REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

The early Great Deceiver gets the loot

POSTED BY: KANEMAN
UPDATED: Wednesday, April 6, 2011 14:58
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 1631
PAGE 1 of 1

Monday, April 4, 2011 7:30 AM

KANEMAN


WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama formally launched his re-election campaign Monday, urging grass-roots supporters central to his first White House run to mobilize again to protect the change he's brought over the past two years.

The official start of his second White House bid, in the midst of three wars, a budget fight with Congress, and sluggish economic recovery, comes 20 months before the November 2012 election.

"We've always known that lasting change wouldn't come quickly or easily. It never does," the Democrat said in an e-mail announcing his candidacy to more than 13 million supporters. "But as my administration and folks across the country fight to protect the progress we've made — and make more — we also need to begin mobilizing for 2012, long before the time comes for me to begin campaigning in earnest."


Alright Libtards, be the suckers that you are and start chanting....Change Change Change Change Change


Hilarious.


NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, April 4, 2011 7:34 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


Quote:

We've always known that lasting change wouldn't come quickly or easily. It never do
Yup. Much as you like to blame Obama for everything and forget the enormous burden he came into, the fact is that change IS taking place--not enough and not fast enough--but I find it amazing that as much of the economy has turned around in such a short time, something you and your buddies are quite happy to ignore.

As to "getting the loot", every candidate gets funds for election or re-election; the President is no different.

And I still maintain that "Great Deceiver" applies to Bush FAR more than to Obama, or most Presidents throughout history.

Assinine post.


Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off



NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, April 4, 2011 7:52 AM

STORYMARK


Quote:

Originally posted by Niki2:

Assinine post.



It's Kanie. Expect nothing more.

"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, April 4, 2011 8:15 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


You're right. My bad. There's five minutes of my life I'll never get back...


Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off



NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, April 4, 2011 8:24 AM

KANEMAN


Quote:

Originally posted by Niki2:
Quote:

We've always known that lasting change wouldn't come quickly or easily. It never do
Yup. Much as you like to blame Obama for everything and forget the enormous burden he came into, the fact is that change IS taking place--not enough and not fast enough--but I find it amazing that as much of the economy has turned around in such a short time, something you and your buddies are quite happy to ignore.

As to "getting the loot", every candidate gets funds for election or re-election; the President is no different.

And I still maintain that "Great Deceiver" applies to Bush FAR more than to Obama, or most Presidents throughout history.

Assinine post.


Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off






Wouldn't come quickly? Hilarious. Then why make promises about troops coming home? Bush didn't deceive any neo-cons, they were in lock-step with him. Obama HAS deceived you libtards...And it is too funny watching you idiots pretend not...hilarious. You should think more and Maddow-ize less.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, April 4, 2011 8:32 AM

KANEMAN


Speaking of change:

US dollar values

Obama elected Jan. 2009 $82.7330
end of march 2011 $70.5401



Change Change Change Change Change

Funny shit-heads you libtards....are.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, April 4, 2011 10:08 AM

HARDWARE


Quote:

Originally posted by Niki2:
Quote:

We've always known that lasting change wouldn't come quickly or easily. It never do
Yup. Much as you like to blame Obama for everything and forget the enormous burden he came into, the fact is that change IS taking place--not enough and not fast enough--but I find it amazing that as much of the economy has turned around in such a short time, something you and your buddies are quite happy to ignore.

As to "getting the loot", every candidate gets funds for election or re-election; the President is no different.





The first two years he had a democratically controlled congress and a fawning media. What, exactly, were the obstacles to his implementation of "Hope" and "Change"? The republicans could offer no real obstacles. Remember? Not enough representation to filibuster? If there's a failure to implement something it has to fall on the democratic leadership.

By his declaring early, and with no democratic opposition, he has much longer to run fundraisers and whip up his horde of acorns while the republicans and 3rd party candidates get themselves sorted. He's gone and declared before republicans have announced their candidacies and they still have to go through primaries! I smell a little fear coming from 1600 Pennsylvania. Maybe 0bama should get some advice from his spiritual and historical predecessor, Jimmy Carter?

The more I get to know people the more I like my dogs.

...and he that has no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one. Luke 22:36

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, April 4, 2011 5:02 PM

FREMDFIRMA



Hell, I made the Carter comparison afore he even got elected, cause I knew what'd happen...

Thing is, in order to be afraid, he'd have to have something TO be afraid of it, and certainly the so-called opposition hasn't much to offer on the pathetic mourners bench of would-be potentials, downright wince-worthy, that.

Nor does his own party have any effective replacement cause they're a bunch of gutless pansies, all full of piss and wind, and not much else.

