Obama again blames Rush Limbaugh for his own failure

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from ComingLiberalCrackup. Show ComingLiberalCrackup's posts

    Re: Obama again blames Rush Limbaugh for his own failure

    n response to A_Concerned_Citizen's comment:

    In response to macnh1's comment:

     


    swaying the minds of those opposed to you and finding middle ground is a sign of leadership

     




    You can't 'sway the mind' of someone from the opposing party in a reality where if that influence is successful that same pol won't be around for the next negotiation.

     

    If the very act of compromise costs you your office, then there is no incentive for a goper to allow themselves to be swayed.


    Same old blame  the GOP crap. The whining is endless.. The fact is, Obama does not want compromise, it has been his divisive tactics which won elections but didnt benefit the country.

    The divide between left and Right is greater than ever and this divisive President is laregly responsible.  "The buck stops here" ...Obama actually said that?

     
  2. This post has been removed.

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: Obama again blames Rush Limbaugh for his own failure

    In response to slomag's comment:

    In response to bigdog2's comment:

     

     

    I watched this interview this morning.  The incompetent has been president for 5 years and he still doesn`t get it.  HE IS THE PRESIDENT!  He has a cabinet, he has czars, he has a majority in the Senate, and he has to deal with a tiny Republican majority in the House only.  He has no idea how to compromise or even suggest compromise.  An arrogant fool.

    The "point" is........he did blame Rush, by name, more than once.  He played the victim card throughout the entire interview.  It`s all the wascully wepublicans, the teaaaa-paarrty, and Rush`s fault. Guy will go down in history as the worst president by far.

    Pathetic.

     



    De-funding laws passed by a previous session; fillibustering the paying of bills; blocking their own amendments, fillibustering their own motions.

     

    You're trying to compare him by historical measures, but we've never had a congress behave like this.  

     



    Sure we did. How soon you forget the Pelosi years and the things Democrats do:

    http://thehill.com/homenews/house/63941-democrats-lock-republicans

    -out-of-committee-room

     

    http://www.nbcnews.com/id/34692080/ns/health-health_care/t/dems-

    bypass-tradition-final-health-deal/#.UhfqYcu9KSM

     

    http://aolanswers.com/questions/democrats_lock_republicans

    _pelosi_9512718113101

     

    and that's just what I found in one simple search.

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from Hansoribrother. Show Hansoribrother's posts

    Re: Obama again blames Rush Limbaugh for his own failure

    What has Obama wanted to do that has been blocked by Republicans? He got his stimulus plans, he got ACA, he is going to get an immigration bill of some kind as, in spite of the absurd claims here that the Republicans don't compromise, he has had the debt ceiling raised several times (while "uncompromising" Republicans took the same stand as he did when senator). He has ruled by dictatorial fiat to get the EPA to regulate carbon emissions and a host of other decrees?

    I fail to see what the dope is whining about, but I am sure some leftwing loon will educate me.

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: Obama again blames Rush Limbaugh for his own failure

    In response to Hansoribrother's comment:

    What has Obama wanted to do that has been blocked by Republicans? He got his stimulus plans, he got ACA, he is going to get an immigration bill of some kind as, in spite of the absurd claims here that the Republicans don't compromise, he has had the debt ceiling raised several times (while "uncompromising" Republicans took the same stand as he did when senator). He has ruled by dictatorial fiat to get the EPA to regulate carbon emissions and a host of other decrees?

    I fail to see what the dope is whining about, but I am sure some leftwing loon will educate me.



    Obama whines because that's what passes for solid leadership amongst hiTh devoted followers.

     
  6. This post has been removed.

     
  7. This post has been removed.

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from slomag. Show slomag's posts

    Re: Obama again blames Rush Limbaugh for his own failure

    In response to Hansoribrother's comment:

    What has Obama wanted to do that has been blocked by Republicans? He got his stimulus plans, he got ACA, he is going to get an immigration bill of some kind as, in spite of the absurd claims here that the Republicans don't compromise, he has had the debt ceiling raised several times (while "uncompromising" Republicans took the same stand as he did when senator). He has ruled by dictatorial fiat to get the EPA to regulate carbon emissions and a host of other decrees?

    I fail to see what the dope is whining about, but I am sure some leftwing loon will educate me.



    Jobs bills.  A second stimulus.  DREAM Act.  Payroll Tax cut extensions.  Equal Pay for men and women.  Increased minimum wage.  Gun control.  Dozens of appointees.

    And the legislation that has passed is compromised legislation, as if Republicans had actually come to the table.  If Obama had known from day one that Republicans had no interest in compromise, the ACA would include a public option, if not be a single-payer system.

     

     

     

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: Obama again blames Rush Limbaugh for his own failure

    In response to slomag's comment:

     

    In response to Hansoribrother's comment:

     

     

    What has Obama wanted to do that has been blocked by Republicans? He got his stimulus plans, he got ACA, he is going to get an immigration bill of some kind as, in spite of the absurd claims here that the Republicans don't compromise, he has had the debt ceiling raised several times (while "uncompromising" Republicans took the same stand as he did when senator). He has ruled by dictatorial fiat to get the EPA to regulate carbon emissions and a host of other decrees?

