I Would Say The Party of NO Are Actually Democrats

[The Rabbi]

This is a timely thread because it was just reported this morning that the latest poll shows that 60% of Americans think the Republicans are not doing enough to compromise with the Democrats.

So, you're saying that people support Obama and the Dem $1.6 Trillion deficit?

Rachel Maddow ran a very funny piece last night of Republican congressmen and Senators, who had voted against the stimulus package, back home praising the stimulus money their states and districts got and all the good work it was doing.

Rachel Maddow is an ugly dyke. Who cares what she thinks?

 

[Titanic Sailor]

hahahaha Rabbi!

 

[Titanic Sailor]

I think even the irrelevant Republicans have acknowledged their failures clearly. They have made some of these same suggestions, and in my view do not go far enough. Why can't Democrats admit we need to make some harsh government reforms yesterday?

They can't, and they will not.

They are the Party of NO!!!!

They are trying to save their world at the expense of the people.

 

[Darkwind]

I think even the irrelevant Republicans have acknowledged their failures clearly. They have made some of these same suggestions, and in my view do not go far enough. Why can't Democrats admit we need to make some harsh government reforms yesterday?

They can't, and they will not.

They are the Party of NO!!!!

They are trying to save their world at the expense of the people.

Republican failures?

Without having any power what-so-ever, the Republicans managed to stop the single greatest disaster this country has ever faced!

 

[Titanic Sailor]

I was talking about the Bush years, which were clearly fiscal failures, and primed us for this liberal onslaught we see today.

 

[Titanic Sailor]

The Rabbi rules! hahahaha

 

[Oldandtired]

I was talking about the Bush years, which were clearly fiscal failures, and primed us for this liberal onslaught we see today.

The liberals were given a golden opportunity to show us where we were wrong with our thinking.

However, they were given a foot and they opted to grab a mile.

And they blew it.

Like children.

 

[Oldandtired]

I think even the irrelevant Republicans have acknowledged their failures clearly. They have made some of these same suggestions, and in my view do not go far enough. Why can't Democrats admit we need to make some harsh government reforms yesterday?

They can't, and they will not.

They are the Party of NO!!!!

They are trying to save their world at the expense of the people.

Republican failures?

Without having any power what-so-ever, the Republicans managed to stop the single greatest disaster this country has ever faced!

Actually, credit goes to the democrats for that. Some of them were smart enough to vote against things......and others were smart enough to stall things until another republican came into the senate.

Republicans simply allowed the deomcrats to implode on their own.....

 

[Titanic Sailor]

Yup, the young are getting an education on how even a clown like Bush could be President twice. His competition were Democrats, and here we are repeating the cycle.

 

[beowolfe]

They will not reform government, they will not cut costs, they will not downsize government, they will not reduce the budget, and they will not make the harsh decisions necessary to get us through these tough times.


And the entire planet, outside of a few million hack government workers, knows we have too.

You do realize that the fact that you would say it doesn't make it so.

 

[Vast LWC]

But I thought Obama ran to end the failed policies of George W Bush?
I thought Pelosi etc ran in '08 to end GOP out of control spending and earmarks?
And how can Republicans block anything since the Dems have a majority in both houses, and had a supermajority in the Senate until 3 weeks ago? Or have you conveniently forgotten that fact? Again?
And Republicans did protest spending under Bush. I have posted numerous comments by Richard Shelby of AL and Jeff Flake of NV to that effect. The question is why didnt Democrats protest out of control spending under Bush when they had control, and even more out of control spending under Obama?
The Democrats are funny: the run on opposing GOP policies and when they get in they continue those policies and blame the GOP for it.
And of course, the Dems are the Party of **** You.

So many questions...

The Democrats never had a Super-majority. That was a false premise.
Why? Because Joe Lieberman is a Republican. The only reason he caucuses with the Democrats is so he can spy on them when they're behind closed doors.

Republicans protested spending under Bush? Well that's interesting. Too bad they didn't actually vote against it when they had the majority then. You can say whatever the hell you want, ACTIONS speak much louder than words.
In the case of Sen Shelby, last I heard he was blocking appointees because his district wasn't getting PORK.

And what does any of this have to do with the fact that Republicans say "no" to EVERYTHING, unless of course it is spending on Republican programs?

 

[Vast LWC]

Rachel Maddow is an ugly dyke. Who cares what she thinks?

Rachel Maddow is a lesbian, and I find her to be unattractive, so we'll both have agree there.

In addition, she's just another talking head spouting BS propaganda just like the rest of the talking heads on MSNBC and Fox.

So I guess we finally found a subject we agree on, neither of us likes Rachel Maddow. I think I may not have used the term "dyke", but hey, I guess it's true.

 

[Vast LWC]

I think even the irrelevant Republicans have acknowledged their failures clearly. They have made some of these same suggestions, and in my view do not go far enough. Why can't Democrats admit we need to make some harsh government reforms yesterday?