What rooks me worst is that such are prime conditions for tyranny, cause eventually the people will wind up supporting even a jackboot in hopes they will "Do Something!" - and then find to their horror, indeed they will, just not anything they wanted (or in some cases, EXACTLY what they "wanted", see my previous comments on that), and so forth, and so on.

Me, anytime someone says someone should "Do Something", my first thought is well shit, I'm Somebody - only yanno, without the resource and power base of a career politician, tho...

For now.

You could do worse, yanno.

-Frem

I do not serve the Blind God.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, April 5, 2011 6:28 AM

HARDWARE


Quote:

Originally posted by Fremdfirma:

Hell, I made the Carter comparison afore he even got elected, cause I knew what'd happen...

Thing is, in order to be afraid, he'd have to have something TO be afraid of it, and certainly the so-called opposition hasn't much to offer on the pathetic mourners bench of would-be potentials, downright wince-worthy, that.

Nor does his own party have any effective replacement cause they're a bunch of gutless pansies, all full of piss and wind, and not much else.

What rooks me worst is that such are prime conditions for tyranny, cause eventually the people will wind up supporting even a jackboot in hopes they will "Do Something!" - and then find to their horror, indeed they will, just not anything they wanted (or in some cases, EXACTLY what they "wanted", see my previous comments on that), and so forth, and so on.

Me, anytime someone says someone should "Do Something", my first thought is well shit, I'm Somebody - only yanno, without the resource and power base of a career politician, tho...

For now.

You could do worse, yanno.


Hitler didn't get into office because of a popular vote. He got into office because career politicians thought they could control him.

I am NOT comparing you to Hitler. I am agreeing with you that when people get sick enough of the status quo they will elect a radical.

The more I get to know people the more I like my dogs.

...and he that has no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one. Luke 22:36

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, April 5, 2011 7:15 AM

STORYMARK


Quote:

Originally posted by Hardware:
I am agreeing with you that when people get sick enough of the status quo they will elect a radical.




Which brought us the great teabagger election last year.

"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, April 5, 2011 7:55 AM

KANEMAN


Quote:

Originally posted by Storymark:
Quote:

Originally posted by Hardware:
I am agreeing with you that when people get sick enough of the status quo they will elect a radical.




Which brought us the great teabagger election last year.

"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."




...and Obama. Thank you neo-cons.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, April 5, 2011 8:33 AM

FREMDFIRMA


Oh I get ya, Hardware - I was making a sarcastic joke since the bloody fools around here DID elect me once, at which point I did exactly what they asked me to do...

Politically it was a train wreck of epic proportions - logistically it saved the township from bankruptcy and dissolution, although in the process it polished off my already fragmented relationship, my employment within the taxicab industry and got me chased out of town, but I was kind of expecting all that to happen anyways.
What's ironic is that the aftermath left some pretty fond feelings once the dust settled, although NOT fond enough to want me back...

And it serves as a wonderful crowbar with which to lever the politicians of my new township, in practice I am simply a local business owner running a small security biz in friendly, mutual competition with police and other security firms, while running designed-to-fail political stunt campaigns on a ridiculous premise in order to manipulate local politicians into upping their game and benefitting the communities.

But in perception I am would-be tyrant, unrepentant evil overlord and the ghost of huey long, side order of melodrama and chicanery, muhahahaha and all that rot - how serious that schtick really is now, a matter of debate.

In truth though - Robespierre revisited, and I damn well know it, you'd be *insane* to want me in a public office, not cause I wouldn't serve the will of the people, but rather because I *WOULD* - and once you remove the fine and fictional gloss of democracy from our society and expose its true feudal nature in economic, if not physical practice, you begin to realize that the growing anger of the people as a whole isn't really a whole lot different than that faced Marie Antoinette, and for prettymuch the same damn reasons.

Do not for a second believe it cannot happen here - just as the "lords" have had at us with shit like the alien and sedition acts, "honest" abe lincolns purges, star chambers and the midnight knock, to the patriot act...
So too have the people dissented, from the revolution, to the revolts over taxes, whiskey and financial fuckery, and there were a LOT more of those than your school history book will tell you, to blair mountain, watts, and today, all across the world, lit fuses all around just waiting for a powder keg, and I see one here smouldering gently but not quite yet alight...

The only reason I don't try to push it over the brink, and in fact try to find solutions to prevent it, is that I have a far better understanding of what the cost would be, and who would be paying it - I'll not have that if there's any way around it, but as those options become less and less viable, as our leaders become more and more insane...

What then, is the voice of reason ?

No, you certainly would NOT want me planted in the seat of power, but yanno, you really might like me standing right behind it with a big fucking axe, metaphorically or otherwise, cause it does *wonders* for the behavior of politicians to be reminded persistantly that they are not immune to consequence - cause when they are, or even think they are, you get shit like what Walker, Snyder and others are trying to pull, which I damn well think comes under RICO if not more serious legislation given that it was premeditated with malice aforethought.

