Election 2010: Teabaggin' the Ds & Rs

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Tax cuts for rich people, and opposition to whatever Obama and Democrats are for.

I guess we'll see. with the congress by the balls you guys couldn't get 1 vote.

I thought it was because your leaders's olive branch was "fuck you. we got the votes."

you thought it was because the Rs were so fucking organized that not 1 could be moved.

now we'll see. will bills pass now that "fuck you" is no longer an option? or will the Rs just say we are against everything.

if bills pass and the budgets are approved, then I will claim 5 more wins, and suggest, once again, to RT that you are too politically blind to run this forum.

no offense.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

I guess we'll see. with the congress by the balls you guys couldn't get 1 vote.

I thought it was because your leaders's olive branch was "fuck you. we got the votes."

Okay. Time to get serious. Hank, all snark aside (and I realize that leaves you close to naked in the terms of this board), but you don't really think this do you? You really think that a whole summer's worth of "well, we could do it this other way if that's what you like" and "we can't push for this because Snowe might not vote for it" and "gee, Chuck's with us, right? How about if we sell out this other way" was a giant "fuck off we got this?"

Seriously, honestly, and without any personal attack, I don't get where you are coming from on this one. Obama cut himself off at the knees with progressives by starting out in the middle, and moving farther that way to try to get even 1 R vote, only to have Rs move farther right. Do you honestly, sincerely see it differently?

ETA: To be slightly more constructive, what compromise do you think Obama could have offered that would have garnered that 1 vote? And don't say "thrown out all of his own goals and just enact tort reform" because even you aren't that insincere.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Adder

Okay. Time to get serious. Hank, all snark aside (and I realize that leaves you close to naked in the terms of this board), but you don't really think this do you? You really think that a whole summer's worth of "well, we could do it this other way if that's what you like" and "we can't push for this because Snowe might not vote for it" and "gee, Chuck's with us, right? How about if we sell out this other way" was a giant "fuck off we got this?"

Seriously, honestly, and without any personal attack, I don't get where you are coming from on this one. Obama cut himself off at the knees with progressives by starting out in the middle, and moving farther that way to try to get even 1 R vote, only to have Rs move farther right. Do you honestly, sincerely see it differently?

ETA: To be slightly more constructive, what compromise do you think Obama could have offered that would have garnered that 1 vote? And don't say "thrown out all of his own goals and just enact tort reform" because even you aren't that insincere.

yes. 40 votes and you can't move 1 means objectively you didn't try.

if I say "adder, I need you to eat some shit, but I'll put some honey in it cuz I know you have a sweet tooth", I'm still asking you to eat shit.

Obama cut deals with Senators and Congressman to make HC happen, all Dems, but he cut some incredible deals. HC was "fuck you it's happening."

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

yes. 40 votes and you can't move 1 means objectively you didn't try.

Believe me when I say this isn't personal, because it isn't, but this is reductive, unbelievably stupid, bullshit. It assumes good faith from the other side, when the entire history of the negotiation undermines that assumption.

Again, what could Obama have offered to get that 1 vote that wasn't on the table?

The only answer to that is "give up on comprehensive health care reform and adopt the R band aids."

Also, read this (again if you did before).

Insisting, in the absence of any evidence, that there was just the right incentive that Obama could have offered but refused to suggests that you don't really give a shit about facts, as long as you can demonize who you believe to be the bad guy.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Adder

Believe me when I say this isn't personal, because it isn't, but this is reductive, unbelievably stupid, bullshit. It assumes good faith from the other side, when the entire history of the negotiation undermines that assumption.

Again, what could Obama have offered to get that 1 vote that wasn't on the table?

The only answer to that is "give up on comprehensive health care reform and adopt the R band aids."

Also, read this (again if you did before).

Insisting, in the absence of any evidence, that there was just the right incentive that Obama could have offered but refused to suggests that you don't really give a shit about facts, as long as you can demonize who you believe to be the bad guy.

is this how you converse with women when trying to convince them of your plans?

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

is this how you converse with women when trying to convince them of your plans?

If I were a lesser manni would count this as a win.

As is, again, what could Obama have offered to grt 1 vote that wasnt a wholesale abandonment of his goal to adopt r goals?

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Adder

If I were a lesser manni would count this as a win.