    I fail to see what the dope is whining about, but I am sure some leftwing loon will educate me.

     

     



    Jobs bills.  A second stimulus.  DREAM Act.  Payroll Tax cut extensions.  Equal Pay for men and women.  Increased minimum wage.  Gun control.  Dozens of appointees.

     

     

    And the legislation that has passed is compromised legislation, as if Republicans had actually come to the table.  If Obama had known from day one that Republicans had no interest in compromise, the ACA would include a public option, if not be a single-payer system.

     

     

     




    All bad ideas.

     

     

    I guess you have a problem with politicians stopping bad ideas?

     

    And, how did Limbaugh stop him?  A precise answer please.

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from slomag. Show slomag's posts

    Re: Obama again blames Rush Limbaugh for his own failure

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

    In response to slomag's comment:

     

    In response to Hansoribrother's comment:

     

     

    What has Obama wanted to do that has been blocked by Republicans? He got his stimulus plans, he got ACA, he is going to get an immigration bill of some kind as, in spite of the absurd claims here that the Republicans don't compromise, he has had the debt ceiling raised several times (while "uncompromising" Republicans took the same stand as he did when senator). He has ruled by dictatorial fiat to get the EPA to regulate carbon emissions and a host of other decrees?

    I fail to see what the dope is whining about, but I am sure some leftwing loon will educate me.

     

     



    Jobs bills.  A second stimulus.  DREAM Act.  Payroll Tax cut extensions.  Equal Pay for men and women.  Increased minimum wage.  Gun control.  Dozens of appointees.

     

     

    And the legislation that has passed is compromised legislation, as if Republicans had actually come to the table.  If Obama had known from day one that Republicans had no interest in compromise, the ACA would include a public option, if not be a single-payer system.

     

     

     




    All bad ideas.

     

     

    I guess you have a problem with politicians stopping bad ideas?

     

    And, how did Limbaugh stop him?  A precise answer please.



    I have a problem with a white, aging minority deciding which ideas are good or bad. Or deciding all ideas are bad and introducing none of their own.

    Limbaugh's part in the process is 1) to mis-inform his audience and 2) catch any Republican trying to act sensibly or compromise, and label him a RINO, which sets him up for a tea-party challenge at the next election.  

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from StalkingButler. Show StalkingButler's posts

    Re: Obama again blames Rush Limbaugh for his own failure

    Yes, it's truly awful that conservatives (regardless of race or age) espouse and occasionally agitate for conservative principles. Why can't they just go away and let the truly enlightened among us, dare I say the truly progressive among us, rule without these messy ideas of freedom, liberty, or the horror of individualism.

    It's just not fair.

     

    --

    Think for yourself, question authority.

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from slomag. Show slomag's posts

    Re: Obama again blames Rush Limbaugh for his own failure

    In response to StalkingButler's comment:

    Yes, it's truly awful that conservatives (regardless of race or age) espouse and occasionally agitate for conservative principles. Why can't they just go away and let the truly enlightened among us, dare I say the truly progressive among us, rule without these messy ideas of freedom, liberty, or the horror of individualism.

    It's just not fair.

     

    --

    Think for yourself, question authority.



    Occasionally = every time.  Not a single bill passed in the Senate during Obama's first two years that didn't have 60 votes.  

    Occasional obstruction I can understand, and even respect to some degree.  Constant obstruction as  political tactic is pathetic.  

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from StalkingButler. Show StalkingButler's posts

    Re: Obama again blames Rush Limbaugh for his own failure

    Then you must have hated the likes of Schumer, Leahy, Feinstein, and Reid during the Bush administration.

    --

    Think for yourself, question authority.

     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from Hansoribrother. Show Hansoribrother's posts

    Re: Obama again blames Rush Limbaugh for his own failure

    In response to slomag's comment:

    In response to Hansoribrother's comment:

     

    What has Obama wanted to do that has been blocked by Republicans? He got his stimulus plans, he got ACA, he is going to get an immigration bill of some kind as, in spite of the absurd claims here that the Republicans don't compromise, he has had the debt ceiling raised several times (while "uncompromising" Republicans took the same stand as he did when senator). He has ruled by dictatorial fiat to get the EPA to regulate carbon emissions and a host of other decrees?

    I fail to see what the dope is whining about, but I am sure some leftwing loon will educate me.

     



    Jobs bills.  A second stimulus.  DREAM Act.  Payroll Tax cut extensions.  Equal Pay for men and women.  Increased minimum wage.  Gun control.  Dozens of appointees.

     

    And the legislation that has passed is compromised legislation, as if Republicans had actually come to the table.  If Obama had known from day one that Republicans had no interest in compromise, the ACA would include a public option, if not be a single-payer system.

     

     

     



    Yeah, they should just give in to the librul position.  This is the realistic point of view on Republican "obstruction" - it is just the loyal oppostion preventing you from goin too far.