Anyhows, I am under few illusions of my own flaws, Adolph was a downright gentleman compared to Robespierre, who I am well-aware of unfortunate similarity to, so I wouldn't have been insulted in any case.


That said, despite whatever contextual political differences, I think we both feel the Ship of State needs a competent, compassionate captain at the helm, and happen to be pissed at all present factions for not providing one, or even one who has any damn potential to be!

And starting from that beginning there's a world of possibility to work with, Hardware - opposition doesn't always mean the kind of bitter and petty hatred most partisans seem to hold more dearly than their politics, cause the hammer needs the anvil to make good steel, yes ?

The situation currently reminds me of a naval dialogue I saw recently.
Captain: "Well, if we can get five minutes on them we can..."
Bosun: "Sir!"
Captain: "Yes?"
Bosun: "First, get the five minutes, sir!"


First, find us a candidate who doesn't belong in a rubber room, eh ?

-Frem

To punish the oppressors of humanity is clemency; to forgive them is barbarity.
-Robespierre

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, April 5, 2011 8:52 AM

HARDWARE


Quote:

Originally posted by Storymark:
Quote:

Originally posted by Hardware:
I am agreeing with you that when people get sick enough of the status quo they will elect a radical.




Which brought us the great teabagger election last year.

"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."


Why so bitter Story? It's the will of the people. Democracy in action. You're not opposed to that, are you?

What the mainstream of both parties have not woken up to is that with the looming government shutdown being blamed on the Tea Party candidates who are holding out for 100% of the spending cuts before they approve a budget, only the mainstream is at risk from political fallout. The Tea Party candidates were elected with a mandate to cut government spending. If the government shuts down, only the democratic neo-feudalists will be in jeaopardy from their serfs revolting come next election time. I suppose some republican incumbents could be unseated by their elderly supporters, but everybody has to make sacrifices.

And of course a government shutdown makes 0bama look weak and ineffective. Or should that be weaker and more ineffective?

The more I get to know people the more I like my dogs.

...and he that has no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one. Luke 22:36

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, April 5, 2011 10:01 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


Quote:

What, exactly, were the obstacles to his implementation of "Hope" and "Change"? The republicans could offer no real obstacles. Remember? Not enough representation to filibuster? If there's a failure to implement something it has to fall on the democratic leadership.
Bullshit. The Republicans filibustered EVERYTHING, deliberately, which kept virtually anything from being accomplished. They accomplished a few things anyway, and had to fight like hell to get health care (and it’s not what they or we wanted in the end), but when one party is REQUIRED to have a 60-vote majority to pass ANYTHING, it doesn’t matter what they want to accomplish; they can’t.

In the past, parties compromised with one another, that allowed things to get done, even if they ended up being modified from the original bill (which is a good thing, in my opinion). But no more, for the Republicans and Tea Partiers; their entire credo is “NO!”

When he declares means nothing. As Frem said,
Quote:

Thing is, in order to be afraid, he'd have to have something TO be afraid of it, and certainly the so-called opposition hasn't much to offer
Even Republicans are admitting they’ve got a poor slate of candidates, and are worried they can’t beat him unless someone charismatic shows up to grab the field. If they’d ONLY be so kind as to nominate Palin or Bachmann, it would be swell, Obama would sail though...
Quote:

cause eventually the people will wind up supporting even a jackboot in hopes they will "Do Something!" - and then find to their horror, indeed they will, just not anything they wanted
You mean like Walker? He conned the electorate by saying he was going to “do something about the economy”...I don’t think they’re all too thrilled with what he MEANT (but didn’t say) by that...

Story’s absolutely right; it was fear and anger that brought the Tea Party their elections, and you don’t get much more radical than them! Talk about tyranny, imagine what would happen if they actually got power! Thank gawd the majority of the American people didn’t buy into it and now won’t buy into it because they’re daily showing themselves for just how radical they ARE. The Tea Party can win all the nominations it wants, now that people have gotten an earful of their ideological stubbornness and seen what they’re about, I doubt they can win many elections...certainly not a national one!

Story's not bitter, Hardware, that’s your (deliberate?) interpretation. She’s made a snark...the fact that it’s an ACCURATE snark makes it even better. Amusing that you seem to take PRIDE in the Tea Party being radical...
Quote:

If the government shuts down, only the democratic neo-feudalists will be in jeaopardy from their serfs revolting come next election time.
He made a funny... Government works by COMPROMISE; without it, nothing happens. The novice Tea Partiers haven’t gotten that, and trust me, the Dems having compromised so much already and the Tea Party keeping the Republicans from doing so will bring it down on THEM, nobody else. Wait and see.

