Total Posts:28|Showing Posts:1-28
Jump to topic:

Obama, aka Dear Leader

RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2011 7:53:57 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
From Obama's Veterans Day speech:

" ... . Now, Jeremy isn't deployed, Jeremy's not a veteran, or even in the military at all, as badly as he wants to follow in the footsteps of his family and enlist. You see, Jeremy has Down Syndrome.

So Jeremy chooses to serve where he can best -– with his local Vietnam Veterans of America chapter in Beaver, Pennsylvania. He calls them "the soldiers". And one day last spring, Jeremy spent the day with several of these veterans cleaning up a local highway.

"He worked tirelessly," wrote his mother. "He never asked to take a break. He didn't stop to talk about his beloved Steelers. He didn't even ask for anything to eat or drink. He only asked for one thing, several times –- ‘Mom, will President Obama be proud of me for helping the soldiers?'"
...
And Jeremy's example -- one young man's example -- is one that we must all now follow. ..."
http://obamafoodorama.blogspot.com...

Stories like that are the stock-and-trade of Chairman Mao and Kim Il Jung. It's everyone's patriotic duty to please and obey Dear Leader. Have you asked if President Obama will be proud of you this week? Such trite nonsense passes unnoticed these days.

Also this week, the bureaucracy introduced a new definition of "poverty." It doesn't depend at all on whether you can afford food, clothing, and shelter. "Relative poverty" depends only upon how you compare to others in society. In the future you may live in a house you own, have two cars, and hi-def TV -- and still be in poverty. This is the type of definition by which cutting down the redwoods improves the status of all the other trees in the forest. Dear Leader is pleased when everyone is more alike.
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/13/2011 7:41:57 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/12/2011 7:53:57 PM, RoyLatham wrote:
From Obama's Veterans Day speech:

" ... . Now, Jeremy isn't deployed, Jeremy's not a veteran, or even in the military at all, as badly as he wants to follow in the footsteps of his family and enlist. You see, Jeremy has Down Syndrome.

So Jeremy chooses to serve where he can best -– with his local Vietnam Veterans of America chapter in Beaver, Pennsylvania. He calls them "the soldiers". And one day last spring, Jeremy spent the day with several of these veterans cleaning up a local highway.

"He worked tirelessly," wrote his mother. "He never asked to take a break. He didn't stop to talk about his beloved Steelers. He didn't even ask for anything to eat or drink. He only asked for one thing, several times –- ‘Mom, will President Obama be proud of me for helping the soldiers?'"
...
And Jeremy's example -- one young man's example -- is one that we must all now follow. ..."
http://obamafoodorama.blogspot.com...

Stories like that are the stock-and-trade of Chairman Mao and Kim Il Jung. It's everyone's patriotic duty to please and obey Dear Leader. Have you asked if President Obama will be proud of you this week? Such trite nonsense passes unnoticed these days.

Also this week, the bureaucracy introduced a new definition of "poverty." It doesn't depend at all on whether you can afford food, clothing, and shelter. "Relative poverty" depends only upon how you compare to others in society. In the future you may live in a house you own, have two cars, and hi-def TV -- and still be in poverty. This is the type of definition by which cutting down the redwoods improves the status of all the other trees in the forest. Dear Leader is pleased when everyone is more alike.

I'm surprised you took this take on the blog.

I mean, the initial portion wasn't meant to get you to identify with President Obama as a "dear leader" that should be proud of us, but rather, to push his initiative to increase community service.

Relative poverty would be a way to ensure that people are not left behind by a swell in U.S. capital. In other words, a significant growth in GDP combined with a significant increase in scientific advancement would result in a bunch of people that are capable of supporting themselves and living in a relatively obsolete way. It can eventually get to the point where living in a house in primitive and driving cars is tantamount to riding a bike.

In other words, there was a time in U.S. history when a log cabin was worth a fortune and considered a fortuitous Godsend -- it was the best it got.

Nowadays, there are much more practical places to live than log cabins and, for the most part, those that do live in one can't afford anything better. Of course, there are luxury cabins and whatnot, but even those are worth a cool $40-50k--for all intents and purposes, beans. There's a reason. Living in a log cabin is some bullshtt, it's 2011.

By the way. It's possible to own a house and two cars and still be impoverished, although it's unlikely that you would own a hi-def tv. in fact, those that live in poverty in the United States have always lived like the middle class in third world countries.

In other words, it's always been relative. I appreciate that we're protecting the proletariat, though.

I'm sorry--I'm not staunchy pro-Obama, but rather, I just consider all of these criticisms I see of him so weak and pedantic. If any other politician were under such a microscope, there would have been several civil wars to show for it.
Thaddeus
Posts: 6,985
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/13/2011 8:17:10 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/12/2011 8:00:54 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
So you are saying Downs Syndrome people connect to Obama in some magical way?

They have WiFi
SuperRobotWars
Posts: 3,906
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/13/2011 9:07:02 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/13/2011 8:17:10 AM, Thaddeus wrote:
At 11/12/2011 8:00:54 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
So you are saying Downs Syndrome people connect to Obama in some magical way?

