birdog1960 Posted November 5, 2010 Posted November 5, 2010 It's less that than the whole idea of calling the minority party "obstructionist". The idea seems to be that the minority party should just bend over and take it up the ass, simply because they're the minority party. That's a completely puerile and retarded sentiment. Particularly coming from Democrats now, who five years ago, when the Republicans controlled everything, thought being "obstructionist" was a virtue. (Ditto the whining coming from Republicans, who five years ago used fear-mongering w/r/t national security to label the Republicans as "unAmerican", much as the Democrats fear-mongering over health care has done over the past two years.) the idea is to craft legislation that both parties can stomach and still improve the country...and both parties fail miserably, entrenched in ideology with practicality thrown to the wind, often not even engaging in civil dialogue. the minority parties have been obstructionist and the resulting legislation predictably ineffectual or nonexistent. this is no way to run the country and both parties have behaved badly in both roles. after today's rhetoric we can expect more of the same for the foreseeable future.
IDBillzFan Posted November 5, 2010 Posted November 5, 2010 You mean DO to obstruct. Act like whiny little babies... Scream holler and delay. Just look how HC had to be passed. Bottom line is that Republicans don't know when to quit. The problem with Democrats is that they quit too easily. Control of the WH. Control of the Senate. Control of the House. And you still cry about obstruction? Seriously? And you think BRADY is a whining little B word? Maybe if the left did what was right, like focus on the economy and jobless numbers, instead of trying to convince everyone that a payoff stimulus and health care bill was enough, there wouldn't have been any obstruction. But no. Children can still be covered by their parents until they're 26, so it was obviously all worth it. Is it any wonder your party just got its ass handed to it in quite possibly the most embarrassing losses in modern history?
ExiledInIllinois Posted November 5, 2010 Posted November 5, 2010 there wouldn't have been any obstruction. Thank you for finally admitting it.
DC Tom Posted November 5, 2010 Posted November 5, 2010 the idea is to craft legislation that both parties can stomach and still improve the country...and both parties fail miserably, entrenched in ideology with practicality thrown to the wind, often not even engaging in civil dialogue. the minority parties have been obstructionist and the resulting legislation predictably ineffectual or nonexistent. this is no way to run the country and both parties have behaved badly in both roles. after today's rhetoric we can expect more of the same for the foreseeable future. And the MEANS by which bipartisan legislation is supposed to be constructed is by the minority blocking that which is shamelessly partisan from the majority party. That's why compromises are achieved. Like you said, both parties are miserable in that regard, in either role. And it's not changing soon, not while both parties put the party over the country's welfare - e.g. Pelosi's asinine "Republicans suck, Democrats are saving America" partisan speech before the bailout bill vote, and the couple dozen Republican lawmakers who acted like spoiled children and voted to throw the credit markets in the toilet because Nancy hurt their feelings.
Nanker Posted November 5, 2010 Posted November 5, 2010 You mean DO to obstruct. Act like whiny little babies... Scream holler and delay. Just look how HC had to be passed. Bottom line is that Republicans don't know when to quit. The problem with Democrats is that they quit too easily. Just look at the Gov. race in Illinois. Why doesn't Brady concede? He must be "praying" that he will win, that is all he's got: "prayer." Mathematically he can't win... Yet, he remains right there, OBSTRUCTING. Typical. "The governor's race in Illinois appears finally over with the Associated Press on Thursday reporting that Gov. Pat Quinn, the Democrat, had an insurmountable lead over Republican Bill Brady, a state senator. Quinn, who had a 19,400 vote lead over Brady, was declared the winner by the AP after the news service analyzed absentee and provisional ballots and determined that there weren't enough votes left for Brady to overcome Quinn's lead. Brady said he won't concede, however, until all the votes are officially counted." What a !@#$ing little whiny B word Brady is Al Franken was. Fixed it for you. Oh, but that was different! Keep telling yourself how bad the election results would have been if it weren't for President BO. Why, it would have been a disaster. Think of all the Democrat Senate and Congressional jobs he saved - or created by shear virtue of the strength of his coattails. Plus - add in all the Democrat Governorships and state legislature jobs he saved or created through his magnificent campaigning this year. Then you can really begin to believe in all those other millions of jobs that he saved or created. Why, we're on the road to political and economic nirvana. Democrats should take comfort in the Constitutional fact that only a third of the Senate runs for election every two years. If the entire body was up for a vote this year, they'd have a caucus of about 25.
IDBillzFan Posted November 5, 2010 Posted November 5, 2010 (edited) Thank you for finally admitting it. What I asked about was specific examples. If you inferred from that request that I believed there was no obstruction, I can't help you with that. I will say it again; the cry of "GOP obstructionism" is just a whiny president trying to explain why he has no ability to lead. Control of the WH and both houses, and he was barely able to pass a gall stone without carving up hunks of the body just to get to the pebble. Suggesting it was because of the GOP obstruction is like saying you struck out at bat because the right fielder was looking at you funny. But if it makes you feel any better, sure...the GOP kept the government -- fully controlled by the left -- from doing anything meaningful. It had nothing to do with the fact that Obama has all the leadership skills of a crash test dummy. Edited November 5, 2010 by LABillzFan
Magox Posted November 5, 2010 Posted November 5, 2010 I think Obama finally gets it now. President Obama says that the idea that he failed to persuade Americans that his major accomplishments would help the country is a “fair argument.” In an interview with “60 Minutes,” excerpts of which were published by CBS News on Friday, Obama said “we haven’t always been successful” at selling his pitch to voters. “I take personal responsibility for that,” he said. “And it's something that I've got to examine carefully ... as I go forward." "I think that, over the course of two years, we were so busy and so focused on getting a bunch of stuff done that we stopped paying attention to the fact that leadership isn't just legislation,” Obama said. “That it's a matter of persuading people. And giving them confidence and bringing them together. And setting a tone.” Yeah right.
Doc Posted November 5, 2010 Posted November 5, 2010 Apparently they printed only 21,000 ballots for a city with 68,000 voters. Morons. It's going to be a mess because whoever loses will contest the results. The latest is that the mayor of Bridgeport (CT) used 911 to reverse call just Democrats to come out and vote. Among other "voting irregularities."
IDBillzFan Posted November 5, 2010 Posted November 5, 2010 I think Obama finally gets it now. Yeah right. If he could just explain it ONE MORE TIME, maybe it will all make sense. This guy is some kind of special.
Recommended Posts