They can't, and they will not.

They are the Party of NO!!!!

They are trying to save their world at the expense of the people.

I completely admit it, and as soon as the Republicans get together with democrats and take their share of the blame when draconian cuts should be made, I'm sure the Democrats will be happy to come to some agreements.

But instead, we have Republicans just saying "no" to everything that any democrat proposes.

Hell, sometimes they say yes, and then turn around and walk away from it the next day!

 

[Titanic Sailor]

beowolfe, if blinders are what you need to get through the day, then God bless you. I'm all for it.

Peace.

 

[Vast LWC]

You know what? I actually hope the Republicans get a majority in both houses come November.

Then they can put up or shut up.

Good luck on eliminating the deficit without cutting Social Security, Medicare or Military spending though. LOL.

And when you DON'T eliminate the deficit, thus forcing us to raise the debt ceiling again, you can look forward to losing your gains real ******* fast.

 

[Rinata]

They will not reform government, they will not cut costs, they will not downsize government, they will not reduce the budget, and they will not make the harsh decisions necessary to get us through these tough times.


And the entire planet, outside of a few million hack government workers, knows we have too.

The Republicans didn't do any of these things while they held the majority and the presidency.

And, in addition, they are blocking every single attempt at legislation proposed now that they are in the minority.

Which means that the Republicans live up to your definition of the "Party of No" and then add their own special brand of "Party of No".

I find it amusing that when Republicans are in office, people on the right don't really complain about spending. But when the Democrats are in office, and they want to spend money on programs that they support, there's a massive outcry from the right about debt and deficit spending.

That's pretty convenient, if your goal is to promote the Republican agenda through spending.

But I thought Obama ran to end the failed policies of George W Bush?
I thought Pelosi etc ran in '08 to end GOP out of control spending and earmarks?
And how can Republicans block anything since the Dems have a majority in both houses, and had a supermajority in the Senate until 3 weeks ago? Or have you conveniently forgotten that fact? Again?
And Republicans did protest spending under Bush. I have posted numerous comments by Richard Shelby of AL and Jeff Flake of NV to that effect. The question is why didnt Democrats protest out of control spending under Bush when they had control, and even more out of control spending under Obama?
The Democrats are funny: the run on opposing GOP policies and when they get in they continue those policies and blame the GOP for it.
And of course, the Dems are the Party of **** You.

You THOUGHT??? Stop exaggerating.

 

[Rinata]

So, you're saying that people support Obama and the Dem $1.6 Trillion deficit?

Rachel Maddow ran a very funny piece last night of Republican congressmen and Senators, who had voted against the stimulus package, back home praising the stimulus money their states and districts got and all the good work it was doing.

Rachel Maddow is an ugly dyke. Who cares what she thinks?

No, she isn't. And she's very bright. You can't stand up to what she says so you have to respond with a teenage boy's mentality.

 

[The Rabbi]

But I thought Obama ran to end the failed policies of George W Bush?
I thought Pelosi etc ran in '08 to end GOP out of control spending and earmarks?
And how can Republicans block anything since the Dems have a majority in both houses, and had a supermajority in the Senate until 3 weeks ago? Or have you conveniently forgotten that fact? Again?
And Republicans did protest spending under Bush. I have posted numerous comments by Richard Shelby of AL and Jeff Flake of NV to that effect. The question is why didnt Democrats protest out of control spending under Bush when they had control, and even more out of control spending under Obama?
The Democrats are funny: the run on opposing GOP policies and when they get in they continue those policies and blame the GOP for it.
And of course, the Dems are the Party of **** You.

So many questions...

The Democrats never had a Super-majority. That was a false premise.
Why? Because Joe Lieberman is a Republican. The only reason he caucuses with the Democrats is so he can spy on them when they're behind closed doors.

Republicans protested spending under Bush? Well that's interesting. Too bad they didn't actually vote against it when they had the majority then. You can say whatever the hell you want, ACTIONS speak much louder than words.
In the case of Sen Shelby, last I heard he was blocking appointees because his district wasn't getting PORK.

And what does any of this have to do with the fact that Republicans say "no" to EVERYTHING, unless of course it is spending on Republican programs?

Joe Lieberman is a Republican? We're discussing the guy who ran with Al Gore for VP back in 2000, right? The one who ran for the nomination for senator in the DEMOCRATIC primary, right? The one who votes for just about every Democratic Party proposal in Congress. That Joe Lieberman?
I guess making shit up is easier than dealing with the truth.

Republicans aren't a monolith. Some voted for spending. Others opposede it. But I didn't see any Democrats complaining until they saw an issue they could win on.

Republicans have said "no" only to the bad ideas the Democrats have produced. Unfortunately every idea the Democrats have produced is a bad one.