Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: blacken700 on December 06, 2012, 06:01:31 PM
-
Reid Calls McConnell's Bluff on Debt Ceiling
Dec. 6 1:52 PM
Jonathan Weisman
... The plan, first dreamed up last year by Mr. McConnell, would allow the president to raise the borrowing limit on his own. Congress would be able to disallow the debt-ceiling increase, but such a move could only be sustained by a two-thirds majority vote, since the president could veto the legislation blocking the debt ceiling rise.
Mr. McConnell, believing some Democrats would vote against the president’s debt-ceiling proposal, moved Thursday to put it on the Senate floor for a quick vote. If it could not muster a majority, Republicans would say Mr. Obama cannot even unify his own party.
But Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the Senate majority leader, called Mr. McConnell’s bluff. He said he would put the McConnell debt-ceiling proposal to a vote if Mr. McConnell would let it pass with a simple majority, not a filibuster-proof 60 votes. Seeing he overplayed his hand, Mr. McConnell objected ...
“What we have is here a case of Republicans not taking yes for an answer,” Mr. Reid replied as Mr. McConnell began a filibuster of his own bill.
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/us/politics/debt-reckoning.html
-
Reid Calls McConnell's Bluff on Debt Ceiling
Dec. 6 1:52 PM
Jonathan Weisman
... The plan, first dreamed up last year by Mr. McConnell, would allow the president to raise the borrowing limit on his own. Congress would be able to disallow the debt-ceiling increase, but such a move could only be sustained by a two-thirds majority vote, since the president could veto the legislation blocking the debt ceiling rise.
Mr. McConnell, believing some Democrats would vote against the president’s debt-ceiling proposal, moved Thursday to put it on the Senate floor for a quick vote. If it could not muster a majority, Republicans would say Mr. Obama cannot even unify his own party.
But Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the Senate majority leader, called Mr. McConnell’s bluff. He said he would put the McConnell debt-ceiling proposal to a vote if Mr. McConnell would let it pass with a simple majority, not a filibuster-proof 60 votes. Seeing he overplayed his hand, Mr. McConnell objected ...
“What we have is here a case of Republicans not taking yes for an answer,” Mr. Reid replied as Mr. McConnell began a filibuster of his own bill.
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/us/politics/debt-reckoning.html
this is what's coming
fat old white guys are going to have to stand up and talk during their actual filibuster (traditionally known as standing up and talking for as long as you can and really about anything you want)
the horror
-
Reid Calls McConnell's Bluff on Debt Ceiling
Dec. 6 1:52 PM
Jonathan Weisman
... The plan, first dreamed up last year by Mr. McConnell, would allow the president to raise the borrowing limit on his own. Congress would be able to disallow the debt-ceiling increase, but such a move could only be sustained by a two-thirds majority vote, since the president could veto the legislation blocking the debt ceiling rise.
Mr. McConnell, believing some Democrats would vote against the president’s debt-ceiling proposal, moved Thursday to put it on the Senate floor for a quick vote. If it could not muster a majority, Republicans would say Mr. Obama cannot even unify his own party.
But Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the Senate majority leader, called Mr. McConnell’s bluff. He said he would put the McConnell debt-ceiling proposal to a vote if Mr. McConnell would let it pass with a simple majority, not a filibuster-proof 60 votes. Seeing he overplayed his hand, Mr. McConnell objected ...
“What we have is here a case of Republicans not taking yes for an answer,” Mr. Reid replied as Mr. McConnell began a filibuster of his own bill.
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/us/politics/debt-reckoning.html
Good work by Reid here.
McConnell exposed.
-
LMAO
-
LMAO
This is not a fringe candidate or rep.
Its the heart of the GOP.
They are rotten to the core.
-
Don't worry, Beach and McWay will be on here soon to spin how the party really isn't imploding. It is just "evolving" (Though neither one really believes in evolution).
-
Don't worry, Beach and McWay will be on here soon to spin how the party really isn't imploding. It is just "evolving" (Though neither one really believes in evolution).
;D
-
Don't worry, Beach and McWay will be on here soon to spin how the party really isn't imploding. It is just "evolving" (Though neither one really believes in evolution).
McWay will say they need to purge the moderates and only run extreme candidates who can pass a tea party purity test and then the country will get on board. We just waiting for more of them to get even more conservative
-
McWay will say they need to purge the moderates and only run extreme candidates who can pass a tea party purity test and then the country will get on board. We just waiting for more of them to get even more conservative
Doesn't seem like the party is going in that direction with the number of people eating crow and changing their stance on immigration and the fiscal cliff after spending years chest thumping the exact opposite of it.
But yeah... a winning strategy for sure. It worked out well last month.
-
McWay will say they need to purge the moderates and only run extreme candidates who can pass a tea party purity test and then the country will get on board. We just waiting for more of them to get even more conservative
True. Its like watching people play on the freeway saying "We're fine, we know where we are" Selective breeding at its best.
