Senate GOP letter calls for blocking most bills

Yurt said:
Pelosi will lead Democrats "in pulling on the president's shirttails to make sure that he doesn't move from center-right to far-right," said Rep. Lynn Woolsey, D-Calif., a co-chair of the liberal Progressive Caucus in the House. "We think if he'd done less compromising in the last two years, there's a good chance we'd have had a jobs bill that would have created real jobs, and then we wouldn't even be worrying about having lost elections."
Click to expand...

it amazes me just how detached from reality hardcore Democrats actually are.....can anyone identify ANY jobs bill that Obama compromised on?......
 
Yurt said:
Pelosi's new mission: Block Obama deals with GOP

WASHINGTON — Hers was the face on the grainy negative TV ads that helped defeat scores of Democrats. His agenda, re-election chances and legacy are on the line.

Rep. Nancy Pelosi of California, chosen after a messy family feud among Democrats to remain as their leader in the new Congress, and President Barack Obama share a keen interest in repairing their injured party after this month's staggering losses.

But Pelosi's mandate is diverging from the president's at a critical time, with potentially damaging consequences for Obama's ability to cut deals with Republicans in the new Congress.

Top politics news Pelosi's new mission: Block Obama deals with GOP
Hers was the face on the grainy negative TV ads that helped defeat scores of Democrats. His agenda, re-election chances and legacy are on the line.

..Their partnership is strained after an election in which Pelosi and many Democrats feel the White House failed them. They believe Obama and his team muddled the party's message and didn't act soon enough to provide cover for incumbents who cast tough votes for his marquee initiatives.

Pelosi will lead Democrats "in pulling on the president's shirttails to make sure that he doesn't move from center-right to far-right," said Rep. Lynn Woolsey, D-Calif., a co-chair of the liberal Progressive Caucus in the House. "We think if he'd done less compromising in the last two years, there's a good chance we'd have had a jobs bill that would have created real jobs, and then we wouldn't even be worrying about having lost elections."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40357872...-capitol_hill/

http://www.justplainpolitics.com/showthread.php?t=29377

and of course you missed the dems blocking the earmark bill....

:)
Click to expand...

Your 1st response is a "they do it too?"

Really?
 
Onceler said:
Your 1st response is a "they do it too?"

Really?
Click to expand...

and your first response is too attack...

this guy totally ignored thread and times when the dems said no and yet harps on the pubs....thats hypocrisy, you know, something you love to call the right out for but never the left and when you get called on it, you whine that its the hypocrisy card...you know, just more of your boring intellectual dishonesty
 
Yurt said:
and your first response is too attack...

this guy totally ignored thread and times when the dems said no and yet harps on the pubs....thats hypocrisy, you know, something you love to call the right out for but never the left and when you get called on it, you whine that its the hypocrisy card...you know, just more of your boring intellectual dishonesty
Click to expand...

LOL

That represented an "attack" to you?

I just thought it was funny that your very first comment on something like this is "they do it too!" And it's funny that your first response on the Fox thread was to defend Fox.

I won't use the H word, but someone would be hard-pressed to call you objective...
 
Onceler said:
LOL

That represented an "attack" to you?

I just thought it was funny that your very first comment on something like this is "they do it too!" And it's funny that your first response on the Fox thread was to defend Fox.

I won't use the H word, but someone would be hard-pressed to call you objective...
Click to expand...

coming from you that means i'm objective....as you're one of the least objective people here...

do you deny that both parties can be the so called party of no depending on who is in office? yes or no.
 
Yurt said:
coming from you that means i'm objective....as you're one of the least objective people here...

do you deny that both parties can be the so called party of no depending on who is in office? yes or no.
Click to expand...

YES

First, Tip O'Neill's Congress set a gold standard for bipartisanship during the Reagan years by working w/ the President.

I will also heap praise on the Newt Gingrich Congress in the '90's for its work w/ Clinton.

In both cases, the opposition party was definitely NOT a party of "no." The minority parties in those era's also worked toward compromise much more than what we're used to now.

The GOP Congress of Obama's 1st term definitely set a new bar for "party of no," imo. They were vocal about it, and took pride in it. That is indisputable.
 
