Ornery.org
  Front Page   |   About Ornery.org   |   World Watch   |   Guest Essays   |   Contact Us

The Ornery American Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Ornery American Forum » General Comments » Proving me right ... again.

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!    
Author Topic: Proving me right ... again.
G3
Member
Member # 6723

 - posted      Profile for G3   Email G3       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
On another thread I said:
quote:
There is this idea out there that if we just be respectful, learn to work out compromise, behave reasonably, etc. etc. that the left will come around. It seems right doesn't it? It takes a while to learn the hard truth of political reality.

Your approach has been tried for a generation. Conservatives have been doing just as you insist on them doing. Where are we now? Has it worked? If we continue to do this, as you demand, do you expect it to suddenly start working?

And along comes Harry Reid to demonstrate this for us.
quote:
But this recovery would be even stronger if Republicans had decided to work with Democrats, instead of obstructing at every turn. As we look to the challenges facing us in the coming months, I hope that my Republican colleagues will reevaluate their strategy, stop trying to appease the Tea Party and instead choose to help all Americans by reaching across the aisle to get things done.
See? It's those wascally Republicans that keep it all from working. Then, in the same statement:
quote:
"Mitt Romney's fantasy that Senate Democrats will work with him to pass his 'severely conservative' agenda is laughable," Mr. Reid said in a statement on Friday...

<snip>

Mr. Reid flatly ruled out following Mr. Romney's agenda ...

<snip>

"Mitt Romney has demonstrated that he lacks the courage to stand up to the tea party, kowtowing to their demands time and again. There is nothing in Mitt Romney's record to suggest he would act any differently as president," Mr. Reid said

It couldn't have been better if I'd written the script myself.
Posts: 2234 | Registered: May 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 6161

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
G3, do you understand the difference between voting against legislation because you are opposed to that legislation and voting against legislation because your "number-one goal was to make sure that Barack Obama was a one-term president"?
Posts: 2635 | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Because "They wouldn't negotiate with us to find common ground" is logically equivalent to "We won't simply rubber-stamp his agenda."
Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
G3
Member
Member # 6723

 - posted      Profile for G3   Email G3       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by kmbboots:
G3, do you understand the difference between voting against legislation because you are opposed to that legislation and voting against legislation because your "number-one goal was to make sure that Barack Obama was a one-term president"?

And you're convinced that was the only reason legislation was opposed? C'mon.
Posts: 2234 | Registered: May 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
G3
Member
Member # 6723

 - posted      Profile for G3   Email G3       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
Because "They wouldn't negotiate with us to find common ground" is logically equivalent to "We won't simply rubber-stamp his agenda."

Because compromise was not what was desired. The left wants capitulation, just as Harry demonstrates.
Posts: 2234 | Registered: May 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Wayward Son
Member
Member # 210

 - posted      Profile for Wayward Son   Email Wayward Son   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
And you're convinced that was the only reason legislation was opposed? C'mon.
No, but it probably was the main reason there was no compromise, and they tried to prevent votes as often as they could.
Posts: 8681 | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JoshCrow
Member
Member # 6048

 - posted      Profile for JoshCrow   Email JoshCrow   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I find the claim that conservatives have been "respectful, learn[ing] to work out compromise, behav[ing] reasonably" actually hearkens back to a time when a lot more things got done. I believe Reid's comments are a reaction to the Republican strategy of opposing any policies put forward by the president, and then accusing him of not cooperating with them.

It's actually an ingenious strategy: make sure nothing works, then blame the president. Democrats should take note of it - except that I suspect that pesky thing called a conscience will make any such effort less successful.

If Romney is elected, I for one will hope that he succeeds. I'll still believe what I believe for the moment, but I'm willing to be proven wrong by some solidly improving economic data for the middle class under a new Republican administration.

You'll never find me in the "I hope he fails" department of people who have put ideology over practice. For those people, whether something works or not no longer matters.