-
Don't worry, Beach and McWay will be on here soon to spin how the party really isn't imploding. It is just "evolving" (Though neither one really believes in evolution).
Wrong again. In case you forgot, I mentioned a couple of weeks ago that this is typical after an election loss. Look at what happened in 2004 (I put up a thread to make that point).
We watched the Dems engage in the same circular-firing-squad routine that the Republicans are doing now.
I didn't think they'd win another election for years to come. Then, we get Obama.
McWay will say they need to purge the moderates and only run extreme candidates who can pass a tea party purity test and then the country will get on board. We just waiting for more of them to get even more conservative
Yep, the moderate Republicans really cleaned up this election, didn't they? ::)
-
Wrong again. In case you forgot, I mentioned a couple of weeks ago that this is typical after an election loss. Look at what happened in 2004 (I put up a thread to make that point).
We watched the Dems engage in the same circular-firing-squad routine that the Republicans are doing now.
I didn't think they'd win another election for years to come. Then, we get Obama.
Yep, the moderate Republicans really cleaned up this election, didn't they? ::)
both moderates and extremists got their ass handed to them in the election
I'm still baffled by your logic that because moderates lost to Dems it must mean that voter would prefer extremist Repubs and somehow that will attract both moderates and independents
Here's something to keep in mind - Obama beat Romney among the 41 percent of voters who call themselves moderate by 15 points.
http://www.nationaljournal.com/columns/on-the-trail/gop-grapples-with-embarrassing-polling-failures-20121113
How exactly is running more extreme candidates going to help your party to pick up more of the 41% of voters who identify as moderate and who voted for the moderate Democratic candidate by a 15 point margin over a self described "severe conservative" ?
-
I'm looking forward to the time (coming very soon) when Mitch McConnell will actually have to stand up and filibuster the way god intended (little nod to my friends who think god wants them to have guns)
how long can McConnell stand and talk without taking a break?
-
both moderates and extremists got their ass handed to them in the election
I'm still baffled by your logic that because moderates lost to Dems it must mean that voter would prefer extremist Repubs and somehow that will attract both moderates and independents
Romney had no problem with the independents. The base didn't show up, with Romney getting FEWER voters than did McCain.
Here's something to keep in mind - Obama beat Romney among the 41 percent of voters who call themselves moderate by 15 points.
http://www.nationaljournal.com/columns/on-the-trail/gop-grapples-with-embarrassing-polling-failures-20121113
How exactly is running more extreme candidates going to help your party to pick up more of the 41% of voters who identify as moderate and who voted for the moderate Democratic candidate by a 15 point margin over a self described "severe conservative" ?
What's "extreme" about Americans keeping more of their hard-earned money vs. Obama and crew bilking them for more cash, which will do NOTHING to lower the debt nor boost the economy nor boost jobs?
Go back to 2004. The left did the same circular-firing-squad routine after Bush got re-elected. But in the end, did they "moderate"? NOPE!!
They went farther to the left.
When the "moderates" learn the hard way that Obama's stupid ideas will wreck this country further, that will take care of itself. To win the election you need your BASE and the moderates. Losing the former, while attracting (at best) a marginal amount of the latter will result in continued defeat.
-
Romney had no problem with the independents. The base didn't show up, with Romney getting FEWER voters than did McCain.
What's "extreme" about Americans keeping more of their hard-earned money vs. Obama and crew bilking them for more cash, which will do NOTHING to lower the debt nor boost the economy nor boost jobs?
Go back to 2004. The left did the same circular-firing-squad routine after Bush got re-elected. But in the end, did they "moderate"? NOPE!!
They went farther to the left.
When the "moderates" learn the hard way that Obama's stupid ideas will wreck this country further, that will take care of itself. To win the election you need your BASE and the moderates. Losing the former, while attracting (at best) a marginal amount of the latter will result in continued defeat.
why would I go back to 2004
the world has changed and will continue to do so
Moderates voted for Obama with a 15 point margin in the last election and that was after 4 years of an Obama administration so I think it's safe to say they know what they are voting for.
If your hope is that Obama is going to "wreck the country" in the next 4 years and we'll suddenly want the extreme conservatives that we roundly rejected this year then all I can say is good luck to you
-
why would I go back to 2004
the world has changed and will continue to do so
And what makes you think it won't change by 2016?
You keep acting as if this is the first time a political party has acted like this, after a loss in the presidential race.
2004: Bush got re-elected and the GOP gained seats in both the House and Senate.
Look what happened just two years later, and two years after that.
Moderates voted for Obama with a 15 point margin in the last election and that was after 4 years of an Obama administration so I think it's safe to say they know what they are voting for.