They have WiFi

I knew it!
Minister Of Trolling
: At 12/6/2011 2:21:41 PM, badger wrote:
: ugly people should beat beautiful people ugly. simple! you'd be killing two birds with the one stone... women like violent men and you're making yourself more attractive, relatively. i met a blonde dude who was prettier than me not so long ago. he's not so pretty now! ha!
:
: ...and well, he wasn't really prettier than me. he just had nice hair.
vbaculum
Posts: 1,274
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/13/2011 11:10:00 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/13/2011 7:03:34 AM, badger wrote:
looks like we're shaping up for 1984! ...this is what you get with your representative democracies roy :P

Most conservative paranoia can be answered with this simple retort.
"If you claim to value nonviolence and you consume animal products, you need to rethink your position on nonviolence." - Gary Francione

THE WORLD IS VEGAN! If you want it
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/13/2011 12:13:41 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
I was ill but I prayed to a photo of Obama and then I got better... so fvck you!
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/13/2011 12:22:30 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
The left has always been susceptible to what the Chinese call "a cult of personality." They need messianic figures to lead them. Contrast with Reagan, who was vigorously attacked by the right wing for years after his election on the grounds that even though better than Carter, he wasn't adequately conservative. Obama was and is worshiped despite blatant incompetence. One of the primary objections by Democrats to the Republican candidates for president is that none of them can fill the Messiah's shoes. Yup. I hope not.

Obama's speech is not a generic call for service to the country. Every president does that. It is a call for service to the Glorious Leader as a proxy for service to the country. That's the language and mechanism of Mao and Kim. It defines service as pleasing the leader.

The House Republicans have passed fifteen jobs bills and sent them to the Senate, where read ills them without debate. So why are Republicans "obstructionists" rather than just an opposition with a different viewpoint. It's because they blatantly resist their duty to Dear Leader.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/14/2011 12:29:01 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/13/2011 12:22:30 PM, RoyLatham wrote:
The left has always been susceptible to what the Chinese call "a cult of personality." They need messianic figures to lead them. Contrast with Reagan, who was vigorously attacked by the right wing for years after his election on the grounds that even though better than Carter, he wasn't adequately conservative. Obama was and is worshiped despite blatant incompetence. One of the primary objections by Democrats to the Republican candidates for president is that none of them can fill the Messiah's shoes. Yup. I hope not.

Yeah, how many republicans now worship imagines of Reagan? How many like to prop up their own common people to aspire to (see Joe the Plumber).


Obama's speech is not a generic call for service to the country. Every president does that. It is a call for service to the Glorious Leader as a proxy for service to the country. That's the language and mechanism of Mao and Kim. It defines service as pleasing the leader.

No, it is a call for community service. You've disregarded the entire story and focused on a single line.


The House Republicans have passed fifteen jobs bills and sent them to the Senate, where read ills them without debate. So why are Republicans "obstructionists" rather than just an opposition with a different viewpoint. It's because they blatantly resist their duty to Dear Leader.

Again, you're reading stuff into this that isn't there. They are "obstructionists" because the filibustered more than any congress in history. Now that they have control of one house, they pass things to their own agenda, rather than working to find a comprimise.

Considering that they have a "our way or the highway" mentality (as shown by filibustering like crazy, walking out of negotiations, signing contracts that they will not comprimise of things, etc) the fault lies on them. And the fact that congress's approval has only been dropping since they took office, is not helping them.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/14/2011 1:07:23 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/13/2011 12:22:30 PM, RoyLatham wrote:
Contrast with Reagan, who was vigorously attacked by the right wing for years after his election on the grounds that even though better than Carter, he wasn't adequately conservative. Obama was and is worshiped despite blatant incompetence.

If you will please, first intimate to me how you perceive Reagan was "better" than Carter?

Then, please do the same to help me understand how Barak Obama is worshipped by anyone, and how he is blatantly incompetent.

Thanks!
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/14/2011 1:08:52 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/14/2011 1:07:23 PM, Ren wrote:
At 11/13/2011 12:22:30 PM, RoyLatham wrote:
Contrast with Reagan, who was vigorously attacked by the right wing for years after his election on the grounds that even though better than Carter, he wasn't adequately conservative. Obama was and is worshiped despite blatant incompetence.

If you will please, first intimate to me how you perceive Reagan was "better" than Carter?

Then, please do the same to help me understand how Barak Obama is worshipped by anyone, and how he is blatantly incompetent.

Thanks!

Barack.
Kinesis
Posts: 3,667
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/14/2011 1:13:42 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Obama was and is worshiped despite blatant incompetence.

What are you talking about? Obama has some of the worst approval ratings of any US president ever.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/14/2011 3:12:22 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/14/2011 1:13:42 PM, Kinesis wrote:
Obama was and is worshiped despite blatant incompetence.

What are you talking about? Obama has some of the worst approval ratings of any US president ever.

Well, it isn't really that bad, he is currently at -4.7 [1]. That isn't good, but it is far from "some of the worst," infact, it is a highly electable rating.

[1] http://www.realclearpolitics.com...
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/14/2011 6:00:19 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/14/2011 12:29:01 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:

Yeah, how many republicans now worship imagines of Reagan?