     

     

     
  15. This post has been removed.

     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from Hansoribrother. Show Hansoribrother's posts

    Re: Obama again blames Rush Limbaugh for his own failure

    In response to slomag's comment:

    In response to Hansoribrother's comment:

     

    What has Obama wanted to do that has been blocked by Republicans? He got his stimulus plans, he got ACA, he is going to get an immigration bill of some kind as, in spite of the absurd claims here that the Republicans don't compromise, he has had the debt ceiling raised several times (while "uncompromising" Republicans took the same stand as he did when senator). He has ruled by dictatorial fiat to get the EPA to regulate carbon emissions and a host of other decrees?

    I fail to see what the dope is whining about, but I am sure some leftwing loon will educate me.

     



    Jobs bills.  A second stimulus.  DREAM Act.  Payroll Tax cut extensions.  Equal Pay for men and women.  Increased minimum wage.  Gun control.  Dozens of appointees.

     

    And the legislation that has passed is compromised legislation, as if Republicans had actually come to the table.  If Obama had known from day one that Republicans had no interest in compromise, the ACA would include a public option, if not be a single-payer system.

     

     

     



    I guess what you want is a SloMag/Obama dictatorship. Have you looked up hypcorisy in the dictionary lately? While you are at it, look up compromise too. Seems like you have no clue what that means either. Just a hint for you: compromise does not mean taking your political opponent's position.

     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from slomag. Show slomag's posts

    Re: Obama again blames Rush Limbaugh for his own failure

    In response to Hansoribrother's comment:

    In response to slomag's comment:

     

    In response to Hansoribrother's comment:

     

     

     

    What has Obama wanted to do that has been blocked by Republicans? He got his stimulus plans, he got ACA, he is going to get an immigration bill of some kind as, in spite of the absurd claims here that the Republicans don't compromise, he has had the debt ceiling raised several times (while "uncompromising" Republicans took the same stand as he did when senator). He has ruled by dictatorial fiat to get the EPA to regulate carbon emissions and a host of other decrees?

    I fail to see what the dope is whining about, but I am sure some leftwing loon will educate me.

     

     



    Jobs bills.  A second stimulus.  DREAM Act.  Payroll Tax cut extensions.  Equal Pay for men and women.  Increased minimum wage.  Gun control.  Dozens of appointees.

     

     

    And the legislation that has passed is compromised legislation, as if Republicans had actually come to the table.  If Obama had known from day one that Republicans had no interest in compromise, the ACA would include a public option, if not be a single-payer system.

     

     

     

     



    I guess what you want is a SloMag/Obama dictatorship. Have you looked up hypcorisy in the dictionary lately? While you are at it, look up compromise too. Seems like you have no clue what that means either. Just a hint for you: compromise does not mean taking your political opponent's position.

     



    The past two sessions of congress, with Republican House control, are on pace to be the least productive in the history of our country.

    The two sessions prior, under Dem House control, saw more than twice the number of fillibusters of any four year period in history.

    Joe Biden holds the record (throughout all US history) for the longest tenure as VP without casting a tie-breaking vote in the Senate.

    Liberals wanted single-payer or a public option instead of the ACA.  Liberals wanted the DREAM act and got nothing.  Liberals wanted banking regulation, and they got Dodd-Frank.  Liberals wanted gun control and got nothing.  Liberals wanted to close tax loop-holes for jobs being shipped overseas, and got nothing.  Why don't you define compromise for me, because it sounds like you think it means the minority party should play keep-away with legislation.

    Here's a challenge for you - you asked what bills Republicans blocked and I gave you a by no means complete list.  When Republicans last had control of both houses, and the white house (2000 - 2006) what bills did Dems block?  How many times did they go along with legislation from the majority party that they did not agree with?  How many times was Dick Cheney a tie-breaking vote?  If you are silent on this challenge, or if you change the subject, it's safe to assume you haven't really wrapped your head around the meaning of hypocrisy.

     

     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from slomag. Show slomag's posts

    Re: Obama again blames Rush Limbaugh for his own failure

    In response to StalkingButler's comment:

    Then you must have hated the likes of Schumer, Leahy, Feinstein, and Reid during the Bush administration.

    --

    Think for yourself, question authority.



    I give you the same challenge as Hansori.  What legislation did Dems block from 2000 - 2006?  How many times did legislation pass with fewer than 60 votes?  How many times did Dick Cheney cast the tie-breaker?

     

     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from ComingLiberalCrackup. Show ComingLiberalCrackup's posts

    Re: Obama again blames Rush Limbaugh for his own failure

     

    Democrats intractably refused to compromise on renewal of the The Patriot Act,  Bush’s energy billThe border security bill, the Parental notification billClass-action lawsuit reform,  the critical issue of Social Security reform

    Below is a bill Democrats blocked  in 2003, and also in 2005:  Proving Dems are responsible for the housing meltdown in 2007-8!!!

    "September 11, 2003– The Bush Administration today recommended the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago.