[ November 02, 2012, 03:20 PM: Message edited by: JoshCrow ]

Posts: 2281 | Registered: Mar 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
G3
Member
Member # 6723

 - posted      Profile for G3   Email G3       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Wayward Son:
quote:
And you're convinced that was the only reason legislation was opposed? C'mon.
No, but it probably was the main reason there was no compromise, and they tried to prevent votes as often as they could.
Did you know that during the first 2 years of Obama's term that what you're saying was literally impossible? By literally, I mean literally. Democrats had control of the whole thing in a filibuster proof majority.
Posts: 2234 | Registered: May 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
G3
Member
Member # 6723

 - posted      Profile for G3   Email G3       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by JoshCrow:
I find the claim that conservatives have been "respectful, learn[ing] to work out compromise, behav[ing] reasonably" actually hearkens back to a time when a lot more things got done.

What you mean here is that the liberal agenda was being implemented. It rarely ever goes back the other direction - it something Harry Reid would call "laughable" to do so. That is precisely the point I was making. Democrats are not respectful of the right - watch any cable outlet you want. The left says they want to conservatives to "reach across the aisle" but what is the response when we ask the left to do the same? Harry shows us.


quote:
Originally posted by JoshCrow:
I believe Reid's comments are a reaction to the Republican strategy of opposing any policies put forward by the president, and then accusing him of not cooperating with them.

This is SOP for the left and has been for a very long time. See Harry's comments.


quote:
Originally posted by JoshCrow:
You'll never find me in the "I hope he fails" department of people who have put ideology over practice. For those people, whether something works or not no longer matters.

Ideology is what it's all about. Trying to stay above it is nice but not a survivable strategy any more.
Posts: 2234 | Registered: May 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Wayward Son
Member
Member # 210

 - posted      Profile for Wayward Son   Email Wayward Son   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Did you know that during the first 2 years of Obama's term that what you're saying was literally impossible? By literally, I mean literally.
As I recall, that is literally untrue for the entire first two years, since the Democrats lost the 60th memeber sometime in the first few months. I also know it is literally untrue because individual senators can hinder the advancement of legislation without the approval of their party or anyone else. I also know that, if the Republicans could get one senator to agree with them, then they could filibuster a particular piece of legislation, so it is still literally untrue.

And what about the last two years? Those don't count? [Wink]

Posts: 8681 | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 6161

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by G3:
quote:
Originally posted by Wayward Son:
quote:
And you're convinced that was the only reason legislation was opposed? C'mon.
No, but it probably was the main reason there was no compromise, and they tried to prevent votes as often as they could.
Did you know that during the first 2 years of Obama's term that what you're saying was literally impossible? By literally, I mean literally. Democrats had control of the whole thing in a filibuster proof majority.
Did you know that is false?

Demcrats only had a filibuster-proof majority (including two independents) from the time that Al Franken was finally seated (July 7, 2009) until the point that Teddy Kennedy passed away (August 25, 2009). That's only seven weeks, not two years. During most of those seven weeks Sen. Kennedy was quite ill. You may recall him being rushed to the hospital at the inaugural lunch. There was an interim Senator for 19 weeks (September 24, 2009 to February 4, 2010) for a total of 26 weeks. And there was never a super majority in the House.

Posts: 2635 | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
velcro
Member
Member # 1216

 - posted      Profile for velcro   Email velcro   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Why do people keep talking to G3?
Posts: 2096 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Wayward Son
Member
Member # 210

 - posted      Profile for Wayward Son   Email Wayward Son   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
He's too tempting a target. First making a self-agrandizing entrance ("Proving me right...again"), then coming up with half-true examples, how can we not point out the facts that don't support him?

Isn't that what we do around here?

Posts: 8681 | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
For those of us who are in fact interested in finding the best way to understand something, G#'s posts are like throwing sand into an engine. You can't continue to run it without cleaning it out. He has waged a disinformation war on every topic that he thinks appeals to "liberals" for as long as he's been here through however many login names he has used.

I think the Mods gave up on him a long time ago and decided to let the forum flush him out, but he hasn't seemed to be affected by everyone's combined dislike for his disrespect for the truth and his apparent disrespect for us.

OTOH, by raising Republican/Conservative and ultra-right wing talking points as if they were truth, it gives the rest of us an opportunity to clear the air and dig into the subjects to learn what the fundamental facts really are. That he doesn't use links only helps us in that regard by spurring us to do our own research.

So, despite his obvious continual attempts to attack and undermine topics, ideas and individuals I think he has actually made Ornery a stronger and more cohesive place. Look around at how many people respond to him and how well they collect their facts and organize their thoughts.