None that I know of. Surely there are some somewhere, but few held him immune to criticism, and few do now. It's reasonable to cite examples of things that worked and leaders who succeeded in accomplishing things, but the distinction comes at a level below that. Obama was elected despite having no accomplishments. He persists with supporters who can only argue that it could have been worse.

How many like to prop up their own common people to aspire to (see Joe the Plumber).

Yes, but it's modest compared to the Left, who require messianic figures. Joe the Plumber is pointed to as a guy, not as a savior.

No, it is a call for community service. You've disregarded the entire story and focused on a single line.

Sure and Chairman Mao and Dear Leader Kim call for community service in general as well. t the language of the call that distinguishes them. You are telling me to ignore the Big Brother language because I should know what he "really means." No, I think the Big Brother newspeak is objectionable on its face.

The House Republicans have passed fifteen jobs bills and sent them to the Senate, where read ills them without debate. So why are Republicans "obstructionists" rather than just an opposition with a different viewpoint. It's because they blatantly resist their duty to Dear Leader.

Again, you're reading stuff into this that isn't there. They are "obstructionists" because the filibustered more than any congress in history. Now that they have control of one house, they pass things to their own agenda, rather than working to find a compromise.

Tell me how is possible for Republicans to be uncompromising when they are willing to debate and the Senate, under Reid, is not willing to debate? The ordinary work of the congress is done by the House passing legislation, the Senate passing a different version, then a joint committee hammering out a compromise. How it is possible to for that mechanism to work when the Senate does not consider the legislation? There is no filibuster in the House, only in the Senate.

Considering that they have a "our way or the highway" mentality (as shown by filibustering like crazy, walking out of negotiations, signing contracts that they will not compromise of things, etc) the fault lies on them.

The Republicans pass legislation, but it's all their fault for not passing legislation? that's not sustainable. You say they fault is one of attitude, but the Democrats won't even put a budget up to a vote in the Senate, because they know they would then have to defend their vote in the next election.

And the fact that congress's approval has only been dropping since they took office, is not helping them.

Yes, what the American people really want is unlimited spending with no cuts in benefits ever, and with no increase in their taxes ever. Poll after poll verifies that. That just what the people in Greece have insisted upon. Obama is on the side of giving them exactly that, and promises it daily. It won't happen, of course, because it isn't possible. If the Republicans agreed to everything it won't happen, it still not possible. All that is possible is Dear Leader, who can bring disaster while he ells us it would be worse if it were not for him.

There should be a debate in this somewhere.
RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/14/2011 6:21:59 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/13/2011 7:41:57 AM, Ren wrote:
Relative poverty would be a way to ensure that people are not left behind by a swell in U.S. capital. In other words, a significant growth in GDP combined with a significant increase in scientific advancement would result in a bunch of people that are capable of supporting themselves and living in a relatively obsolete way. It can eventually get to the point where living in a house in primitive and driving cars is tantamount to riding a bike.

The reason it is nonsense is that it models the economy as a zero-sum game in which it is reasonable to worry about some people being left behind, even if they are very well off. No one should want to live in Monaco, for example, because the Prince has so much more money than everyone else. Okay, they all get free housing, free television, free education and can come and can do as they please -- but they should believe they suffer in relative poverty. hey just are not educated well enough in leftist ideology to know they are suffeirng. It's garbage.

People study happiness. Upon a certain point, in income of around $30K, more more makes people happier. But beyond that income, more money does not make people happier. Beyond the real poverty level, studies show that joining a club that meets once a month makes you just as happy as doubling your income.

In other words, there was a time in U.S. history when a log cabin was worth a fortune and considered a fortuitous Godsend -- it was the best it got.

Yup. I grew up in relative poverty. No one knew it, and we all thought we were middle class. We were happy. The argument that we should have been unhappy is ridiculous.

On the other hand, people who lack food, clothing, and shelter are not happy and they should not believe they are. Poverty is absolute not relative. People in Zimbabwe should not be pleased by knowing that even though they are in absolute poverty, they are not in relative poverty.

By the way. It's possible to own a house and two cars and still be impoverished, although it's unlikely that you would own a hi-def tv. in fact, those that live in poverty in the United States have always lived like the middle class in third world countries.

No, there is real poverty and imagined poverty. It's not difficult to distinguish them.

I'm sorry--I'm not staunchy pro-Obama, but rather, I just consider all of these criticisms I see of him so weak and pedantic. If any other politician were under such a microscope, there would have been several civil wars to show for it.

Baloney. Incompetence shines through. Clinton was ideological, but fundamentally competent. Obama is a thorough incompetent.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/14/2011 6:22:05 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/14/2011 6:00:19 PM, RoyLatham wrote:
At 11/14/2011 12:29:01 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:

Yeah, how many republicans now worship imagines of Reagan?

None that I know of. Surely there are some somewhere, but few held him immune to criticism, and few do now. It's reasonable to cite examples of things that worked and leaders who succeeded in accomplishing things, but the distinction comes at a level below that. Obama was elected despite having no accomplishments. He persists with supporters who can only argue that it could have been worse.