If your hope is that Obama is going to "wreck the country" in the next 4 years and we'll suddenly want the extreme conservatives that we roundly rejected this year then all I can say is good luck to you
I'm not hoping Obama is going to wreck the country. He's done that, whether I want him to do so or not (which I don't).
If you think that Obama is going to fix the economy, lower the debt, and create the environment for job growth in a second term, when he couldn't do his first term (despite his claims and even with complete control of Washington his first two years), YOU'RE the one who needs the good luck, not me.
-
And what makes you think it won't change by 2016?
You keep acting as if this is the first time a political party has acted like this, after a loss in the presidential race.
2004: Bush got re-elected and the GOP gained seats in both the House and Senate.
Look what happened just two years later, and two years after that.
I'm not hoping Obama is going to wreck the country. He's done that, whether I want him to do so or not (which I don't).
If you think that Obama is going to fix the economy, lower the debt, and create the environment for job growth in a second term, when he couldn't do his first term (despite his claims and even with complete control of Washington his first two years), YOU'RE the one who needs the good luck, not me.
are you aware of a way to produce more old white conservative voters in the next four years?
that's about the only thing that's going to save you party unless your party comes up with some new ideas
-
are you aware of a way to produce more old white conservative voters in the next four years?
that's about the only thing that's going to save you party unless your party comes up with some new ideas
One, conservatives are hardly limited to old white people.
Two, all it's going to take to "save" our party are true conservatives, who can articulate how to get this country growing again, coupled with enough people learning the hard way, what Obama's stupid policies really do to our country's economy.
Again, you're the one who needs the luck, if you think Obama's policies are going to work in a second term when they didn't work in his first term.
-
are you aware of a way to produce more old white conservative voters in the next four years?
that's about the only thing that's going to save you party unless your party comes up with some new ideas
They're jumping bathroom stalls all over america trying to reproduce.
-
One, conservatives are hardly limited to old white people.
Two, all it's going to take to "save" our party are true conservatives, who can articulate how to get this country growing again, coupled with enough people learning the hard way, what Obama's stupid policies really do to our country's economy.
Again, you're the one who needs the luck, if you think Obama's policies are going to work in a second term when they didn't work in his first term.
true, but your party is dependent on them in order to win and their numbers are shrinking and unless the party changes it's agenda it's not going to win over moderates of any race, much less latinos, blacks, etc..
btw - true conservatives haven't existed in this country for 30+ years and no one remembers them ever helping the country.
The only memory we have is of your party getting into power and going on a spending spree while blowing up the debt and deficit
-
true, but your party is dependent on them in order to win and their numbers are shrinking and unless the party changes it's agenda it's not going to win over moderates of any race, much less latinos, blacks, etc..
btw - true conservatives haven't existed in this country for 30+ years and no one remembers them ever helping the country.
The only memory we have is of your party getting into power and going on a spending spree while blowing up the debt and deficit
And what has Obama done, since getting into office again?
Heck, he makes Bush look like Scrooge.
-
And what has Obama done, since getting into office again?
Heck, he makes Bush look like Scrooge.
plenty and it's been well documented on this board as well as all over the media
the voters didn't have any trouble remember last month when they were voting
-
And what has Obama done, since getting into office again?
Heck, he makes Bush look like Scrooge.
Irrelevant argument unless Obama came into office with a surplus like Bush did and proceed to blow it.
-
Irrelevant argument unless Obama came into office with a surplus like Bush did and proceed to blow it.
Hardly an irrelevant argument. He chided Bush for blowing $4 trillion in 8 years, while he blew $6 trillion in less than 4 years.
And, for all his spending, unemployment is almost IDENTICAL to what it was when he took office, dropping from higher levels (it was never to exceed 8% and was supposed to be 5.5% by now) mainly because of people leaving the workforce.
Not to mention the credit downgrades and his raising taxes on Americans via ObamaCare.
-
Hardly an irrelevant argument. He chided Bush for blowing $4 trillion in 8 years, while he blew $6 trillion in less than 4 years.
And, for all his spending, unemployment is almost IDENTICAL to what it was when he took office, dropping from higher levels (it was never to exceed 8% and was supposed to be 5.5% by now) mainly because of people leaving the workforce.
Not to mention the credit downgrades and his raising taxes on Americans via ObamaCare.
credit downgrade? dude it was clearly the GOP at fault there, never once did bush have an issue raising it while blowing money left and right, then Obama attempts to raise it once and there is a shitstorm where the GOP holds the country hostage. Why do you think they got raped this election? it was shit like that, why do you think that if the country goes off the FC the vast majority of the public would blame the GOP? it's because it's obvious to everyone but a teamster they are trying to smear and obstruct Obama.
-
credit downgrade? dude it was clearly the GOP at fault there, never once did bush have an issue raising it while blowing money left and right, then Obama attempts to raise it once and there is a shitstorm where the GOP holds the country hostage. Why do you think they got raped this election? it was shit like that, why do you think that if the country goes off the FC the vast majority of the public would blame the GOP? it's because it's obvious to everyone but a teamster they are trying to smear and obstruct Obama.