G# is the rhetorical gift that keeps on giving. I hope he reads this post (I have reason to believe he reads all of mine, despite his denials [Wink] ), and I hope we can look forward to many more incarnations of his mean-spirited avatar!

[ November 02, 2012, 04:51 PM: Message edited by: AI Wessex ]

Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
velcro
Member
Member # 1216

 - posted      Profile for velcro   Email velcro   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
If someone were to start a thread and admit up front that they would never admit they were wrong, and would continually make up facts and twist logic to support their fallacies, how much time would you spend addressing all the falsehoods?
Posts: 2096 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
G3
Member
Member # 6723

 - posted      Profile for G3   Email G3       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by velcro:
If someone were to start a thread and admit up front that they would never admit they were wrong, and would continually make up facts and twist logic to support their fallacies, how much time would you spend addressing all the falsehoods?

I dunno, I do it constantly.
Posts: 2234 | Registered: May 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JWatts
Member
Member # 6523

 - posted      Profile for JWatts   Email JWatts   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
G3, I don't know how you can expect President Obama to do anything with a mere majority in both houses of Congress for two years.

That would require some kind of leadership or something. No, clearly the best approach is to blame your failures on other people, consistently and loudly. And play a lot of golf. That's how you run the country. Because there is always some excuse you can find to blame the other guy.

[LOL]

Posts: 4700 | Registered: Oct 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
G3
Member
Member # 6723

 - posted      Profile for G3   Email G3       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by kmbboots:
quote:
Originally posted by G3:
quote:
Originally posted by Wayward Son:
quote:
And you're convinced that was the only reason legislation was opposed? C'mon.
No, but it probably was the main reason there was no compromise, and they tried to prevent votes as often as they could.
Did you know that during the first 2 years of Obama's term that what you're saying was literally impossible? By literally, I mean literally. Democrats had control of the whole thing in a filibuster proof majority.
Did you know that is false?

Demcrats only had a filibuster-proof majority (including two independents) from the time that Al Franken was finally seated (July 7, 2009) until the point that Teddy Kennedy passed away (August 25, 2009). That's only seven weeks, not two years. During most of those seven weeks Sen. Kennedy was quite ill. You may recall him being rushed to the hospital at the inaugural lunch. There was an interim Senator for 19 weeks (September 24, 2009 to February 4, 2010) for a total of 26 weeks. And there was never a super majority in the House.

It is? Let's see, first thing to talk about is how there is no filibuster in the house, it's a senate only kind of thing so you might want to ease up a little bit there. For the first 2 years of Barry's term, Democrats controlled it. That's how Nancy got to run the show with a 80-plus seat majority in the House.

Now, don't forget the independents that caucus with the Democrats. So we had a full 5 months of time that was literally filibuster proof but if you look around there's all kinds of numbers about how long that really was because everyone is trying to spin it and try to shift blame off the Democrats (why, he didn't ever really have it did he?!?! I suppose that's supposed to be said in wide eyed wonderment). I've even seen the "math" laid out so that it's only when Democrats hold 72 seats that they are considered to have a super majority. So we can play some semantics over the timeline but that it occurred is a fact and Barry could have and anything he wanted during that time. It is also completely irrelevant to the point I'm making in this thread but I suspect you knew that and it's why you prefer to focus on that instead ...

Posts: 2234 | Registered: May 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
NobleHunter
Member
Member # 2450

 - posted      Profile for NobleHunter   Email NobleHunter   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
My recollections from the first two years is that the Republicans exercised a level of party discipline unnatural to the American system. Your system is based on the premise that centrist members from both parties will come together to govern the country. The GOP seems to reject that idea since it would require allowing legislators to vote with their conscience rather than the party.

Should Romney win, the silver lining will hopefully be that The GOP will have to marginalize their radical elements rather than cater to them. Not if they don't want to lose both houses and the Presidency at the first opportunity.

Posts: 2581 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
G3, I don't know how you can expect President Obama to do anything with a mere majority in both houses of Congress for two years.
Do you both concede the existence of a group of right-wing Democrats? Because that fully answers your questions, here.
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
G3
Member
Member # 6723

 - posted      Profile for G3   Email G3       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:
G3, I don't know how you can expect President Obama to do anything with a mere majority in both houses of Congress for two years.
Do you both concede the existence of a group of right-wing Democrats? Because that fully answers your questions, here.
That's just such a weak position to take. It's reaching in a way that's just not supportable and I think it's why some liberals argued that it would take 72 seats for a super majority in the house. It's not a serious argument.
Posts: 2234 | Registered: May 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JWatts
Member
Member # 6523

 - posted      Profile for JWatts   Email JWatts   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by NobleHunter:
My recollections from the first two years is that the Republicans exercised a level of party discipline unnatural to the American system.