Most conservative talk radio does. Rush Limbaugh, with has the largest following of any political talk show host does on a weekly basis.

Yes, Obama was elected with little accomplishments, as were many of the current congresspeople in 2010. There is a massive anti-establishment view held by the people. Part of the reason that people elected Obama was because he has not been in Politics for 40+ years (McCain), he's a new face, something different. People decided to try something new, rather than the same old stuff that has been done, because the same old stuff obviously wasn't working. And actually, many of his supporters point to the 2 million jobs that have been created since the economy bottomed out as a success, not merely "it could have been worse," the 20+ straight months of PRIVATE sector gorwth, the 13 straight months of job growth (there have been months where private jobs have grown, but public jobs have been cut. Isn't that what conservatives want? More people in the private sector, fewer in the public sector?).


How many like to prop up their own common people to aspire to (see Joe the Plumber).

Yes, but it's modest compared to the Left, who require messianic figures. Joe the Plumber is pointed to as a guy, not as a savior.

Obama is not viewed as a savior. His policies are viewed as what the nation needs, but he himself is not viewed as such (see his approval ratings and how many of his supporters are hammering him for not doing enough).


No, it is a call for community service. You've disregarded the entire story and focused on a single line.

Sure and Chairman Mao and Dear Leader Kim call for community service in general as well. t the language of the call that distinguishes them. You are telling me to ignore the Big Brother language because I should know what he "really means." No, I think the Big Brother newspeak is objectionable on its face.

There is not Big Brother newspeak. You're reading 1984 paranoia into it.


The House Republicans have passed fifteen jobs bills and sent them to the Senate, where read ills them without debate. So why are Republicans "obstructionists" rather than just an opposition with a different viewpoint. It's because they blatantly resist their duty to Dear Leader.

Again, you're reading stuff into this that isn't there. They are "obstructionists" because the filibustered more than any congress in history. Now that they have control of one house, they pass things to their own agenda, rather than working to find a compromise.

Tell me how is possible for Republicans to be uncompromising when they are willing to debate and the Senate, under Reid, is not willing to debate? The ordinary work of the congress is done by the House passing legislation, the Senate passing a different version, then a joint committee hammering out a compromise. How it is possible to for that mechanism to work when the Senate does not consider the legislation? There is no filibuster in the House, only in the Senate.

The Senate cannot pass its own bill because the republicans keep filibustering it.


Considering that they have a "our way or the highway" mentality (as shown by filibustering like crazy, walking out of negotiations, signing contracts that they will not compromise of things, etc) the fault lies on them.

The Republicans pass legislation, but it's all their fault for not passing legislation? that's not sustainable. You say they fault is one of attitude, but the Democrats won't even put a budget up to a vote in the Senate, because they know they would then have to defend their vote in the next election.

Republicans in the House pass legislation that they know darn well will not pass the Senate, nor be signed by the president. They have had no desire to work with democrats to find middle ground. The Republicans in the Senate just filibuster whatever they don't like, because they know that they cannot stop it, even though they could just let it pass and let it be shot down in the House. The goal is not to get anything done, but to make a statement and give the false impression that they are trying, when they really aren't.


And the fact that congress's approval has only been dropping since they took office, is not helping them.

Yes, what the American people really want is unlimited spending with no cuts in benefits ever, and with no increase in their taxes ever. Poll after poll verifies that. That just what the people in Greece have insisted upon. Obama is on the side of giving them exactly that, and promises it daily. It won't happen, of course, because it isn't possible. If the Republicans agreed to everything it won't happen, it still not possible. All that is possible is Dear Leader, who can bring disaster while he ells us it would be worse if it were not for him.

There should be a debate in this somewhere.

Funny, because Obama has proposed tax increases, and has proposed spending cuts, and has proposed the removal of loopholes in the tax code.

While Republicans has taken a pledge of no new taxes, period. Obama has said that he'll accept spending cuts, so long as tax increases are included.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,215
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/14/2011 6:49:48 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/14/2011 6:22:05 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
...the 20+ straight months of PRIVATE sector gorwth, the 13 straight months of job growth (there have been months where private jobs have grown, but public jobs have been cut. Isn't that what conservatives want? More people in the private sector, fewer in the public sector?).

That would be all fine and dandy if most of the jobs lost in the first place were government jobs.... but you know better Oregon!
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/14/2011 7:10:21 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/14/2011 6:49:48 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 11/14/2011 6:22:05 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
...the 20+ straight months of PRIVATE sector gorwth, the 13 straight months of job growth (there have been months where private jobs have grown, but public jobs have been cut. Isn't that what conservatives want? More people in the private sector, fewer in the public sector?).

That would be all fine and dandy if most of the jobs lost in the first place were government jobs.... but you know better Oregon!

But now during the recovery, they are cutting government jobs and growing private sector jobs. Is that not better than the other way around?
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,215
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/14/2011 7:11:39 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/14/2011 7:10:21 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 11/14/2011 6:49:48 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 11/14/2011 6:22:05 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
...the 20+ straight months of PRIVATE sector gorwth, the 13 straight months of job growth (there have been months where private jobs have grown, but public jobs have been cut. Isn't that what conservatives want? More people in the private sector, fewer in the public sector?).

