What about the Republican minority stonewalling absolutely everything with reckless and impotent indignation?
They're pissed off, probably because Obama has effectively soothed them. You don't think that if the Republicans had a majority right now with a Republican President in power the Democrats would not be doing the exact same shit? They'd be doing it even worse.
What about the Republican minority stonewalling absolutely everything with reckless and impotent indignation?
They're pissed off, probably because Obama has effectively soothed them. You don't think that if the Republicans had a majority right now with a Republican President in power the Democrats would not be doing the exact same shit? They'd be doing it even worse.
So why can't Obama make Republicans cave the way Bush made Democrats cave?
Does. Not. Compute. First you claim the Dems would be stonewalling, and then you bring up them caving. Which is it, buddy?
It's the same thing as fox news complaining both about how Obama is a completely powerless wimp of a leader who will never amount to anything because he's a prissy boy(And probably gay shhhh), while complaining that he's radically changing the foundation of america into a socialist nation with no morals.
By which I mean shut up you liberal hippie get off my lawn get a job stop smoking pot and accept that I'm right because I'M VERY LOUD ABOUT IT
So why can't Obama make Republicans cave the way Bush made Democrats cave?
Because the Democrats of that time saw "negotiate" as "begrudgingly negotiating", while Republics now see it as "I'm not going to listen to you, but let me see how far I can jam my senate lamp up through your rectum, your commie fascist darkie scumbag?"
What about the Republican minority stonewalling absolutely everything with reckless and impotent indignation?
They're pissed off, probably because Obama has effectively soothed them. You don't think that if the Republicans had a majority right now with a Republican President in power the Democrats would not be doing the exact same shit? They'd be doing it even worse.
What about the Republican minority stonewalling absolutely everything with reckless and impotent indignation?
They're pissed off, probably because Obama has effectively soothed them. You don't think that if the Republicans had a majority right now with a Republican President in power the Democrats would not be doing the exact same shit? They'd be doing it even worse.
It is possible to stonewall and then cave. You had to really twist arms sometimes to get the Democrats to budge.
Care to actually cite an example of this?
Lawndart on
0
KalTorakOne way or another, they all end up inthe Undercity.Registered Userregular
edited May 2009
Offering Republicans something they want so they'll actually want to vote for a bill is very different than "twisting their arms". It's pretty much the opposite, in fact. Would you rather Obama twisted their arms instead of offering compromises that they then refuse to meet?
It is possible to stonewall and then cave. You had to really twist arms sometimes to get the Democrats to budge.
Care to actually cite an example of this?
Judicial nomination filibustering?
Now, I really wasn't into politics at the time, so forgive me in the highly likely event that I'm wrong, but the only Bush nomination I remember that didn't go through was Harriet Miers, who wasn't qualified in the first place. Were there others?
It is possible to stonewall and then cave. You had to really twist arms sometimes to get the Democrats to budge.
Care to actually cite an example of this?
Judicial nomination filibustering?
Now, I really wasn't into politics at the time, so forgive me in the highly likely event that I'm wrong, but the only Bush nomination I remember that didn't go through was Harriet Miers, who wasn't qualified in the first place. Were there others?
True. Nobody was actually kept from being nominated after a period of time.
What happened was that the Democrats began filibustering the nominations of the nominees they disagreed with. Then the Republicans told Fox News to start complaining, and it did, and the Republicans gained public support, and then the Democrats compromised. The compromise was that they stopped filibustering, and the Republicans would get to pass the nominees they wanted.
It wasn't a very good compromise.
That's the best example of Democratic opposition to anything Bush did over the past eight years that I can think of. That's why I mentioned it.
It is possible to stonewall and then cave. You had to really twist arms sometimes to get the Democrats to budge.
So your definition of bipartisanship isn't 'good faith effort to reach common ground' but rather 'to crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentation of the women.' Am I getting this right? Because that's pretty retarded.
It is possible to stonewall and then cave. You had to really twist arms sometimes to get the Democrats to budge.
So your definition of bipartisanship isn't 'good faith effort t o reach common ground' but rather 'to crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentation of the women.' Am I getting this right? Because that's pretty retarded.
No, no, you're not quite getting Obs here.
What he's saying is that if the Democrats are in power, bipartisanship means caving to the Republican minority.
If the Republicans are in power, bipartisanship is making the Democratic minority cave.
So is there any real remorse regarding Obama over Hillary as president? Obama said one thing and boy has he done differently, especially when it came to defense he ended up being no different than what Hillary would have done.
Right, civil libertarians like Maddow and Greenwald are pissed. And yet, we still overall approve of the job he's doing because we have other concerns. Granted, it's my main concern, but still.
enlightenedbum on
The idea that your vote is a moral statement about you or who you vote for is some backwards ass libertarian nonsense. Your vote is about society. Vote to protect the vulnerable.