[LOL] That's hilarious. Can the Liberal Reality distortion field be that great after only two years?

It can't possibly have been Democratic incompetence or ineffectual leadership.

No, it must have been 'unnatural' discipline from the minority party. Or maybe Republican's are Jedi masters and were secretly controlling Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid? Or perhaps, Vice President Joe Biden is actually a Republican Manchurian candidate? Quick, someone check to see if he's wearing boxer's with little elephants on them. [Wink]

We need some kind of Wheel of Fortune, with the Obama excuse of the week. Spin the wheel to affix blame.

a) George Bush
b) John Boehner
c) The Tea Party
d) Wall Street
e) Republican's
f) Rednecks bitterly clinging to their guns and religion.
g) Racists
h) Paul Ryan (rolling grandma off the cliff)
i) Zionists
j) Fox News
k) Big Oil
l) Red States
m) Talk Radio


I'm curious, if Obama wins the election next week, who is Obama going to blame for the next 4 years?

Posts: 4700 | Registered: Oct 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
NobleHunter
Member
Member # 2450

 - posted      Profile for NobleHunter   Email NobleHunter   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I'm curious, if Romney tries to preserve the parts of Obamacare that people actually like and the Tea Party radicals revolt, will it suddenly become patriotic and noble to disagree with your party's president? Or will it still be a sign of incompetent and ineffectual leadership?
Posts: 2581 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"I'm curious, if Obama wins the election next week, who is Obama going to blame for the next 4 years?"

If Republicans in the House continue to act like they have over the past 4 years, that's a pretty easy question to answer. Perhaps they should look at the consensus poll of *their* favorability ratings and take them into account.

Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
That's just such a weak position to take. It's reaching in a way that's just not supportable...
I don't understand why you think so. That the Republicans are better at voting as a unified bloc has been a political reality for as long as I've been alive, and certainly the phenomenon of "Blue Dog" Democrats has been something that Democratic strategists have had to deal with since the '60s.

Frankly, I find your whole "excuse of the week" revisionism to be tiresomely whiney. Yes, there are many "excuses" for why certain things happen. That is because many things happen, and many of them have different causes. Do you really think a "Wheel of Causes" is all that necessary? It's like observing that scientists have a different "excuse of the week" for tsunamis and hurricanes and the battery life of consumer electronics.

Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TCB
Member
Member # 1677

 - posted      Profile for TCB         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
JWatts said:
quote:
It can't possibly have been Democratic incompetence or ineffectual leadership.
Obama didn't try to pass the ACA during the few months he had a filibuster-proof majority because he was trying to get at least one Republican on board with the law. He also thought he had time because very few people thought it was likely that Ted Kennedy's old seat would go to a Republican and the Democrats would lose the filibuster-proof Senate. If failing to see that turn of events reflects incompetence, most people with an interest in politics (Democrats and Republicans) are incompetent.

Obama's struggles to pass the ACA had to have been more than simple political incompetence, in any case, because the same Congress and President actually passed the law through reconciliation. They could have done that on day 1, right? They didn't because they were trying to build a coalition that would include moderate Republicans. When it became clear that was impossible, Obama, Pelosi, and Reid gritted their teeth and got the job done.

You can argue that the method of the law's passage was corrupt, not Constitutional, un-democratic, evil, and so on. It's harder to argue that it was incompetent, though, because they actually passed the law against powerful resistance.

Posts: 824 | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Chael
Member
Member # 2436

 - posted      Profile for Chael   Email Chael   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
We need a three-party system, where the third party is not one of the other two parties in different clothes. Then maybe we could avoid this ridiculous my team-vs-your-team dynamic.
--------------------

G3: You're right that Reid was digging in his heels in that quote. It sounds pretty childish, the way he put it.

I don't understand what this has to do with your overall point, though. Could you elaborate please?

Posts: 872 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Ornery.org Front Page

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1