That would be all fine and dandy if most of the jobs lost in the first place were government jobs.... but you know better Oregon!

But now during the recovery, they are cutting government jobs and growing private sector jobs. Is that not better than the other way around?

I suppose... just bitching to bitch...
RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/16/2011 9:44:52 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/14/2011 6:22:05 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 11/14/2011 6:00:19 PM, RoyLatham wrote:

Most conservative talk radio does. Rush Limbaugh, with has the largest following of any political talk show host does on a weekly basis.

No, you don't get it. There is a difference between point to examples of accomplishment and pointing to ideological purity. Reagan got things done despite Democrats controlling the Senate.

Yes, Obama was elected with little accomplishments, as were many of the current congresspeople in 2010.

There is a big difference between the president and Congress, and also between being elected and then performing in office. The Republicans in congress have passed 15 jobs bills. That's doing what they were elected to do.

There is a massive anti-establishment view held by the people. Part of the reason that people elected Obama was because he has not been in Politics for 40+ years (McCain), he's a new face, something different. ...

Yes, the people were fooled and they don't like it. Obama has been a completely ordinary politician, totally dependent on special interest groups, backroom deals, and executive authority. He'd still have support if he actually did what he promised.

Obama is not viewed as a savior. His policies are viewed as what the nation needs, but he himself is not viewed as such (see his approval ratings and how many of his supporters are hammering him for not doing enough).

Ideologues hammer him for not being ideological enough, despite the clear evidence of failure. They demand a messiah and complain they didn't get one. If only he were a pure socialist and could sell it ...

There is not Big Brother newspeak. You're reading 1984 paranoia into it.

It's pure newspeak. The child suffers and does not complain because he lives only to please the leader. Good grief. You can argue that it was just a slip and not a refection of his mentality, but it is self-evident newspeak.

Tell me how is possible for Republicans to be uncompromising when they are willing to debate and the Senate, under Reid, is not willing to debate? The ordinary work of the congress is done by the House passing legislation, the Senate passing a different version, then a joint committee hammering out a compromise. How it is possible to for that mechanism to work when the Senate does not consider the legislation? There is no filibuster in the House, only in the Senate.

The Senate cannot pass its own bill because the republicans keep filibustering it.

They don't need to pass their own legislation. All they have to do is bring the House bills to the floor and debate them. They can amend them in any way they wish, and send them to joint committee.

The Senate has not even tried to pass a budget. They don't bring it to a vote. It's not a case that it's been filibustered. They don't want to go on record as voting for a $1.6 trillion deficit.

It's the Senate's job to hammer out compromise legislation that they can pass. The big-spending legislation under Bush, including expansion of Medicare, was all passed in the Senate with votes by Democrats. Now Democrats refuse any compromise whatsoever and just complain that Republicans are at fault for not agreeing to what Democrats want. Even in the Obamacare debate, the Bauchus committee allowed Republican input and compromises were found. All that was junked in favor of Reid's uncompromised bill.

Republicans in the House pass legislation that they know darn well will not pass the Senate, nor be signed by the president. They have had no desire to work with democrats to find middle ground.

How do you know none of it would pass? It isn't brought to a vote, nor debated, nor offered for amendment? Your idea is that it's the job of Republicans to anticipate what Democrats will approve then pass exactly that and nothing less. Congress has never functioned that way. If so, why isn't it the job of Democrats to pass legislation that Republicans will approve?

The goal is not to get anything done, but to make a statement and give the false impression that they are trying, when they really aren't.

If the goal were not to get anything done, they would not have passed a ton of legislation that sits waiting for Senate action. Republicans in the Senate consistently propose legislation that Democrats prevent from being debated.

Funny, because Obama has proposed tax increases, and has proposed spending cuts, and has proposed the removal of loopholes in the tax code.

Obama has specified tax increases, but has never proposed specific cuts in entitlements. He makes the generic pledge to cut spending, but never any specifics. It's not possible to come anywhere close to balancing the budget by increasing taxes. The deficit is $1.6 trillion. Removing all the Bush tax cuts gets at most $0.3 trillion. Increasing the higher tax brackets gets $0.09 trillion. It pure demagoguery.

While Republicans has taken a pledge of no new taxes, period. Obama has said that he'll accept spending cuts, so long as tax increases are included.

There have been two deals in the past, starting with Reagan, where three dollars in spending cuts were promised for ever dollar of tax increase. Republicans signed on. Taxes were increased. No cuts were ever made. Obama won't even say what he would cut. There is no need to say specifically what will be cut when there s no intent to actually accomplish them. The solution is to get rid of Obama and the Senate majority.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/16/2011 11:25:45 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/16/2011 9:44:52 AM, RoyLatham wrote:
No, you don't get it. There is a difference between point to examples of accomplishment and pointing to ideological purity. Reagan got things done despite Democrats controlling the Senate.

That is because the democrats were willing to work with him. Note the difference here.


There is a big difference between the president and Congress, and also between being elected and then performing in office. The Republicans in congress have passed 15 jobs bills. That's doing what they were elected to do.

