did obama actually show bipartisanship or compromise?

[Onceler]

LOL. Seriously? This is what you have to defend this? You have got to be kidding me.

One more Democrat that thinks its okay to do just like Bush did. We'll just add it to our list, and now I'll explain the parts that you missed.

Did you even try to follow the conversation? The Democrats are HAVING PROBLEMS passing the crap they thought was important, even though they had a supermajority in both houses. Then you step in and say this?

Instead of taking responsibility for their issues, they've taken to trying to say that the group who couldn't even filibuster without their consent is at fault and totally ignoring what their own constituency says about bills.

Catch up and quit being silly.

Damo - I am making no judgment on the current proceedings; I am taking issue with the implication of your original comment, which seemed to drawing a comparison to how the Bush admin handled things that was favorable to the Bush admin - an admin notorious for its lack of bipartisanship when it didn't need to be bipartisan, and for 51% solutions.

Did I read that original comment incorrectly? I am not saying that it is "okay to do just as Bush did." You seem to have been saying "they should strive to do as Bush did."

 

[cancel2 2022]

Dude, you need to chill bro. You help no one's cause dropping N bombs like that.

It is a waste of time trying to talk to this twat.

 

[Cypress]

Originally Posted by Cypress

Why are you afraid to use the word in public, at work, or where people you don't know can hear you?

Why are you only comfortable using it "all the time" with your punk white friends, or from the safety and anonymity of a message board?

Seems pretty fucking cowardly.

1). Because obama acted like a nigger yesterday.

2). Because obama is as much if not more racist than anyone I know. That makes him a nigger.

3). Because when I call obama a nigger I know it upsets you liberal sissies to the core, and I love to do that.

4). I've not only said nigger in public, I've called a nigger a nigger right to his face,

right after he called me a cracker.

..............

HaHa! Yeah, riiiiight cupcake. Calling black children or mentally retarded black people niggers ain't courageous. And I'm betting those are the only people you have the cajones to call nigger to their face. Why don't you stop hiding behind a message board screen name, and start using the word nigger at work?

Carry on Klan dude.

 

[Damocles]

Damo - I am making no judgment on the current proceedings; I am taking issue with the implication of your original comment, which seemed to drawing a comparison to how the Bush admin handled things that was favorable to the Bush admin - an admin notorious for its lack of bipartisanship when it didn't need to be bipartisan, and for 51% solutions.

Did I read that original comment incorrectly? I am not saying that it is "okay to do just as Bush did." You seem to have been saying "they should strive to do as Bush did."

So, no you didn't read the previous conversation and just knee-jerked your way into suggesting something I didn't say.

"Favorable"?

My point is saying, "Bush did it too" has become the mantra of the Ds. This suggests that if Bush did it, it's cool for Obama who spent time saying what in 2005? Well, you've seen the video.

My point is, and will continue to be, that you have NO EXCUSE and the attempt to blame the party in the superminority is ridiculous. "It's the Rs fault!" is total rubbish when you have the supermajority and they cannot even filibuster without your approval.

You guys had 60 VOTES, 60 of them and are now talking using a parliamentary trick in order to pass your President's most important agenda item and are trying to blame the party that had only 40. People in America aren't that stupid.

 

[Onceler]

Yeah, imagine how low he has stooped to actually emulate George W. Bush. It is also interesting that the Rs never had a supermajority in either house yet were capable of passing bills (unfortunately Bush appears to be far more successful at actually getting things done without, as Obama described circumventing that particular rule in 2005, circumventing the vision of the founders).

No knee jerk. Here is your comment.

Are you not standing by these words? "It is also interesting that the Rs never had a supermajority in either house, yet were capable of passing bills"....."Bush appears to be far more successful at actually getting things done without circumventing the vision of the founders."

Hard to run from those words, and what you were trying to say. Unless this is one of those occasions where you're just trying to "encourage debate"?

I await your deft spin....

 

[Mott the Hoople]

1.) Republicans were the only ones at the meeting to present ideas.

Actually they Presented no ideas. They only opposed the current plan.

2.) Reconciliation will be political suicide if Dems use it here.

Actually Republicants have used this far more in the past then Democrats have and it hasn't escaped my notice that they didn't all die.

3.) George W. Bush is no longer the President.

Thank God!

4.) George W. Bush doesn't hold public office anymore.

Hallaluja, were saved!

5.) George W. Bush is not the President.

and things are looking better all ready!

 

[Damocles]

No knee jerk. Here is your comment.

Are you not standing by these words? "It is also interesting that the Rs never had a supermajority in either house, yet were capable of passing bills"....."Bush appears to be far more successful at actually getting things done without circumventing the vision of the founders."

Hard to run from those words, and what you were trying to say. Unless this is one of those occasions where you're just trying to "encourage debate"?

I await your deft spin....

You may await as you will, you attempt a few out of context "quotes" and then say that I am the one spinning.

The reality is, the Ds try to blame the superminority for their failures, that is no excuse. In order to do this they consistently point to Bush as having done what was "abysmal" in their view back then, but suddenly is okay.