    Under the plan, disclosed at a Congressional hearing today, a new agency would be created within the Treasury Department to assume supervision of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government-sponsored companies that are the two largest players in the mortgage lending industry,

    The new agency would have the authority, which now rests with Congress, to set one of the two capital-reserve requirements for the companies.  It would exercise authority over any new lines of business.  And it would determine whether the two are adequately managing the risks of their ballooning portfolios.

    The plan is an acknowledgment by the administration that oversight of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac — which together have issued more than $1.5 trillion in outstanding debt — is broken.  "

     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from slomag. Show slomag's posts

    Re: Obama again blames Rush Limbaugh for his own failure

    In response to ComingLiberalCrackup's comment:

     

     

    Democrats intractably refused to compromise on renewal of the The Patriot Act,  Bush’s energy billThe border security bill, the Parental notification billClass-action lawsuit reform,  the critical issue of Social Security reform

    Below is a bill Democrats blocked  in 2003, and also in 2005:  Proving Dems are responsible for the housing meltdown in 2007-8!!!

    "September 11, 2003– The Bush Administration today recommended the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago.

    Under the plan, disclosed at a Congressional hearing today, a new agency would be created within the Treasury Department to assume supervision of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government-sponsored companies that are the two largest players in the mortgage lending industry,

    The new agency would have the authority, which now rests with Congress, to set one of the two capital-reserve requirements for the companies.  It would exercise authority over any new lines of business.  And it would determine whether the two are adequately managing the risks of their ballooning portfolios.

    The plan is an acknowledgment by the administration that oversight of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac — which together have issued more than $1.5 trillion in outstanding debt — is broken.  "

     



     

    * The fillibuster of the Patriot Act renewal led to bill to be re-submitted with limits protecting personal privacy.  That is what fillibusters are supposed to do - give the minority bargaining power.  Not stop legislation in its tracks.  The law passed a few months later with 89 Senators voting "yea".

    * 13 Dems supported Bush's energy bill, and four Republicans joined the fillibuster, so that doesn't meet our criteria here. But that aside, the bill did eventually pass with 85 Senate Yeas in 2005.

    * Your link to the Border Security Bill says there was no fillibuster - the bill simply failed, with 20 Republicans voting no.

    * Your class action lawsuit link is broken, but given the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005, I think it's safe to say it, too, is BS.

    * Your parental notification bill link is also broken, but do I really need to look it up at this point?

    * And finally, your proof the Dems are responsible for the housing meltdown (setting aside the ignorance of blaming Fannie & Freddie for the housing meltdown, or thinking putthing another horse judge like Brownie in charge would have made everything OK) refers to a bill that never made it out of committee.  How can Dems block something that never makes the floor?

    Thank you, CLC - your search for equivalence is really more helpful to my argument than anything I could have come up with on my own.

     

     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from Hansoribrother. Show Hansoribrother's posts

    Re: Obama again blames Rush Limbaugh for his own failure

    In response to slomag's comment:

     

    In response to Hansoribrother's comment:

     

     

     

    In response to slomag's comment:

     

     

     

     

     

    In response to Hansoribrother's comment:

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

    What has Obama wanted to do that has been blocked by Republicans? He got his stimulus plans, he got ACA, he is going to get an immigration bill of some kind as, in spite of the absurd claims here that the Republicans don't compromise, he has had the debt ceiling raised several times (while "uncompromising" Republicans took the same stand as he did when senator). He has ruled by dictatorial fiat to get the EPA to regulate carbon emissions and a host of other decrees?

    I fail to see what the dope is whining about, but I am sure some leftwing loon will educate me.

     

     

     

     



    Jobs bills.  A second stimulus.  DREAM Act.  Payroll Tax cut extensions.  Equal Pay for men and women.  Increased minimum wage.  Gun control.  Dozens of appointees.

     

     

     

     

    And the legislation that has passed is compromised legislation, as if Republicans had actually come to the table.  If Obama had known from day one that Republicans had no interest in compromise, the ACA would include a public option, if not be a single-payer system.

     

     

     

     

     

     



    I guess what you want is a SloMag/Obama dictatorship. Have you looked up hypcorisy in the dictionary lately? While you are at it, look up compromise too. Seems like you have no clue what that means either. Just a hint for you: compromise does not mean taking your political opponent's position.

     

     

     

     

     



    The past two sessions of congress, with Republican House control, are on pace to be the least productive in the history of our country.

     

     

    The two sessions prior, under Dem House control, saw more than twice the number of fillibusters of any four year period in history.

    Joe Biden holds the record (throughout all US history) for the longest tenure as VP without casting a tie-breaking vote in the Senate.

    Liberals wanted single-payer or a public option instead of the ACA.  Liberals wanted the DREAM act and got nothing.  Liberals wanted banking regulation, and they got Dodd-Frank.  Liberals wanted gun control and got nothing.  Liberals wanted to close tax loop-holes for jobs being shipped overseas, and got nothing.  Why don't you define compromise for me, because it sounds like you think it means the minority party should play keep-away with legislation.