Most of those weren't jobs bills but tax cuts and tax holidays where their special interest groups claimed that jobs would be created (like the chamber of commerce claiming that a tax holiday would create 2.9 million jobs, even though when a tax holiday was done in 04 and 05, all the money went to share holders and no jobs were created).


Ideologues hammer him for not being ideological enough, despite the clear evidence of failure. They demand a messiah and complain they didn't get one. If only he were a pure socialist and could sell it ...

Funny, you claim that he is an ideological purist, but now claiming that he isn't ideological enough. He isn't very ideological at all (see the healthcare fisaco where what he actually wanted wasn't even on the table to begin with, or agreeing to keep the Bush tax cuts). He's comprismised on a load of things, but since he is a liberal, you can't admit that he has comprimised.


There is not Big Brother newspeak. You're reading 1984 paranoia into it.

It's pure newspeak. The child suffers and does not complain because he lives only to please the leader. Good grief. You can argue that it was just a slip and not a refection of his mentality, but it is self-evident newspeak.

Asking "will President Obama be proud of me for helping the soldiers?" =/= "he lives only to please the leader."

That is the BS you are reading into it.


Tell me how is possible for Republicans to be uncompromising when they are willing to debate and the Senate, under Reid, is not willing to debate? The ordinary work of the congress is done by the House passing legislation, the Senate passing a different version, then a joint committee hammering out a compromise. How it is possible to for that mechanism to work when the Senate does not consider the legislation? There is no filibuster in the House, only in the Senate.

The Senate cannot pass its own bill because the republicans keep filibustering it.

They don't need to pass their own legislation. All they have to do is bring the House bills to the floor and debate them. They can amend them in any way they wish, and send them to joint committee.

The Senate has not even tried to pass a budget. They don't bring it to a vote. It's not a case that it's been filibustered. They don't want to go on record as voting for a $1.6 trillion deficit.

It's the Senate's job to hammer out compromise legislation that they can pass. The big-spending legislation under Bush, including expansion of Medicare, was all passed in the Senate with votes by Democrats. Now Democrats refuse any compromise whatsoever and just complain that Republicans are at fault for not agreeing to what Democrats want. Even in the Obamacare debate, the Bauchus committee allowed Republican input and compromises were found. All that was junked in favor of Reid's uncompromised bill.

Both sides have to comprimise. Obama has agreed to spending cuts, so long as they come with tax increases. The republicans (many of them) have actually signed a document saying that they will NOT comprimise.


Republicans in the House pass legislation that they know darn well will not pass the Senate, nor be signed by the president. They have had no desire to work with democrats to find middle ground.

How do you know none of it would pass? It isn't brought to a vote, nor debated, nor offered for amendment? Your idea is that it's the job of Republicans to anticipate what Democrats will approve then pass exactly that and nothing less. Congress has never functioned that way. If so, why isn't it the job of Democrats to pass legislation that Republicans will approve?

You don't need to have a vote to make an accurate prediction. If the republicans pass a bill that cuts taxes and cuts spending, you know the democrats in the senate are not going to pass it as well. And if the democrats pass a bill to increase spending and increase taxes, you know that the republicans in the house are not going to go along with it.


The goal is not to get anything done, but to make a statement and give the false impression that they are trying, when they really aren't.

Right, Boehner didn't walk out of negotiations. 272 republicans in congress (representing all but 14 repulican congress members) didn't actually sign the Taxpayer protection pledge which says "I _________, pledge to the... American People that I will: ONE, oppose any and all efforts to increase the marginal tax rate for individuals and businesses; and TWO, oppose any net reductions or elimination of deductions and credits, unless matched dollar for dollar by further reducing tax rates."

The republicans are trying to comprimise, it is Obama that is not comprimising.


If the goal were not to get anything done, they would not have passed a ton of legislation that sits waiting for Senate action. Republicans in the Senate consistently propose legislation that Democrats prevent from being debated.

Funny, because Obama has proposed tax increases, and has proposed spending cuts, and has proposed the removal of loopholes in the tax code.

Obama has specified tax increases, but has never proposed specific cuts in entitlements. He makes the generic pledge to cut spending, but never any specifics. It's not possible to come anywhere close to balancing the budget by increasing taxes. The deficit is $1.6 trillion. Removing all the Bush tax cuts gets at most $0.3 trillion. Increasing the higher tax brackets gets $0.09 trillion. It pure demagoguery.

No one is saying that it is to be done by nothing but tax increases, that is a pathetic strawman tactic. Remember when Obama wanted to cut $500 billion from medicare and medicaid (specifically from fraud, mispayments, and general in-efficiencies)? And the republicans were against it, claiming that Obama is trying to hurt old people?

How about Obama doing it again? Only this time is only $320 billion and for preimums and such. Or cuts to the USPS or $31 billion in cut farm subsidies. You claim that he's not giving any plans for cuts. He is, you're just ignoring them.

http://www.nytimes.com...


While Republicans has taken a pledge of no new taxes, period. Obama has said that he'll accept spending cuts, so long as tax increases are included.