Even the President found it abysmal, the Majority leader of the Senate found it abysmal, yet now are attempting to use it and say, "Bush did it" in their defense.

Stooping to what they found abysmal with Bush, is simply stooping to 'Bush' and then cheering for what you used to find abysmal.

Hypocrite.

 

[Onceler]

You may await as you will, you attempt a few out of context "quotes" and then say that I am the one spinning.

The reality is, the Ds try to blame the superminority for their failures, that is no excuse. In order to do this they consistently point to Bush as having done what was "abysmal" in their view back then, but suddenly is okay.

Even the President found it abysmal, the Majority leader of the Senate found it abysmal, yet now are attempting to use it and say, "Bush did it" in their defense.

Stooping to what they found abysmal with Bush, is simply being Bush.

It's not, though - according to you. According to you, Bush was "far more successful," and the implication was that Republicans in general were much better at passing legislation without "circumventing the vision of the founders."

It sounded almost gaga when you wrote it. It certainly wasn't about the Dems being "just like Bush."

 

[Damocles]

It's not, though - according to you. According to you, Bush was "far more successful," and the implication was that Republicans in general were much better at passing legislation without "circumventing the vision of the founders."

It sounded almost gaga when you wrote it. It certainly wasn't about the Dems being "just like Bush."

Bush was, he didn't have a supermajority and got his important legislation passed often without resorting to this particular (what was then to you) "abysmal" trick.

It isn't B.S., the Ds actually say "Bush did it" in defense of their actions. I was against it then, you were against it then...

Interesting that only one of us is for it now.

According to you, it's all good when the Ds say "Bush did it" as a powerful example of why they should emulate his actions.

 

[Onceler]

Bush was, he didn't have a supermajority and got his important legislation passed often without resorting to this particular (what was then to you) "abysmal" trick.

It isn't B.S., the Ds actually say "Bush did it" in defense of their actions. I was against it then, you were against it then...

Interesting that only one of us is for it now.

According to you, it's all good when the Ds say "Bush did it" as a powerful example of why they should emulate his actions.

I haven't said anything either way. As usual, you are putting words in my mouth.

I'm just commenting on your clear devotion to the Bush admin & its legacy.

 

[Cypress]

You forget that the "problems" were adhering to the fallacy of the "60 vote" requirement....it really only takes 51. All legal and above board.

They are taking responsibility, by taking measures to nullify such POS wedges as Liberman, and Dixiecrat/blue dog Dems. And they're doing it WITHOUT a Dem version of Tom Delay, or Ashcroft or Lott or Gingrich.

Reconcilliation is a senate rule, just like the fillibuster is a senate rule.


I can't ever recall a single time prior to the Obama administration, when George Bush fans complained about the use of reconciliation to pass major bills.

In 1999, the (Republican) Senate for the first time used reconciliation to pass legislation that would substantially worsen the government's fiscal position: the Taxpayer Refund and Relief Act 1999. This act was passed when the Government was expected to run large surpluses: it was subsequently vetoed by President Clinton. A similar situation happened in 2000, when the (Republican) Senate again used reconciliation to pass the Marriage Tax Relief Reconciliation Act 2000, which was also vetoed by Clinton. At the time the use of the reconciliation procedure to pass such bills was controversial.[3]

During the administration of President George W. Bush, (the Republican) Congress used reconciliation to enact three major tax cuts, each of which substantially increased the deficit. These tax cuts were set to lapse after 10 years to satisfy the Byrd Rule. Efforts to use reconciliation to open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil drilling failed.

Wikipedia

 

[Damocles]

I haven't said anything either way. As usual, you are putting words in my mouth.

I'm just commenting on your clear devotion to the Bush admin & its legacy.

No. You jump in without reading the previous conversation and attempt to "defend" a position you didn't know somebody else was taking. You knee-jerked yourself into it, then don't want to take any responsibility for it.

You emulate Bush rather well too.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

So, no you didn't read the previous conversation and just knee-jerked your way into suggesting something I didn't say.

"Favorable"?

My point is saying, "Bush did it too" has become the mantra of the Ds. This suggests that if Bush did it, it's cool for Obama who spent time saying what in 2005? Well, you've seen the video.

My point is, and will continue to be, that you have NO EXCUSE and the attempt to blame the party in the superminority is ridiculous. "It's the Rs fault!" is total rubbish when you have the supermajority and they cannot even filibuster without your approval.

You guys had 60 VOTES, 60 of them and are now talking using a parliamentary trick in order to pass your President's most important agenda item and are trying to blame the party that had only 40. People in America aren't that stupid.

I don't understand your point Damo. I thought we had majority rule not super majority rule.

If the majority of this nation wants health care reform and it passes constitutional muster, why shouldn't we? Why should we be burduned with having of over ride a super majority?

Well as for who is right and who is wrong and who knows what the nation need, Obama is right, that is what elections are for.

If the majority of this nation opposses this version of health care reform then they will show that during the elections. Right now the Democrats have the votes to make this law.