    Here's a challenge for you - you asked what bills Republicans blocked and I gave you a by no means complete list.  When Republicans last had control of both houses, and the white house (2000 - 2006) what bills did Dems block?  How many times did they go along with legislation from the majority party that they did not agree with?  How many times was Dick Cheney a tie-breaking vote?  If you are silent on this challenge, or if you change the subject, it's safe to assume you haven't really wrapped your head around the meaning of hypocrisy.

     

     

    Are you serious?

    Liberals wanted something and Republicans are just supposed to cave in, agree and say "whatever you want King Barack"?

    Your complaint should go to the WHite House for not proposing anything that you want. ACA is just another step towards the politics of single payer. Nothing better than to f up on ACA and suggest that we need single payer because of "obstruction". 

    You state some nonsense about the "productivity" of Congress without telling us how you measure it??? As far as I am concerned, the most productive they can be is to go on recess 24x7x365.

    Government has totally f'd up healthcare, education and housing. If liberals were honest (LOL!!) they would want to solve problems of poverty, housing, healthcare, education, etc. and go out of existence. But all they do is create more problems to give themselves a justification to continue.

    I'd like to point out how much of a complete mowron you are with your whining when you say Democrats wanted banking regulation and they got Dodd-Frank. Dodd-Frank. Two DEMOCRATS. Who do you think they had write the bill? 

    The real battle is not conservative-liberal but ruling class vs the rest of us.

    Wake up.

     

     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from slomag. Show slomag's posts

    Re: Obama again blames Rush Limbaugh for his own failure

    In response to Hansoribrother's comment:

    In response to slomag's comment:

     

    In response to Hansoribrother's comment:

     

     

     

    In response to slomag's comment:

     

     

     

     

     

    In response to Hansoribrother's comment:

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

    What has Obama wanted to do that has been blocked by Republicans? He got his stimulus plans, he got ACA, he is going to get an immigration bill of some kind as, in spite of the absurd claims here that the Republicans don't compromise, he has had the debt ceiling raised several times (while "uncompromising" Republicans took the same stand as he did when senator). He has ruled by dictatorial fiat to get the EPA to regulate carbon emissions and a host of other decrees?

    I fail to see what the dope is whining about, but I am sure some leftwing loon will educate me.

     

     

     

     



    Jobs bills.  A second stimulus.  DREAM Act.  Payroll Tax cut extensions.  Equal Pay for men and women.  Increased minimum wage.  Gun control.  Dozens of appointees.

     

     

     

     

    And the legislation that has passed is compromised legislation, as if Republicans had actually come to the table.  If Obama had known from day one that Republicans had no interest in compromise, the ACA would include a public option, if not be a single-payer system.

     

     

     

     

     

     



    I guess what you want is a SloMag/Obama dictatorship. Have you looked up hypcorisy in the dictionary lately? While you are at it, look up compromise too. Seems like you have no clue what that means either. Just a hint for you: compromise does not mean taking your political opponent's position.

     

     

     

     

     



    The past two sessions of congress, with Republican House control, are on pace to be the least productive in the history of our country.

     

     

    The two sessions prior, under Dem House control, saw more than twice the number of fillibusters of any four year period in history.

    Joe Biden holds the record (throughout all US history) for the longest tenure as VP without casting a tie-breaking vote in the Senate.

    Liberals wanted single-payer or a public option instead of the ACA.  Liberals wanted the DREAM act and got nothing.  Liberals wanted banking regulation, and they got Dodd-Frank.  Liberals wanted gun control and got nothing.  Liberals wanted to close tax loop-holes for jobs being shipped overseas, and got nothing.  Why don't you define compromise for me, because it sounds like you think it means the minority party should play keep-away with legislation.

    Here's a challenge for you - you asked what bills Republicans blocked and I gave you a by no means complete list.  When Republicans last had control of both houses, and the white house (2000 - 2006) what bills did Dems block?  How many times did they go along with legislation from the majority party that they did not agree with?  How many times was Dick Cheney a tie-breaking vote?  If you are silent on this challenge, or if you change the subject, it's safe to assume you haven't really wrapped your head around the meaning of hypocrisy.

     

     

    Are you serious?

    Liberals wanted something and Republicans are just supposed to cave in, agree and say "whatever you want King Barack"?

    Your complaint should go to the WHite House for not proposing anything that you want. ACA is just another step towards the politics of single payer. Nothing better than to f up on ACA and suggest that we need single payer because of "obstruction". 

    You state some nonsense about the "productivity" of Congress without telling us how you measure it??? As far as I am concerned, the most productive they can be is to go on recess 24x7x365.

    Government has totally f'd up healthcare, education and housing. If liberals were honest (LOL!!) they would want to solve problems of poverty, housing, healthcare, education, etc. and go out of existence. But all they do is create more problems to give themselves a justification to continue.

    I'd like to point out how much of a complete mowron you are with your whining when you say Democrats wanted banking regulation and they got Dodd-Frank. Dodd-Frank. Two DEMOCRATS. Who do you think they had write the bill? 