The CATO Institute cited BOTH parties (one for not raising taxes, the other for not cutting spending), for the credit downgrade.
Obama blew more money in less than one term than Bush did in two. And we have zilch to show for it.
When we run out of money (despite any tax hikes on the rich, if any) and the bennies run out, so too will Obama's excuses.
All the rich are going to do is either take their money elsewhere, hike up prices on goods and services, or lay off people left and right, to recoup their costs.
-
Hardly an irrelevant argument. He chided Bush for blowing $4 trillion in 8 years, while he blew $6 trillion in less than 4 years.
And, for all his spending, unemployment is almost IDENTICAL to what it was when he took office, dropping from higher levels (it was never to exceed 8% and was supposed to be 5.5% by now) mainly because of people leaving the workforce.
Not to mention the credit downgrades and his raising taxes on Americans via ObamaCare.
Incorrect. Had Obama taken office with a surplus like Bush did, then I'm pretty sure a lot of his spending would not have occurred. It wasn't Obama that started unnecessary wars and drove the country into the ditch. That's what he was handed. So if spending got us in that mess, then you got to let the next person spend to try to get us out of it.
-
The CATO Institute cited BOTH parties (one for not raising taxes, the other for not cutting spending), for the credit downgrade.
Obama blew more money in less than one term than Bush did in two. And we have zilch to show for it.
When we run out of money (despite any tax hikes on the rich, if any) and the bennies run out, so too will Obama's excuses.
All the rich are going to do is either take their money elsewhere, hike up prices on goods and services, or lay off people left and right, to recoup their costs.
If I recall the document released by the actual downgraders indicated that the GOP was the cause.
That was a while ago but regardless, never in history has a standoff like this occured, bush raised the ceiling what 8 times, Obama once during a massive recession and they gave him shit for it. Completely retarded.
-
Incorrect. Had Obama taken office with a surplus like Bush did, then I'm pretty sure a lot of his spending would not have occurred. It wasn't Obama that started unnecessary wars and drove the country into the ditch. That's what he was handed. So if spending got us in that mess, then you got to let the next person spend to try to get us out of it.
You mean a projected surplus, right?
And he was handed a mean recession, right?
See, this is fun!
-
I'm looking forward to the time (coming very soon) when Mitch McConnell will actually have to stand up and filibuster the way god intended (little nod to my friends who think god wants them to have guns)
how long can McConnell stand and talk without taking a break?
so am I.
he's a hoot.
{coot?}
-
so am I.
he's a hoot.
{coot?}
Yeah, the fullibuster has to be a challenge for those using it. When did the end of the true filibuster occur? I'm talkin' like reading names out of a phonebook and shit.
-
The CATO Institute cited BOTH parties (one for not raising taxes, the other for not cutting spending), for the credit downgrade.
Obama blew more money in less than one term than Bush did in two. And we have zilch to show for it.
When we run out of money (despite any tax hikes on the rich, if any) and the bennies run out, so too will Obama's excuses.
All the rich are going to do is either take their money elsewhere, hike up prices on goods and services, or lay off people left and right, to recoup their costs.
What specifik spending has Obama done Mcway?
That can match 2 wars and tax cuts and a economic crash?
-
What specifik spending has Obama done Mcway?
That can match 2 wars and tax cuts and a economic crash?
I think that's short sighted.
What has he done to spend less? I mean, we are starring at 1.2 trillion, give or take but who's counting, yearly deficit with no end in sight besides more spending. To say he is some sort of fiscal hawk that is getting tarred by evil Fox News is a bit of a stretch.
I know you didn't call him a fiscal hawk but that bunk ass idea has been peddled 'round these parts and the media in general.
It cuts both ways.
-
McConnell was playing a practical joke.
You've all been Punked!
-
McConnell was playing a practical joke.
You've all been Punked!
close.
McConnell IS a practical joke.
-
I think that's short sighted.
What has he done to spend less? I mean, we are starring at 1.2 trillion, give or take but who's counting, yearly deficit with no end in sight besides more spending. To say he is some sort of fiscal hawk that is getting tarred by evil Fox News is a bit of a stretch.
I know you didn't call him a fiscal hawk but that bunk ass idea has been peddled 'round these parts and the media in general.
It cuts both ways.
Fact is Obamas spending is a result of republican policies.
Name one thing (spending) Obama has done?
How do you reduce spending/deficit when you have 2 wars going, lowest taxes ever and a republican congresss who blocks everything.
Lets be honest when republicans wants to cut spending they want to cut spending that helps the middle and lower class.
They didnt give a shit about spending on the military and starting wars.
And they dont give a shit about the deficit therefore the tax cuts.