 

[Onceler]

No. You jump in without reading the previous conversation and attempt to "defend" a position you didn't know somebody else was taking. You knee-jerked yourself into it, then don't want to take any responsibility for it.

You emulate Bush rather well too.

My response was #7 on this thread; I had read through the previous 6 posts, including your Bush-praising response, which is what I was commenting on.

I understand that you probably posted that in haste, and have a hard time defending those words now, but it is what it is.

 

[Damocles]

I don't understand your point Damo. I thought we had majority rule not super majority rule.

If the majority of this nation wants health care reform and it passes constitutional muster, why shouldn't we? Why should we be burduned with having of over ride a super majority?

Well as for who is right and who is wrong and who knows what the nation need, Obama is right, that is what elections are for.

If the majority of this nation opposses this version of health care reform then they will show that during the elections. Right now the Democrats have the votes to make this law.

*sigh*

You don't see my point?

The post he quoted of mine was in response directly to an assertion how "Bush did it too". This shouldn't be the measure of good for you unless you are a hypocrite. He obviously didn't read that previous post, knee-jerked into how I supposedly thought and was wrong about it.

 

[Damocles]

My response was #7 on this thread; I had read through the previous 6 posts, including your Bush-praising response, which is what I was commenting on.

I understand that you probably posted that in haste, and have a hard time defending those words now, but it is what it is.

*sigh*

*sigh*

You don't see my point?

The post he quoted of mine was in response directly to an assertion how "Bush did it too". This shouldn't be the measure of good for you unless you are a hypocrite. He obviously didn't read that previous post, knee-jerked into how I supposedly thought and was wrong about it.

 

[Onceler]

*sigh*

You don't see my point?

The post he quoted of mine was in response directly to an assertion how "Bush did it too". This shouldn't be the measure of good for you unless you are a hypocrite. He obviously didn't read that previous post, knee-jerked into how I supposedly thought and was wrong about it.

The only reason Bush was "far more successful" (in your estimation) was because Republicans were better at marketing, and always have been. They scared the Dems into fearing the "obstructionist" label much more than the current GOP does.

Bush was NOT more bipartisan. When he had a majority, he was famous for the 51% solution, and despite a lot of talk, the Dems were more reluctant to threaten filibuster overall. And Bush was NOT successful with major policy initiatives like Social Security.

Obama & the Dems have handled this poorly, but I do see it as more of a 2-way street than you. The GOP has taken AS MUCH of a "our way or the highway" approach as the admin has. I don't like it on either side, but it's our gov't since the '90's.

 

[Damocles]

The only reason Bush was "far more successful" (in your estimation) was because Republicans were better at marketing, and always have been. They scared the Dems into fearing the "obstructionist" label much more than the current GOP does.

Bush was NOT more bipartisan. When he had a majority, he was famous for the 51% solution, and despite a lot of talk, the Dems were more reluctant to threaten filibuster overall. And Bush was NOT successful with major policy initiatives like Social Security.

Obama & the Dems have handled this poorly, but I do see it as more of a 2-way street than you. The GOP has taken AS MUCH of a "our way or the highway" approach as the admin has. I don't like it on either side, but it's our gov't since the '90's.

Right, another attempt to blame a superminority for problems with your own party's position.

Bush did it too isn't a grand measure, and some of you forget that some of us didn't support Bush all that much. The problem I had with your post was the assumption of what I supposedly "thought", rather than reading what I actually said.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

I don't understand your point Damo. I thought we had majority rule not super majority rule.

If the majority of this nation wants health care reform and it passes constitutional muster, why shouldn't we? Why should we be burduned with having of over ride a super majority?

Well as for who is right and who is wrong and who knows what the nation need, Obama is right, that is what elections are for.

If the majority of this nation opposses this version of health care reform then they will show that during the elections. Right now the Democrats have the votes to make this law.

When Democrats were obstructing Bush judicial nominees, we were lectured by pinheads about how our Constitution and form of government was designed to give the minority power, it was what made our country great! Majority rule as opposed to Super-majority rule was said to be "mob rule" and totally anti-American. Liberals screamed and cried at the Republicans threatening the "Nuclear Option" because this was an affront to everything America stood for! Now you two-faced, talk-out-of-both-sides-of-your-mouth CLOWNS, are taking the exact polar opposite stance! Do you really think people have totally forgotten your position back then? It wasn't all that long ago, I don't think anyone has forgotten. This type of behavior can only be described as sociopathic.

 

[Onceler]

Right, another attempt to blame a superminority for problems with your own party's position.

Bush did it too isn't a grand measure, and some of you forget that some of us didn't support Bush all that much. The problem I had with your post was the assumption of what I supposedly "thought", rather than reading what I actually said.

Nah; I'm just taking issue with attempts to portray Bush or the current GOP as somehow "better," or "far more successful."

Obama may have no interest in compromise, but neither does the GOP. The only difference is that the GOP isn't really interested in addressing healthcare as a whole, either (and you're deluding yourself if you think they are).