By the way,
Feb. 16:
Quote:

A majority of Americans disapprove of Republican efforts to defund the health care law, according to a recently released CBS News poll. The survey found that 55 percent of adults across the country disapprove of plans to defund the health care law.

March 2:
Quote:

About 60% of respondents to surveys conducted by Gallup and PPP said they didn't want to see the government temporarily shuttered. But if a shutdown does occur, polls have shown more Americans would pin the blame Congressional Republicans than on Obama.

March 15:
Quote:

When it comes to dealing with issue No. 1, the economy, Obama has an advantage: 46 percent say they put more faith in the president, 34 percent say so about congressional Republicans. Obama has a similar 12-point lead on the question of who better understands the economic problems people face, and a nine-point edge on dealing with the deficit. Among those who say a government shutdown would be harmful, about twice as many say they would hold the GOP, rather than the president, responsible.
May 4:
Quote:

Over all, 55 percent of Americans, including 53 percent of independents and 69 percent of Democrats, want lawmakers whose views they agree with to compromise. But 50 percent of Republicans, including 56 percent of conservative Republicans, want lawmakers who share their views to stand by their principles, even if that means the government will shut down.

On the economy, trust in the GOP among independents dropped from 42 percent in January to 29 percent in the new poll.

If the government shuts down, it won't make Obama look weak; he can't sign any budget that CONGRESS doesn't give him. The 1995 shutdown hurt the Republicans severely; I'm guessing if we have one now, it'll do the same. After all, Democrats have compromised; Republicans refuse to budge. Who looks worse?


Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off



NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, April 5, 2011 10:40 AM

HARDWARE


Quote:

Originally posted by Niki2:
Bullshit. The Republicans filibustered EVERYTHING, deliberately, which kept virtually anything from being accomplished. They accomplished a few things anyway, and had to fight like hell to get health care (and it’s not what they or we wanted in the end), but when one party is REQUIRED to have a 60-vote majority to pass ANYTHING, it doesn’t matter what they want to accomplish; they can’t.

In the past, parties compromised with one another, that allowed things to get done, even if they ended up being modified from the original bill (which is a good thing, in my opinion). But no more, for the Republicans and Tea Partiers; their entire credo is “NO!”



Sorry, I'm calling you on your *BULLSHIT*. The democratic party had 60 votes. Ted Kennedy died in 2009. Scott Brown was not seated until 2010. Kennedy's interim replacement was a democrat. They could have passed anything they wanted to, health care as they wanted it. The problem is, as Jon Stewart so aptly put it; "Its not that republicans are playing chess and democrats are playing checkers. Its that the republicans are playing chess and the democrats are in the nurses office having superglued their dick to their thigh."

Number of republican fillibusters in 2009? Zero.

Either you are wrong or you are lying to support your version of events.
Quote:



When he declares means nothing. As Frem said,
Quote:

Thing is, in order to be afraid, he'd have to have something TO be afraid of it, and certainly the so-called opposition hasn't much to offer
Even Republicans are admitting they’ve got a poor slate of candidates, and are worried they can’t beat him unless someone charismatic shows up to grab the field. If they’d ONLY be so kind as to nominate Palin or Bachmann, it would be swell, Obama would sail though...
Quote:

cause eventually the people will wind up supporting even a jackboot in hopes they will "Do Something!" - and then find to their horror, indeed they will, just not anything they wanted
You mean like Walker? He conned the electorate by saying he was going to “do something about the economy”...I don’t think they’re all too thrilled with what he MEANT (but didn’t say) by that...

Story’s absolutely right; it was fear and anger that brought the Tea Party their elections, and you don’t get much more radical than them! Talk about tyranny, imagine what would happen if they actually got power! Thank gawd the majority of the American people didn’t buy into it and now won’t buy into it because they’re daily showing themselves for just how radical they ARE. The Tea Party can win all the nominations it wants, now that people have gotten an earful of their ideological stubbornness and seen what they’re about, I doubt they can win many elections...certainly not a national one!


Hahaha, you are so funny! First of all, declaring now give 0bama time to fill up his coffers by fundraising, as I already stated. Remember, he spent, what? 760 million in his '08 campaign, according to opensecrets.org. Now that's some walking around money.

Second, I don't see any declaration of mistakes coming from the Tea Party candidates or their electors. If anything, the vehement backlash from democrats and republicans parties alike woke some people up. People are beginning to see that D and R are just the north and south face of the same shit mountain.

