My God, you are an idiot.

[sgtclub]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

You should see what Reid's office says about this. (N.B. -- that's the Twitter page of Reid's communications director. Interesting wallpaper, given that.)

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., has been working on a fallback bill that officials said would cut $2.7 trillion in federal spending and raise the debt limit by $2.4 trillion in one step - enough borrowing authority to meet Obama's bottom-line demand.

In the process, though, another of the president's long-held conditions appeared to be in danger of rejection.

Neither Boehner's measure nor the one Reid was drafting included additional revenue, according to officials in both parties.

In remarks during the day, the president renewed his call for a balanced approach to cutting deficits that includes both spending cuts and higher revenue.

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories...07-25-12-14-43

[sgtclub]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

Hmmmm. I believe there are more adult ways for him to handle that screaming about it being someone else's fault.

You obviously didn't see Obama's press conference on Friday.

[sgtclub]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

Club only reads stuff on NRO and the Heritage foundation, and watches Fox. That page has not been endoresed by any of them.

This is rich. I'm really the only one on this board that has taken an objective view of the situation.

And for the record, I don't read NRO, the Weekly Standard or Heritage. I watch Fox only occasionally these days. I do read the WSJ religiously, but haven't read the editorial page in years. I watch some CNN. What do you read/watch? Seriously? Because it is concerning that seemingly smart people have such a one-sided view of the situation.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

It is true that if he gets a reasonable deal through all will be (begrudgingly perhaps) forgotten quickly.

And, of course, if the car hits the wall, do we really care about which dead guy is to blame?

He does, because he would like to continue being the Speaker.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sgtclub

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories...07-25-12-14-43

That does not say that Reid took the deal to Obama and Obama vetoed. It says that Reid is working on a deal without new revenues.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sgtclub

There is now not sufficient time for that

That this is the line they are now taking is infuriating. There is/was plenty of time. It's been going on for months. Saying no to everything and then saying, "sorry, out of time." Why do you not see that as indefensible and politically motivated?

By the way, it's exactly the same bullshit they spewed about the health care reform, which was "rushed through" after months of them saying no to everything, and literally months of them begging a few possible swing votes.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sgtclub

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories...07-25-12-14-43

Right. One step. Also what I referred to this morning.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sgtclub

I'm really the only one on this board that has taken an objective view of the situation.

Repeating what Cantor said, without even attribution, is taking the objective view?

[sgtclub]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

That does not say that Reid took the deal to Obama and Obama vetoed. It says that Reid is working on a deal without new revenues.

It is in another article being reported today.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by sgtclub

This is rich. I'm really the only one on this board that has taken an objective view of the situation.

And for the record, I don't read NRO, the Weekly Standard or Heritage. I watch Fox only occasionally these days. I do read the WSJ religiously, but haven't read the editorial page in years. I watch some CNN. What do you read/watch? Seriously? Because it is concerning that seemingly smart people have such a one-sided view of the situation.

I apparently do follow some of those sources you assert you don't read more than you. I am curious where other than those sources you found reported that there were points "agreed to" by the Dems that Obama then went back on.

So far, you've been masterfully evasive on the point, despite Ty's and other's repeated questions. Fess up and cite Heritage. You know you want to.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sgtclub

It is in another article being reported today.

His spokesman says it's false. What is your objective view of what Reid's spokesman says?

[LessinSF]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

Then a rouge Board of Director refused to sign off on the actual language pointing to some nonsense argument.

Was the argument at least colorable?

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by LessinSF

Was the argument at least colorable?

I'll tell you what the judge says in a few minutes. this is a minor point in a 16 page agreement. from a practical point it's stupid to have not signed.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by LessinSF

Was the argument at least colorable?

Turns out he hadn't even red it.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally Posted by ironweed

We're always right about that, but it makes no difference.

The problem is that the last two Democratic presidents clearly believe(d) that they had to play the grownup among squabbling children, and they always look to split the difference, thereby encouraging more and more radical starting positions (on both sides, but on the left it doesn't matter because there's no real left in American politics and Dems will go along with a Dem President looking to split the baby 99% of the time anyway).

The model doesn't work in reverse, because two of the last three Republican presidents (and most or all of the most motivated R incumbents in Congress since the extinction of the now-lost-in-the-mists-of-time "Rockefeller Republicans") saw themselves as crusaders with a holy writ to right wrongs and fuck up evildoers, and you don't compromise with the devil.

There is more than a whiff of armageddon-o-philia among the Rs, and it gets stronger every year. I think enough of them have now been reading enough Ayn Rand and cheesy paperback thrillers that there's real support in their ranks for letting the US hit the wall. After all, if the USA is godless, gay, full of immigrants and basically a stalking horse for a socialist world government complete with black helicopters, why wouldn't you want to hit the reset button by smashing everything up?

Fun weekend, huh?