    The real battle is not conservative-liberal but ruling class vs the rest of us.

    Wake up.

     



    Productivity of congress is based on the number of laws passed.  If you want no laws passed you must be happy with the country as it is.  

    Poverty, housing, healthcare and education issues have been around far longer than either party, and I'm sure will survive both.

    Dodd-Frank is an example of Democratic compromise.  Scott Brown broke the fillibuster.  The legislation is so compromised, Russ Feingold voted against it.  

    And you are silent on the challenge, proving beyond all doubt you are a hypocrite unworthy of further debate.

     

     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: Obama again blames Rush Limbaugh for his own failure

    In response to slomag's comment:

    In response to Hansoribrother's comment:

     

    In response to slomag's comment:

     

    In response to Hansoribrother's comment:

     

     

     

    In response to slomag's comment:

     

     

     

     

     

    In response to Hansoribrother's comment:

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

    What has Obama wanted to do that has been blocked by Republicans? He got his stimulus plans, he got ACA, he is going to get an immigration bill of some kind as, in spite of the absurd claims here that the Republicans don't compromise, he has had the debt ceiling raised several times (while "uncompromising" Republicans took the same stand as he did when senator). He has ruled by dictatorial fiat to get the EPA to regulate carbon emissions and a host of other decrees?

    I fail to see what the dope is whining about, but I am sure some leftwing loon will educate me.

     

     

     

     



    Jobs bills.  A second stimulus.  DREAM Act.  Payroll Tax cut extensions.  Equal Pay for men and women.  Increased minimum wage.  Gun control.  Dozens of appointees.

     

     

     

     

    And the legislation that has passed is compromised legislation, as if Republicans had actually come to the table.  If Obama had known from day one that Republicans had no interest in compromise, the ACA would include a public option, if not be a single-payer system.

     

     

     

     

     

     



    I guess what you want is a SloMag/Obama dictatorship. Have you looked up hypcorisy in the dictionary lately? While you are at it, look up compromise too. Seems like you have no clue what that means either. Just a hint for you: compromise does not mean taking your political opponent's position.

     

     

     

     

     



    The past two sessions of congress, with Republican House control, are on pace to be the least productive in the history of our country.

     

     

    The two sessions prior, under Dem House control, saw more than twice the number of fillibusters of any four year period in history.

    Joe Biden holds the record (throughout all US history) for the longest tenure as VP without casting a tie-breaking vote in the Senate.

    Liberals wanted single-payer or a public option instead of the ACA.  Liberals wanted the DREAM act and got nothing.  Liberals wanted banking regulation, and they got Dodd-Frank.  Liberals wanted gun control and got nothing.  Liberals wanted to close tax loop-holes for jobs being shipped overseas, and got nothing.  Why don't you define compromise for me, because it sounds like you think it means the minority party should play keep-away with legislation.

    Here's a challenge for you - you asked what bills Republicans blocked and I gave you a by no means complete list.  When Republicans last had control of both houses, and the white house (2000 - 2006) what bills did Dems block?  How many times did they go along with legislation from the majority party that they did not agree with?  How many times was Dick Cheney a tie-breaking vote?  If you are silent on this challenge, or if you change the subject, it's safe to assume you haven't really wrapped your head around the meaning of hypocrisy.

     

     

    Are you serious?

    Liberals wanted something and Republicans are just supposed to cave in, agree and say "whatever you want King Barack"?

    Your complaint should go to the WHite House for not proposing anything that you want. ACA is just another step towards the politics of single payer. Nothing better than to f up on ACA and suggest that we need single payer because of "obstruction". 

    You state some nonsense about the "productivity" of Congress without telling us how you measure it??? As far as I am concerned, the most productive they can be is to go on recess 24x7x365.

    Government has totally f'd up healthcare, education and housing. If liberals were honest (LOL!!) they would want to solve problems of poverty, housing, healthcare, education, etc. and go out of existence. But all they do is create more problems to give themselves a justification to continue.

    I'd like to point out how much of a complete mowron you are with your whining when you say Democrats wanted banking regulation and they got Dodd-Frank. Dodd-Frank. Two DEMOCRATS. Who do you think they had write the bill? 

    The real battle is not conservative-liberal but ruling class vs the rest of us.

    Wake up.

     

     



     

    Productivity of congress is based on the number of laws passed.  If you want no laws passed you must be happy with the country as it is.  

    Poverty, housing, healthcare and education issues have been around far longer than either party, and I'm sure will survive both.

    Dodd-Frank is an example of Democratic compromise.  Scott Brown broke the fillibuster.  The legislation is so compromised, Russ Feingold voted against it.  

    And you are silent on the challenge, proving beyond all doubt you are a hypocrite unworthy of further debate.

     



    Productivity of Congress is judged on the numbers of laws passed?  That's not the standard I would choose.  The issue with congress is not so much productivity, as that is a busy-work metric.  The proper measure is effectiveness.

    Let me suggest effectiveness of congress is probably best measured by where we are/trajectory on things like the misery index, interest rates, # of government spending in GDP, things like that.