Onceler said:
YES

First, Tip O'Neill's Congress set a gold standard for bipartisanship during the Reagan years by working w/ the President.

I will also heap praise on the Newt Gingrich Congress in the '90's for its work w/ Clinton.

In both cases, the opposition party was definitely NOT a party of "no." The minority parties in those era's also worked toward compromise much more than what we're used to now.

The GOP Congress of Obama's 1st term definitely set a new bar for "party of no," imo. They were vocal about it, and took pride in it. That is indisputable.
Click to expand...

ok...i did not knwo that about the prior years...thanks

why are you leaving out the dem party now? that link indicates they are vocal and proud about it as well.....
 
Onceler said:
YES

First, Tip O'Neill's Congress set a gold standard for bipartisanship during the Reagan years by working w/ the President.

I will also heap praise on the Newt Gingrich Congress in the '90's for its work w/ Clinton.

In both cases, the opposition party was definitely NOT a party of "no." The minority parties in those era's also worked toward compromise much more than what we're used to now.

The GOP Congress of Obama's 1st term definitely set a new bar for "party of no," imo. They were vocal about it, and took pride in it. That is indisputable.
Click to expand...

Yes, but in both of those cases, the opposition party had control of at least ONE House of Congress.

That is why this country should divide the power. We have seen reckless behavior from both parties when they control all three houses.

The best years this country has seen since Ike came under Reagan/O'Neil and Clinton/Gingrich.

As you know, when both parties share control, it forces moderation and limits the effectiveness of the extremists in both parties.
 
Superfreak said:
Yes, but in both of those cases, the opposition party had control of at least ONE House of Congress.

That is why this country should divide the power. We have seen reckless behavior from both parties when they control all three houses.

The best years this country has seen since Ike came under Reagan/O'Neil and Clinton/Gingrich.
As you know, when both parties share control, it forces moderation and limits the effectiveness of the extremists in both parties.
Click to expand...

Those Congresses took great pride in their ability to get work done despite not having full control.

It's really such a different era now. Pretty much everything is just geared toward winning the next election; if a party thinks they gain advantage by obstructing, they'll do it, regardless of how much it hurts Americans in the long run.

It's a bummer. I don't want to get all melodramatic, but a lot of times, I feel like we're witnessing the end of the empire - the last days of our time as a superpower. Our gov't just can't work like this....
 
Onceler said:
I thought it was about a Senate GOP letter.

Did you read the thread title?
Click to expand...

really...it is only about that...see....this is why you're not objective...

so much for 'bi-partisan' cooperation
Click to expand...

the guys first line of the thread...he brings up bi partisan cooperation...but you only want to make this about the gop...thats not objective in the slightest
 
Yurt said:
really...it is only about that...see....this is why you're not objective...



the guys first line of the thread...he brings up bi partisan cooperation...but you only want to make this about the gop...thats not objective in the slightest
Click to expand...

That's absurd spin. The OP is about a SENATE GOP letter.

What you're arguing for is not only justification for a "they do it too!" argument on every thread with a general theme such as hypocrisy, but an obligation for posters on both sides to respond with "they do it too!" justifications.
 
Onceler said:
That's absurd spin. The OP is about a SENATE GOP letter.

What you're arguing for is not only justification for a "they do it too!" argument on every thread with a general theme such as hypocrisy, but an obligation for posters on both sides to respond with "they do it too!" justifications.
Click to expand...

really....you keep up this fantasy that the OP is just aboutg the GOP letter...yet you keep willfully ignoring the obvious...once again, here it is:

so much for 'bi-partisan' cooperation
Click to expand...

good lord, that was the OP's first comment...but you would have us believe bi partisan cooperation is ONLY when the gop do or do not cooperate, it has nothing to do with dems....if we are going to discuss bi partisan cooperation, according to you, we must only talk about whether the gop cooperates, not whether the dems cooperate....

yeah...real objective onceler :rolleyes:
 
WHAT???

Are they actually going to use a stragety of voting against bills they support in order to accomplish a larger goal?

Will any of them vote no on bills they previously voted yes on?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top