As is, again, what could Obama have offered to grt 1 vote that wasnt a wholesale abandonment of his goal to adopt r goals?

you should count it as a win, cuz it shows you're a retard so you're in the "special" category, and arguing against yourself.

god you're an idiot.

your "intelligent substantive" argument is that Obama could not give any 1 R anything he would have wanted because then Obama would not have gotten exactly his plan? and that means the Rs were bad, each and every one?

he gave a Dem congressman a promise that no gov funds would go to abortions. was that part of his plan or an accommodation?

[LessinSF]

Originally Posted by Adder

Again, what could Obama have offered to get that 1 vote that wasn't on the table?

Not Obama, but Reid could have allowed amendments and got one vote (Snowe) for DREAM.

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally Posted by LessinSF

Not Obama, but Reid could have allowed amendments and got one vote (Snowe) for DREAM.

And DADT.

I've been calling Hutchison's office for two days about DREAM, and I can't get through. She was an original co-signer of DREAM three or four years ago, and there's a slim hope that she may remember that once upon a time, she was a moderate Republican. I'd think she'd be pissed as hell at the tea party types after the gubenatorial primary, but apparently not.

Still, I'm glad so many people are calling, and I think there's quite a bit of lobbying going on. I know that the three UT campuses on the border are very interested in making DREAM happen.

[sgtclub]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

yes. 40 votes and you can't move 1 means objectively you didn't try.

if I say "adder, I need you to eat some shit, but I'll put some honey in it cuz I know you have a sweet tooth", I'm still asking you to eat shit.

Obama cut deals with Senators and Congressman to make HC happen, all Dems, but he cut some incredible deals. HC was "fuck you it's happening."

This, plus the fact that the first time the minority leader of either house was invited to the white house for a private meeting was after the mid-terms. Yea, that's a real effort to move to the middle.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sgtclub

This, plus the fact that the first time the minority leader of either house was invited to the white house for a private meeting was after the mid-terms. Yea, that's a real effort to move to the middle.

It's not surprising that you say things that are so wrong, it's that you say things that are so wrong and that are so easily disproved by spending about 20 seconds with Google.

January 28, 2009, 11:23 AM

Obama Holds Reception for Congressional Leaders
By JEFF ZELENY
Invitations are out: A presidential cocktail reception – for Congressional leaders only – is taking place on Wednesday evening at the White House.

One day after President Obama visited Capitol Hill, he is returning the favor by being host to about two dozen Democrats and Republicans on his turf. The event, scheduled to begin at 7:30 p.m., is the first-of-a-kind gathering in the new administration and the latest sign that Mr. Obama is attempting to build relationships with Congress.

The bipartisan affair is set to come shortly after the House considers the president’s economic stimulus bill. The roll call vote could make for some interesting conversation, particularly if the bulk of Republicans oppose the proposal as planned.

The reception will take place in the Red, Blue and Green rooms of the executive mansion.

So who’s on the guest list?

There are six House Democrats, including Speaker Nancy Pelosi of California and Representative Steny Hoyer of Maryland, the majority leader; and six House Republicans, including Representative John A. Boehner of Ohio, the minority leader and Representative Eric Cantor of Virginia, the whip.

On the Senate side, there are five leading Democrats, including Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the majority leader, and Senator Richard J. Durbin of Illinois. On the Republican side, five senators also are invited, including: Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the minority leader, along with Lamar Alexander of Tennessee, Jon Kyl of Arizona, John Thune of South Dakota and John Cornyn of Texas.

And yes, mingling is encouraged between Republicans and Democrats, as well as senators and representatives. They will, of course, have plenty to discuss, considering the economic stimulus plan has several hurdles to cross before the president can sign the bill.

What’s on the menu? The invitees were told to expect drinks – and, perhaps, a snack or two.

NYT

Inauguration Day was January 20, so it took about eight days for Obama to invite minority leaders to the White House.

[sgtclub]

Originally Posted by tyrone slothrop

it's not surprising that you say things that are so wrong, it's that you say things that are so wrong and that are so easily disproved by spending about 20 seconds with google.



nyt

inauguration day was january 20, so it took about eight days for obama to invite minority leaders to the white house.

nwor

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sgtclub

nwor

I suppose that's one way to stop from digging the hole deeper.

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

yes. 40 votes and you can't move 1 means objectively you didn't try.

I think you are actually delusional. And that makes anyone legitimately arguing with you on the substance of any topic, insane.

TM

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

I think you are actually delusional. And that makes anyone legitimately arguing with you on the substance of any topic, insane.

TM

sounds like you have what it takes to be a Dem congressional whip