There have been two deals in the past, starting with Reagan, where three dollars in spending cuts were promised for ever dollar of tax increase. Republicans signed on. Taxes were increased. No cuts were ever made. Obama won't even say what he would cut. There is no need to say specifically what will be cut when there s no intent to actually accomplish them. The solution is to get rid of Obama and the Senate majority.

http://www.usatoday.com...
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/26/2012 8:23:02 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I overlooked responding, but maybe a debate could be worked out from this. Would you affirm, "The House should only pass legislation that will be approved by the Senate."? That's what you seem to be arguing.

At 11/16/2011 11:25:45 AM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 11/16/2011 9:44:52 AM, RoyLatham wrote:
No, you don't get it. There is a difference between point to examples of accomplishment and pointing to ideological purity. Reagan got things done despite Democrats controlling the Senate.

That is because the democrats were willing to work with him. Note the difference here.

Nonsense, the way to work with Republicans is to consider the Bills, hold hearings, debate the legislation, then propose compromise legislation. Democrats just refuse to consider the legislation.

Most of those weren't jobs bills but tax cuts and tax holidays where their special interest groups claimed that jobs would be created (like the chamber of commerce claiming that a tax holiday would create 2.9 million jobs, even though when a tax holiday was done in 04 and 05, all the money went to share holders and no jobs were created).

so why don't we just end free enterprise? Id benefiting shareholders doesn't create jobs, then ending free enterprise would remove all the roadblocks to prosperity.

Funny, you claim that he is an ideological purist, but now claiming that he isn't ideological enough. He isn't very ideological at all (see the healthcare fisaco where what he actually wanted wasn't even on the table to begin with, or agreeing to keep the Bush tax cuts). He's comprismised on a load of things, but since he is a liberal, you can't admit that he has comprimised.

He hasn't compromised with Republiocans much, he compromised with the fanatical left that wanted a complete takeover of health care. The Baucus commitee in the Senate worked out a bunch of compromises. they we all killed, Reid introduced a new Bill hat ignored everything done by the Ccommittee.

Asking "will President Obama be proud of me for helping the soldiers?" =/= "he lives only to please the leader."

That is the BS you are reading into it.

It's subordinating individual beliefs to what Obama believes. Only Dear Leader's opinion counts.


The Senate cannot pass its own bill because the republicans keep filibustering it.

There is no way to tell what the Republicans would accept, so long as nothing is debated. The truth is that there are a bunch of Democrats from moderate to conservative states who would be willing to compromise so they could be re-elected, so Reid has to make sure they never get to vote on anything. that includes Mason. Thule, and others. lat year, the Obama budget was voted down 97-0. This year Reid won't bring it to a vote. The budget can't be filibustered, so all they need is 51 votes. So why won't they pass a budget with the 53 Democrats?


Republicans in the House pass legislation that they know darn well will not pass the Senate, nor be signed by the president. They have had no desire to work with democrats to find middle ground.

If the rule is one house of congress should only pass legislation that they know the other house will pass, then the Senate is obligated to pass legislation they are sure will get through the House. So why haven't they done that?

There have been two deals in the past, starting with Reagan, where three dollars in spending cuts were promised for ever dollar of tax increase. Republicans signed on. Taxes were increased. No cuts were ever made. Obama won't even say what he would cut. There is no need to say specifically what will be cut when there s no intent to actually accomplish them. The solution is to get rid of Obama and the Senate majority.

http://www.usatoday.com...

Obama is staying by the proven principle of increasing taxes then making sure the spending cuts never happen, even if agreed to. Remember the spending cuts agreed to when the debt limit was raised last summer? They never happened. Real ta increases are traded for spending cuts that never happen.
Starcraftzzz
Posts: 487
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/26/2012 8:51:41 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/13/2011 12:22:30 PM, RoyLatham wrote:
The left has always been susceptible to what the Chinese call "a cult of personality." They need messianic figures to lead them. Contrast with Reagan, who was vigorously attacked by the right wing for years after his election on the grounds that even though better than Carter, he wasn't adequately conservative.
Is that why every GOP presidential contender names Reagan 700 times every debate?
Is that why around 20% of the people who Oppose ObamaCare oppose it because it wasn't liberal enough?
Is that why left wing blogs and forums got so pissed when Obama extended the Bush tax cuts for those making 200,000 or more?
Is that why left wing blogs for the better half of the past few years complained about Obama trying to compromise with Republicans?

At 11/13/2011 12:22:30 PM, RoyLatham wrote:
Obama was and is worshiped despite blatant incompetence. One of the primary objections by Democrats to the Republican candidates for president is that none of them can fill the Messiah's shoes. Yup. I hope not.
The primary objection to the GOP candidates is that they are ignorant, bigoted, lunatics.

