseacre]

As an example, look at the way he treated Paul Ryan's budget a few weeks after it came out. With Ryan sitting right in front of him Obama rips him; it was inexcuseable IMHO, a president should be willing and able to work with the other side.

If I were Ryan, I wouldn't want someone describing that budget out loud, either.

Snowe was right to oppose it.

If Obama opposes it, fine. He doesn't have to agree with any of it, but Ryan had the guts to put something concrete out there, which is more than I can say for the pussyfied democrats, Obama included. 3 freakin' years and no serious budgets, unless you include that laughable one Obama put out last year that his own Senate voted down 97-0, or the piece of shit he put out last month that is even worse.

 

[The T]

As an example, look at the way he treated Paul Ryan's budget a few weeks after it came out. With Ryan sitting right in front of him Obama rips him; it was inexcuseable IMHO, a president should be willing and able to work with the other side.

If I were Ryan, I wouldn't want someone describing that budget out loud, either.

Snowe was right to oppose it.

If Obama opposes it, fine. He doesn't have to agree with any of it, but Ryan had the guts to put something concrete out there, which is more than I can say for the pussyfied democrats, Obama included. 3 freakin' years and no serious budgets, unless you include that laughable one Obama put out last year that his own Senate voted down 97-0, or the piece of shit he put out last month that is even worse.

Good point. When IS the Senate going to adhere to thier Constitutional mandate to pass a budget...?

 

[Papageorgio]

If I were Ryan, I wouldn't want someone describing that budget out loud, either.

Snowe was right to oppose it.

If Obama opposes it, fine. He doesn't have to agree with any of it, but Ryan had the guts to put something concrete out there, which is more than I can say for the pussyfied democrats, Obama included. 3 freakin' years and no serious budgets, unless you include that laughable one Obama put out last year that his own Senate voted down 97-0, or the piece of shit he put out last month that is even worse.

Good point. When IS the Senate going to adhere to thier Constitutional mandate to pass a budget...?

So you want a government office to actually respect the Constitution? Now that is funny.

 

[Greenbeard]

If Obama opposes it, fine. He doesn't have to agree with any of it, but Ryan had the guts to put something concrete out there, which is more than I can say for the pussyfied democrats, Obama included. # freakin' years and no serious budgets, unless you include that laughable one Obama put out last year that his own Senate voted down 97-0, or the piece of shit he put out last month that is even worse.

The budget requests that come out of OMB are significantly more concrete than the white papers and generic budget resolutions Ryan produces.

 

[Papageorgio]

If Obama opposes it, fine. He doesn't have to agree with any of it, but Ryan had the guts to put something concrete out there, which is more than I can say for the pussyfied democrats, Obama included. # freakin' years and no serious budgets, unless you include that laughable one Obama put out last year that his own Senate voted down 97-0, or the piece of shit he put out last month that is even worse.

The budget requests that come out of OMB are significantly more concrete than the white papers and generic budget resolutions Ryan produces.

I'm not sure why an executive that is looking for support would treat the only person that has come to the table with ideas, in such a demeaning manor, not very professional or Presidential, especially for a guy that claims he wants bi-partisanship and claims he is reaching out to the opposition, looks hypocritical.

 

[Wiseacre]

If Obama opposes it, fine. He doesn't have to agree with any of it, but Ryan had the guts to put something concrete out there, which is more than I can say for the pussyfied democrats, Obama included. # freakin' years and no serious budgets, unless you include that laughable one Obama put out last year that his own Senate voted down 97-0, or the piece of shit he put out last month that is even worse.

The budget requests that come out of OMB are significantly more concrete than the white papers and generic budget resolutions Ryan produces.

Which has absolutely nothing to do with this discussion.