     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from slomag. Show slomag's posts

    Re: Obama again blames Rush Limbaugh for his own failure

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

    In response to slomag's comment:

     

    In response to Hansoribrother's comment:

     

     

     

    In response to slomag's comment:

     

    In response to Hansoribrother's comment:

     

     

     

    In response to slomag's comment:

     

     

     

     

     

    In response to Hansoribrother's comment:

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

    What has Obama wanted to do that has been blocked by Republicans? He got his stimulus plans, he got ACA, he is going to get an immigration bill of some kind as, in spite of the absurd claims here that the Republicans don't compromise, he has had the debt ceiling raised several times (while "uncompromising" Republicans took the same stand as he did when senator). He has ruled by dictatorial fiat to get the EPA to regulate carbon emissions and a host of other decrees?

    I fail to see what the dope is whining about, but I am sure some leftwing loon will educate me.

     

     

     

     



    Jobs bills.  A second stimulus.  DREAM Act.  Payroll Tax cut extensions.  Equal Pay for men and women.  Increased minimum wage.  Gun control.  Dozens of appointees.

     

     

     

     

    And the legislation that has passed is compromised legislation, as if Republicans had actually come to the table.  If Obama had known from day one that Republicans had no interest in compromise, the ACA would include a public option, if not be a single-payer system.

     

     

     

     

     

     



    I guess what you want is a SloMag/Obama dictatorship. Have you looked up hypcorisy in the dictionary lately? While you are at it, look up compromise too. Seems like you have no clue what that means either. Just a hint for you: compromise does not mean taking your political opponent's position.

     

     

     

     

     



    The past two sessions of congress, with Republican House control, are on pace to be the least productive in the history of our country.

     

     

    The two sessions prior, under Dem House control, saw more than twice the number of fillibusters of any four year period in history.

    Joe Biden holds the record (throughout all US history) for the longest tenure as VP without casting a tie-breaking vote in the Senate.

    Liberals wanted single-payer or a public option instead of the ACA.  Liberals wanted the DREAM act and got nothing.  Liberals wanted banking regulation, and they got Dodd-Frank.  Liberals wanted gun control and got nothing.  Liberals wanted to close tax loop-holes for jobs being shipped overseas, and got nothing.  Why don't you define compromise for me, because it sounds like you think it means the minority party should play keep-away with legislation.

    Here's a challenge for you - you asked what bills Republicans blocked and I gave you a by no means complete list.  When Republicans last had control of both houses, and the white house (2000 - 2006) what bills did Dems block?  How many times did they go along with legislation from the majority party that they did not agree with?  How many times was Dick Cheney a tie-breaking vote?  If you are silent on this challenge, or if you change the subject, it's safe to assume you haven't really wrapped your head around the meaning of hypocrisy.

     

     

    Are you serious?

    Liberals wanted something and Republicans are just supposed to cave in, agree and say "whatever you want King Barack"?

    Your complaint should go to the WHite House for not proposing anything that you want. ACA is just another step towards the politics of single payer. Nothing better than to f up on ACA and suggest that we need single payer because of "obstruction". 

    You state some nonsense about the "productivity" of Congress without telling us how you measure it??? As far as I am concerned, the most productive they can be is to go on recess 24x7x365.

    Government has totally f'd up healthcare, education and housing. If liberals were honest (LOL!!) they would want to solve problems of poverty, housing, healthcare, education, etc. and go out of existence. But all they do is create more problems to give themselves a justification to continue.

    I'd like to point out how much of a complete mowron you are with your whining when you say Democrats wanted banking regulation and they got Dodd-Frank. Dodd-Frank. Two DEMOCRATS. Who do you think they had write the bill? 

    The real battle is not conservative-liberal but ruling class vs the rest of us.

    Wake up.

     

     

     



     

     

    Productivity of congress is based on the number of laws passed.  If you want no laws passed you must be happy with the country as it is.  

    Poverty, housing, healthcare and education issues have been around far longer than either party, and I'm sure will survive both.

    Dodd-Frank is an example of Democratic compromise.  Scott Brown broke the fillibuster.  The legislation is so compromised, Russ Feingold voted against it.  

    And you are silent on the challenge, proving beyond all doubt you are a hypocrite unworthy of further debate.

     

     



    Productivity of Congress is judged on the numbers of laws passed?  That's not the standard I would choose.  The issue with congress is not so much productivity, as that is a busy-work metric.  The proper measure is effectiveness.

     

    Let me suggest effectiveness of congress is probably best measured by where we are/trajectory on things like the misery index, interest rates, # of government spending in GDP, things like that.



    The primary job of congress is to create new laws.  Those laws can fix previous laws that have proven unsuccessful, but if laws are not created, or at least sent to the President to sign, then Congress is unproductive.