At 11/13/2011 12:22:30 PM, RoyLatham wrote:
Obama's speech is not a generic call for service to the country. Every president does that. It is a call for service to the Glorious Leader as a proxy for service to the country. That's the language and mechanism of Mao and Kim. It defines service as pleasing the leader.
Yes because being proud of someone who is disadvantaged for trying to help others is a call to the glorious leader Obama…

At 11/13/2011 12:22:30 PM, RoyLatham wrote:
The House Republicans have passed fifteen jobs bills
None of which would actualy benefit the economy or create jobs. I realize that republicans can't tell the difference from the words "job bill" and a piece of legislation that actually does something beneficial
At 11/16/2011 9:44:52 AM, RoyLatham wrote:
No, you don't get it. There is a difference between point to examples of accomplishment and pointing to ideological purity. Reagan got things done despite Democrats controlling the Senate.
That is because Democrats like to get things done, vise versa for GOPers

At 11/16/2011 9:44:52 AM, RoyLatham wrote:
. The Republicans in congress have passed 15 jobs bills. That's doing what they were elected to do.
Yes big coal did election republicans make it legal to dumb mercury in drinking water

At 11/16/2011 9:44:52 AM, RoyLatham wrote:
Yes, the people were fooled and they don't like it. Obama has been a completely ordinary politician, totally dependent on special interest groups, backroom deals, and executive authority. He'd still have support if he actually did what he promised.

Yes he would still have more support if he didn't try to compromise with lunatic idiot republicans

At 11/16/2011 9:44:52 AM, RoyLatham wrote:
Obama has specified tax increases, but has never proposed specific cuts in entitlements. He makes the generic pledge to cut spending, but never any specifics. It's not possible to come anywhere close to balancing the budget by increasing taxes. The deficit is $1.6 trillion. Removing all the Bush tax cuts gets at most $0.3 trillion. Increasing the higher tax brackets gets $0.09 trillion. It pure demagoguery.
Lets see.
1) He already cut back food stamp funding.
2) He already cut back CHIP spending
3) He already proposed consolidating two agencies
4) He also proposed 500billion in military cuts
5) He proposed reducing medicare/caid spending for those with income above 85,000
6) Lower payments to farmers
7) Higher contributions for pensions for federal workers
johnnyboy54
Posts: 6,362
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/26/2012 9:08:21 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/12/2011 8:00:54 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
So you are saying Downs Syndrome people connect to Obama in some magical way?

LMAO
I didn't order assholes with my whiskey.
Lasagna
Posts: 2,440
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2012 9:13:33 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/13/2011 12:22:30 PM, RoyLatham wrote:
Obama was and is worshiped despite blatant incompetence.

You base your points off this like it is so black and white. We've had threads with "10 worst/10 best" presidents before and every list is completely different. You can practically just randomly throw names on the lists and have as much a chance of getting it "right" as anyone who actually put thought into it. To me, Reagan was the worst thing that ever happened to this country but to others (likely yourself included) he is the second coming of Jesus. Obama is similarly hailed and denounced.
Rob
RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2012 12:20:22 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/26/2012 8:51:41 PM, Starcraftzzz wrote:
At 11/13/2011 12:22:30 PM, RoyLatham wrote:
At 11/16/2011 9:44:52 AM, RoyLatham wrote:
Obama has specified tax increases, but has never proposed specific cuts in entitlements. He makes the generic pledge to cut spending, but never any specifics. It's not possible to come anywhere close to balancing the budget by increasing taxes. The deficit is $1.6 trillion. Removing all the Bush tax cuts gets at most $0.3 trillion. Increasing the higher tax brackets gets $0.09 trillion. It pure demagoguery.

Lets see.
1) He already cut back food stamp funding.

False, food stamp funding is up more than 17% from 2011. Obama has proposed a 0.6% cut in 2013, based upon the assumption that the economy will improve. http://www.bloomberg.com...

2) He already cut back CHIP spending

No, he agreed to cut the CHIP spending, but the HHS 20212 budget actually increases the spending, "Among these is CMS' goal to improve availability and accessibility of health insurance coverage by increasing enrollment of eligible children in CHIP and Medicaid. The Children's Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act of 2009 (CHIPRA) reauthorized the CHIP program and increased funding to maintain State programs and to cover more children. This CMS priority goal has been expanded to include Medicaid populations in the future, and is reflected in the new HHS Strategic Plan." http://www.hhs.gov...

Under continuing resolution authorization, department budgets are automatically increased by 8%.

3) He already proposed consolidating two agencies

Of course, he has made many proposals that never happen. Why doesn't he just go ahead and do it? Who's going to object?

4) He also proposed 500billion in military cuts

The cuts are due to winding down the wars and were in Bush budget projections as well. But I'll grant that Obama believes in unilateral disarmament as the path to peace, and budget concerns are a convenient cover for that.

5) He proposed reducing medicare/caid spending for those with income above 85,000

Proposals that haven't happened. Those cuts were a feature of the Ryan plan passed by Republicans.

6) Lower payments to farmers

Hasen't happened. A good start would be eliminating ethanol subsidies.

7) Higher contributions for pensions for federal workers

This was a Republic budget proposal http://www.huffingtonpost.com... It hasn't happened.

Obama postures on entitlement cuts occasionally, but they have not appeared in any legislation as real proposals. The exception is Obamacare, where $500 billion in Medicare cuts are included. Nothing stops the Administration from immediately eliminating waste, fraud, and abuse without legislation, but nothing special has happened in that area. He knows that congress will keep Medicare funded.