Stubbornness used to be an admired quality. When you were unwilling to compromise on a principle, people used to disagree but admire your tenacity. Now they despise you for not going along with business as usual.
Quote:


Story's not bitter, Hardware, that’s your (deliberate?) interpretation. She’s made a snark...the fact that it’s an ACCURATE snark makes it even better. Amusing that you seem to take PRIDE in the Tea Party being radical...
Quote:

If the government shuts down, only the democratic neo-feudalists will be in jeaopardy from their serfs revolting come next election time.
He made a funny... Government works by COMPROMISE; without it, nothing happens. The novice Tea Baggers haven’t gotten that, and trust me, the Dems having compromised so much already and the Tea Party keeping the Republicans from doing so will bring it down on THEM, nobody else. Wait and see.


Oh I am going to wait and see. But as I already stated, some principles are too important to compromise on. One of them is this; do we run the government or does government run us?

And you and story have already both played the card that marks your bitterness and hate. You see, anyone who uses the phrase "tea bagger" immediately gets marked down as a kool aid drinker. You have to work in the system because that's all you've ever known. I don't believe you could recognize a free choice if I dragged you to it and rubbed your noses in it. I feel bad for you.
Quote:






Ultimately it doesn't matter what polls say. We've got bigger fish to fry and the mainstream politicians aren't looking into the real problems. They want to stand around and bicker. They're already received one cluebat upside the head from the voters and they want to ignore it and continue with business as usual.

Mainly, I don't believe we can survive 4 more years of mainstream politics of democratic or republican control. Already mandatory spending and interest on the national debt exceeds total tax revenues. Do you understand what that means? It means we are finished as a country.

Think of it this way; If your minimum credit card payments, plus bills, exceeds your income and you have no savings, what are you going to do?

But, by all means, don't believe me. Don't look into it for yourselves. Just keep on urging your representatives to keep on spending.

The more I get to know people the more I like my dogs.

...and he that has no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one. Luke 22:36

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, April 5, 2011 11:41 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


Leaving aside all the various personal insults (tho' it would be nice if you could actually "debate" without them)...

Yup, they had 60 votes. Which meant they had to use cloure to get anything done. Obama's obviously a compromiser; I've said quite clearly that this is what I feared and what I abhor about him. But he (and the Dems, following him) kept trying to get ANY kind of compromise across the aisle for far too long.

Let's change that to "having to have 60 votes for EVERYTHING makes getting anything done extremely difficult". I grant you they had 60 votes, I'd like to see how much the Republicans got done with just 60 votes. I'm not going to take the time to look it up, but I'll bet it wasn't much.

As to "no filibusters", you're playing semantics. You know perfectly well that all they had to do was THREATEN a filibuster under the rules and the Dems were such damned pussy's they wouldn't call them on it. I was as angry as anyone that the Dems didn't MAKE them actually filibuster, but I've also been quite vociferous in stating I think the Dems are a bunch of pussies.
Quote:

A simple majority vote no longer suffices to pass major pieces of legislation. Instead, in almost every case, the Senate must muster at least 60 votes (a “supermajority”) to close off debate.

Historically, the filibuster was a last-ditch tactic used by an obstructionist minority to prevent passage of a bill by taking advantage of Senate rules that permitted unlimited debate. A measure would simply be “talked to death.” It was widely regarded as misuse of the rules, and was used sparingly.

In the entire 19th century, including the struggle against slavery, fewer than two dozen filibusters were mounted. In F.D.R.’s time, the device was employed exclusively by Southerners to block passage of federal anti-lynching legislation. Between 1933 and the coming of the war, it was attempted only twice. Under Eisenhower and J.F.K., the pattern continued. In the eight years of the Eisenhower administration, only two filibusters were mounted. Under Kennedy there were four.

It was during the Clinton years that the dam broke. In the 103rd Congress (1993-1994), 32 filibusters were employed to kill a variety of presidential initiatives ranging from campaign finance reform to grazing fees on federal land. Between 1999 and 2007, the number of Senate filibusters varied between 20 and 37 per session.

The routine use of the filibuster as a matter of everyday politics has transformed the Senate’s legislative process from majority rule into minority tyranny. Nevertheless, the use of the filibuster as an everyday tool of legislation stands the idea of democratic government on its head. Instead of majority rule in the Senate, the tyranny of the minority prevails.

http://100days.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/03/01/filibusters-the-senates-se
lf-inflicted-wound
/
Quote:

One of the things that stands out for me is that both times the Democrats have taken over the Senate, there has been a large spike in cloture votes in their first year in power. But both times the Republicans took over the Senate, the number of cloture votes during their first year in power was quite close to the previous year's.

Further evidence -- as if any is needed -- that the Republicans try to win at any cost, while the Democrats try to respect process. In an ideal world, where there were consequences for bending or breaking the rules, I would admire the Democrats for their high-mindedness. But in this world, where the media and pundits reward winning rather than rule-following, the Democrats just look like suckers and fools.