     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: Obama again blames Rush Limbaugh for his own failure

    In response to slomag's comment:

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

     

    In response to slomag's comment:

     

     

     

    In response to Hansoribrother's comment:

     

     

     

     

     

    In response to slomag's comment:

     

    In response to Hansoribrother's comment:

     

     

     

    In response to slomag's comment:

     

     

     

     

     

    In response to Hansoribrother's comment:

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

    What has Obama wanted to do that has been blocked by Republicans? He got his stimulus plans, he got ACA, he is going to get an immigration bill of some kind as, in spite of the absurd claims here that the Republicans don't compromise, he has had the debt ceiling raised several times (while "uncompromising" Republicans took the same stand as he did when senator). He has ruled by dictatorial fiat to get the EPA to regulate carbon emissions and a host of other decrees?

    I fail to see what the dope is whining about, but I am sure some leftwing loon will educate me.

     

     

     

     



    Jobs bills.  A second stimulus.  DREAM Act.  Payroll Tax cut extensions.  Equal Pay for men and women.  Increased minimum wage.  Gun control.  Dozens of appointees.

     

     

     

     

    And the legislation that has passed is compromised legislation, as if Republicans had actually come to the table.  If Obama had known from day one that Republicans had no interest in compromise, the ACA would include a public option, if not be a single-payer system.

     

     

     

     

     

     



    I guess what you want is a SloMag/Obama dictatorship. Have you looked up hypcorisy in the dictionary lately? While you are at it, look up compromise too. Seems like you have no clue what that means either. Just a hint for you: compromise does not mean taking your political opponent's position.

     

     

     

     

     



    The past two sessions of congress, with Republican House control, are on pace to be the least productive in the history of our country.

     

     

    The two sessions prior, under Dem House control, saw more than twice the number of fillibusters of any four year period in history.

    Joe Biden holds the record (throughout all US history) for the longest tenure as VP without casting a tie-breaking vote in the Senate.

    Liberals wanted single-payer or a public option instead of the ACA.  Liberals wanted the DREAM act and got nothing.  Liberals wanted banking regulation, and they got Dodd-Frank.  Liberals wanted gun control and got nothing.  Liberals wanted to close tax loop-holes for jobs being shipped overseas, and got nothing.  Why don't you define compromise for me, because it sounds like you think it means the minority party should play keep-away with legislation.

    Here's a challenge for you - you asked what bills Republicans blocked and I gave you a by no means complete list.  When Republicans last had control of both houses, and the white house (2000 - 2006) what bills did Dems block?  How many times did they go along with legislation from the majority party that they did not agree with?  How many times was Dick Cheney a tie-breaking vote?  If you are silent on this challenge, or if you change the subject, it's safe to assume you haven't really wrapped your head around the meaning of hypocrisy.

     

     

    Are you serious?

    Liberals wanted something and Republicans are just supposed to cave in, agree and say "whatever you want King Barack"?

    Your complaint should go to the WHite House for not proposing anything that you want. ACA is just another step towards the politics of single payer. Nothing better than to f up on ACA and suggest that we need single payer because of "obstruction". 

    You state some nonsense about the "productivity" of Congress without telling us how you measure it??? As far as I am concerned, the most productive they can be is to go on recess 24x7x365.

    Government has totally f'd up healthcare, education and housing. If liberals were honest (LOL!!) they would want to solve problems of poverty, housing, healthcare, education, etc. and go out of existence. But all they do is create more problems to give themselves a justification to continue.

    I'd like to point out how much of a complete mowron you are with your whining when you say Democrats wanted banking regulation and they got Dodd-Frank. Dodd-Frank. Two DEMOCRATS. Who do you think they had write the bill? 

    The real battle is not conservative-liberal but ruling class vs the rest of us.

    Wake up.

     

     

     

     



     

     

     

    Productivity of congress is based on the number of laws passed.  If you want no laws passed you must be happy with the country as it is.  

    Poverty, housing, healthcare and education issues have been around far longer than either party, and I'm sure will survive both.

    Dodd-Frank is an example of Democratic compromise.  Scott Brown broke the fillibuster.  The legislation is so compromised, Russ Feingold voted against it.  

    And you are silent on the challenge, proving beyond all doubt you are a hypocrite unworthy of further debate.

     

     

     



    Productivity of Congress is judged on the numbers of laws passed?  That's not the standard I would choose.  The issue with congress is not so much productivity, as that is a busy-work metric.  The proper measure is effectiveness.

     

     

    Let me suggest effectiveness of congress is probably best measured by where we are/trajectory on things like the misery index, interest rates, # of government spending in GDP, things like that.

     



     

    The primary job of congress is to create new laws.  Those laws can fix previous laws that have proven unsuccessful, but if laws are not created, or at least sent to the President to sign, then Congress is unproductive.



    It is not a volume thing, it is an effectiveness thing.  The job of the congress is as follows:

    To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;

    To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

    To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

    To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

    To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

    To establish Post Offices and post Roads;

    To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

    To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

    To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;

    To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

    To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

    To provide and maintain a Navy;

    To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

    To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

    To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

    To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Eerection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;--And

    To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

     

    Nothing in that suggest volume, but management, i.e. effectiveness.

     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share