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/01/the-rise-of-cloture-how-gop
-filibuster-threats-have-changed-the-senate.php


Note:

Quote:

The Republicans of the US Senate have performed 77 filibusters during the current session. This count breaks the previous record of 58 filibusters previously held by the 1999-2002 Senate terms.
http://voteforamerica.net/editorials/Comments.aspx?ArticleId=21&Ar
ticleName=Senate+GOP+Sets+Filibuster+Record
fact of the matter is that the frequency of filibusters has increased by a factor of 50 since the days of (then-Democrat) Strom Thurmond jaw-jacking for 24 hours to stop a civil rights bill. So too has the general use of delaying tactics on major pieces of legislation.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2009/11/the_filibuster_has
_gone_from_a.html



In the 110th Congress of 2007-2008, with Republicans in the minority, there were a record 112 cloture votes. In the current session of Congress – the 111th – for all of 2009 and the first two months of 2010 the number already exceeds 40. The most the filibuster has been used when Democrats were in the minority was 58 times in the 106th Congress of 1999-2000.

That's about it.

What's wrong with Obama declaring? The Republican candidates have the same right to do so, so whining that he declared before them is just that: whining. As to money spent on campaigns, it's gone up exponentially all along, and the 2010 midterm amounts were pretty amazing, especially for JUST a midterm. So what?

Jeez, of COURSE you don't see any "declaration of mistakes", that's a disingenuous statement. As to their electors, however, as of March 30:
Quote:

The approval rating for the 2-year-old movement fell to 32 percent in a CNN/Opinion Research corporation poll released Wednesday, the lowest it’s been since CNN first polled on the tea party in January 2010.

Forty-seven percent of Americans, meanwhile, said they have an unfavorable view of the movement, a higher negative percentage than ever.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0311/52207.html#ixzz1IgaFqBCm
Quote:

Fifty-two percent of the US public had an unfavorable view of "the political movement known as the Tea Party," the survey found, as opposed to only 35 percent who approved.

The same poll conducted in September found that 45 percent disapproved of the movement, while 36 percent supported it. Last March, its favorable rating exceeded its negative by a margin of 41 to 39 percent.

The shift may reflect a populace growing uncomfortable with the divisiveness of the tea party's designated leaders, such as former Alaska governor Sarah Palin, Fox News host Glenn Beck, and Minnesota Republican Michele Bachmann.

Surveys have consistently found that tea party supporters, though independent in self-description, largely reflect the staunchest conservatives in the Republican Party.

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/01/19/tea-party-unpopularity-alltime-h
igh-poll
/

Sure, polls don't prove anything. But they're an indicator, and I can't find any recent polls which show a higher approval rating for the Tea Party than disapproval.

I apologize for the use of "Tea Bagger". If you've been paying attention at ALL, you've seen that I dissed calling them that a long time ago, and I have been VERY careful to call it Tea Part and Tea Partiers; I made a mistake, unquestionably, no doubt from reading (and immediately dismissing when I came across it) the phrase in stuff I was looking up. I have fixed it.

Your other judgments of me are yours, not reality, and are too rude to respond to. If you feel the need to try and put someone down so virulently and consistently, it speaks to you, not the other person. It only shows that your mind is closed and you have no viable argument, only nastiness.


Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off



NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, April 5, 2011 12:01 PM

DREAMTROVE



Anyone interfering with the process of govt. should get a medal.

That's what a ship is, you know - it's not just a keel and a hull and a deck and sails, that's what a ship needs.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, April 6, 2011 2:44 AM

HARDWARE


Quote:


Leaving aside all the various personal insults (tho' it would be nice if you could actually "debate" without them)...


Other than stating that you are either lying or just plain wrong, there were no original insults or personal attacks in my post.

I did call you out on your "Tea Bagger" comments, which you have redacted.

My bullshit statement leveled at you was in response to your bullshit statement fired at me. Who has cast the first stone?

As far as 0bama declaring early, all I stated was that it gave him more time to fill his coffers. Since he presumably has no opposition in democratic primaries, why the need for the long lead time? Why would he need more money than he spent last time? The only logical answer is fear.

Quote:


In the 2007-08 session of Congress, there were 112 cloture votes and some have used this number to argue an increase in the number of filibusters occurring in recent times. However, the Senate leadership has increasingly utilized cloture as a routine tool to manage the flow of business, even in the absence of any apparent filibuster. For these reasons, the presence or absence of cloture attempts cannot be taken as a reliable guide to the presence or absence of a filibuster. Inasmuch as filibustering does not depend on the use of any specific rules, whether a filibuster is present is always a matter of judgment.


So, the democratically controlled Senate is using cloture votes to smear the republicans with statistics. Well, you know what Mark Twain said about 3 kinds of lies; "Lies, damn lies and statistics."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filibuster_in_the_United_States_Senate

And since you sidestepped my points about the budget, here's a nice graphical file for you to look at that will re-illustrate my point.

Federal Spending 2010


Federal receipts 2010


Social security, social programs, medicaid, medicare, other congressionally mandated spending and interest now account for 69% if the Federal budget. That works out to 2,384 Billion dollars, or 2.38 Trillion if you prefer.

Our total tax receipts anticipated for 2010 are 2.162 Trillion or 2,162 Billion. Shortfall of 222.64 Billion dollars. Not even accounting for Defense spending and other Federal programs. Those figures don't even address paying down the principal on the national debt.

Now, here's another point you are going to interpret as a personal attack. You manipulate the argument and respond to only issues you want to. You completely ignored my earlier presentation of budgetary issues as defense for the Tea Party movement. May polled voters be disenchanted now? Maybe, yes. Is that a reason to pull the support for the issue? No.

First, I don't believe that the people who vote for the Tea Party candidates are represented in those polls. Tea Party candidates polled low right up until election day when they (mostly) defeated their competition. In fact, they did better than the traditional D/R runoffs in contested races. The media focused on matches of national interest, such as Christine O'Donnell in Delaware, but elsewhere Tea Party candidates did very well.

Second, children don't like taking medicine. I didn't when I was a child. But that does not mean that for their own health they need to be made to take the medicine.

And boy, does our country need some medicine.

The more I get to know people the more I like my dogs.

...and he that has no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one. Luke 22:36

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, April 6, 2011 6:52 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


Quote:

And you and story have already both played the card that marks your bitterness and hate. You see, anyone who uses the phrase "tea bagger" immediately gets marked down as a kool aid drinker. You have to work in the system because that's all you've ever known. I don't believe you could recognize a free choice if I dragged you to it and rubbed your noses in it. I feel bad for you.
No, of course that’s not full of personal insults. Doesn’t matter if I explained the mistake, the above is how you chose to categorize it, and if you don't think those are insults, I feel bad for YOU. The subject is irrelevant; it's how we respond to it that counts.

Quote:

You manipulate the argument and respond to only issues you want to.
I respond to the points that I agree or disagree with and/or are important to me. If you take the time to look, I think you’ll find that virtually everyone here does the same.
Quote:

I don't believe that the people who vote for the Tea Party candidates are represented in those polls
I was showing that PEOPLE...not just the Tea Party...were indicated as not approving of the Tea Party by those polls. After all, it is, in my opinion, fear of current conditions and hope of something else that put the Tea Party in office, and it took more than just Tea Party followers to VOTE them into office. Ergo I was trying to indicate that the general populous is needed to put someone in office, and tho’ they voted to put them in office, they are now becoming disillusioned.

I agree wholeheartedly that
Quote:

Second, children don't like taking medicine. I didn't when I was a child. But that does not mean that for their own health they need to be made to take the medicine.
and that our country needs “medicine”. We disagree as to what that medicine should BE, and I don’t think inflexible, dramatic demands with no room whatsoever for compromise is in any way “medicine”, certainly not medicine that will be good for the country. You SEEM to think that if everyone followed what the Tea Party insists on, it would “fix” our problems...I do not. I think it would be disasterous. I also don’t believe you can get enough of the majority of Americans to back putting it into practice to get what you want.


Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off



NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, April 6, 2011 7:38 AM

HARDWARE


Quote:



...I also don’t believe you can get enough of the majority of Americans to back putting it into practice to get what you want.


Then we are done as a country. My point of view is that we need to cut welfare, corporate and personal. The whole slate of mandatory programs needs to go. Medicaid and medicare need to go. Defense spending needs to be slashed. Nothing is off the table. We are 1.2 TRILLION dollars in debt, THIS YEAR ALONE. 14 TRILLION dollars accrued debt right now, and the numbers keep rising.

http://www.usdebtclock.org/

You are not offering any solutions. You represent the party of "business as usual". Business as usual is a road that leads right over a cliff. Let's hear some of your ideas to reduce debt, keep the budget balanced and restore some sanity to government.

The national debt has been the elephant in the room that nobody wants to talk about for far too long. We're credit junkies and it is long past time to go to detox.

The more I get to know people the more I like my dogs.

...and he that has no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one. Luke 22:36

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, April 6, 2011 10:01 AM

KANEMAN


Nikki2, that ass beating has got to have hurt. Man, there is nothing funnier than witnessing an arguement between an ass-hat liberal and a person with common sense that actually cares about this country's health.......I'll wait for nikki2 proposals on fixing our debt....should be hilarious.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, April 6, 2011 10:42 AM

DREAMTROVE


I don't completely agree with Hardware, but he has a point.

I'm not going to back getting rid of the programs, but I'll back a 90% cut. It goes like this:

Welfare, social security, disability, etc.:

We know that welfare to millionaires is 67% of the total welfare expenditures, congress already did this one, so let's start there, but to up that to a 90% cut, here are my humble suggestions:

1. You should not get the money if you have liquid assets in excess of 200,000 or income in excess of 40,000, or a total net worth in any form in excess of a million dollars.

2. You take govt. money, you are spending govt. money, we get to know where that money goes. I knew a guy who spent all of his welfare on drugs, and then prostituted his ten year old daughter to pay the bills. I'm glad the govt. supported that.

This stuff is here to help the poor. If you're not poor or you're not using it to help yourself, then you shouldn't be getting it.

Now,

Medicare:

No profit for the medical community on medicare. We're the govt. and we can say that you cannot turn poor people away, and we have already made that law. Given that, be damn thankful that we actually *are* paying their bills when they walk in the door.

However: You provide drugs to us, you provide them at cost. You provide medical services, all services required, including if an MRI is a good idea, you gorram better do an MRI, but you're also going to let us come in with our own analysts and assess that cost, because don't tell me it costs a thousand bucks to take a picture, 'cause I know it doesn't.

And it certainly does not cost $500 for the doctor to come in and interview you about your health problem for an actual I am not making this up average of 23 second.

You take all the padding and profiteering out of that system and you're not cutting anyone's actual medical care. Just cutting out the profiteering, which congress already determined was 90% of the cost.

So, if you're a hospital and don't like this, and start finding ways to push out poor patients so you can treat rich patients, we're going to send in the national guard and take over your damn hospital. Do you like that? No? Then don't fuck with us.


So, there it is my 90% reduction on entitlements.

Want my 90% reduction on US govt. spending?

No more foreign wars.

No more paramilitary operations to infringe on the rights of americans.

In other words, the military's only job is to actually defend the actual united states, and the job of homeland security and all our domestic alphabet soup is to GTFO.


ETA: Also, No more gorram subsidies for anyone. If it ain't flying in the free market, it ain't flying.

That's what a ship is, you know - it's not just a keel and a hull and a deck and sails, that's what a ship needs.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, April 6, 2011 2:50 PM

RIONAEIRE

Beir bua agus beannacht


DT has some points about medical care, an MRI shouldn't cost a thousand and medical care is way over priced, I think they do need to change what they do with the money they get and how much they expect for services that shouldn't cost as much as they do.

I think Hero is too extreme for my liking here.

"A completely coherant River means writers don't deliver" KatTaya

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, April 6, 2011 2:58 PM

HARDWARE


Excellent!

I would be beside myself with joy in a 90% reduction in federal spending.

I'll give you another one. Austerity measures for the military. No new weapon systems, planes, ships, subs, tanks, AFVs, vehicles for 10 years. You can maintain the ones you have, but if you lose one, strip it for parts.

This means that defense contractors don't go out of business, but they have to go on a starvation diet.

The more I get to know people the more I like my dogs.

...and he that has no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one. Luke 22:36

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

YOUR OPTIONS

NEW POSTS TODAY

USERPOST DATE

OTHER TOPICS

DISCUSSIONS
Russia Invades Ukraine. Again
Mon, April 29, 2024 00:32 - 6326 posts
Russian War Crimes In Ukraine
Mon, April 29, 2024 00:31 - 17 posts
14 Tips To Reduce Tears and Remove Smells When Cutting Onions
Sun, April 28, 2024 22:22 - 10 posts
Another Putin Disaster
Sun, April 28, 2024 21:09 - 1514 posts
Elections; 2024
Sun, April 28, 2024 21:08 - 2315 posts
Russia, Jeff Sessions
Sun, April 28, 2024 21:07 - 128 posts
Scientific American Claims It Is "Misinformation" That There Are Just Two Sexes
Sun, April 28, 2024 21:06 - 25 posts
Dangerous Rhetoric coming from our so-called President
Sun, April 28, 2024 18:10 - 2 posts
You can't take the sky from me, a tribute to Firefly
Sun, April 28, 2024 18:06 - 294 posts
In the garden, and RAIN!!! (2)
Sun, April 28, 2024 15:47 - 3576 posts
Russian losses in Ukraine
Sun, April 28, 2024 02:03 - 1016 posts
The Thread of Court Cases Trump Is Winning
Sat, April 27, 2024 21:37 - 20 posts

FFF.NET SOCIAL