Right, civil libertarians like Maddow and Greenwald are pissed. And yet, we still overall approve of the job he's doing because we have other concerns. Granted, it's my main concern, but still.
I think there are some on the left who expected Obama to be the Bizarro version of Bush.
So is there any real remorse regarding Obama over Hillary as president? Obama said one thing and boy has he done differently, especially when it came to defense he ended up being no different than what Hillary would have done.
Also, fuck those Notre Dame students who turn their backs and shit. At my graduation, the .01% of people who didn't like their commencement speaker just didn't attend.
Right, civil libertarians like Maddow and Greenwald are pissed. And yet, we still overall approve of the job he's doing because we have other concerns. Granted, it's my main concern, but still.
I think there are some on the left who expected Obama to be the Bizarro version of Bush.
And oddly you can't find evidence of them. There are either people who insisted he was too moderate in the primary and never fully bought in (though voted for him) that remain in that camp, or people who are happy with most things, but disappointed in certain areas (usually civil liberties or gay rights).
Rust would be your example of the former from these forums. Myself, Jeffe, half the people in the Justice Department memo thread would be examples of the latter.
enlightenedbum on
The idea that your vote is a moral statement about you or who you vote for is some backwards ass libertarian nonsense. Your vote is about society. Vote to protect the vulnerable.
Right, civil libertarians like Maddow and Greenwald are pissed. And yet, we still overall approve of the job he's doing because we have other concerns. Granted, it's my main concern, but still.
I think there are some on the left who expected Obama to be the Bizarro version of Bush.
His approval rate is over 90% among Democrats and that has increased since his inauguration. So your question is dumb. Hell, his approval rate among Republicans is greater than Bush's final overall approval rating. I'd say you were trying to be wrong but I think that would be giving your general competence too much credit.
So is there any real remorse regarding Obama over Hillary as president? Obama said one thing and boy has he done differently, especially when it came to defense he ended up being no different than what Hillary would have done.
I might have been the only person who went into this thinking, "You know, he's a human, American politician. He's supposed to say some things and do other things. That's how American democracy works."
Frankly, the danger of creating a precedent--George H. W. Bush, followed by Bill Clinton twice, followed by George W. Bush twice, followed by Hillary Clinton--was enough to convince me on the issue. Of course, I've had some reservations towards Clinton, but that's nothing new. I think it's a dangerous precedent.
To answer your question, no. I don't regret that Obama won the primary. I especially don't regret that he won the election. I'm probably just being wishy-washy by saying this, but I'm confident that the other potential outcomes would have left me, personally, considerably more upset.
So is there any real remorse regarding Obama over Hillary as president? Obama said one thing and boy has he done differently, especially when it came to defense he ended up being no different than what Hillary would have done.
Lack of evidence of this phenomenon aside, I think the reasoning that leads you to ask this question is flawed. Consider:
So is there any real remorse regarding Obama over Hillary as president?
+
[H]e ended up being no different than what Hillary would have done.
=
Obama supporters regretting that they didn't vote for Hillary because Hillary would've done the exact same thing as Obama is doing? Why would they regret not voting for Hillary? If anything, they would regret either not having a viable candidate further to the left (issues of electability in the general aside), or they would regret Obama's not being as liberal as they thought, while still probably preferring him to Hillary.
Matrijs on
0
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
I'm really disappointed that Obama hasn't spent the stimulus money faster. I mean we've only consumed 6% of the 787 billion dollars and Paul Krugman said the sun would go supernova if we didn't spend 7 times that in half the time.
We're in serious danger of coming out of the recession on our own with minimal government intervention. People are even threatening to continue buying only that which they can afford if the government doesn't act as fast as possible.
I'm really disappointed that Obama hasn't spent the stimulus money faster. I mean we've only consumed 6% of the 787 billion dollars and Paul Krugman said the sun would go supernova if we didn't spend 7 times that in half the time.
We're in serious danger of coming out of the recession on our own with minimal government intervention. People are even threatening to continue buying only that which they can afford if the government doesn't act as fast as possible.
We are half a year away from the Recession being technically over at the absolute earliest assuming we bottomed out yesterday. Which all facts and figures point to not being the case. In reality we'll be lucky if 2010 marks a return to 'normalcy' rather than 2011, though that will be cold comfort to people still suffering under the lagging indicators which generally hit closer to home.
I'm really disappointed that Obama hasn't spent the stimulus money faster. I mean we've only consumed 6% of the 787 billion dollars and Paul Krugman said the sun would go supernova if we didn't spend 7 times that in half the time.
We're in serious danger of coming out of the recession on our own with minimal government intervention. People are even threatening to continue buying only that which they can afford if the government doesn't act as fast as possible.
I'd make the point that a vast chunk of the stimulus money doesn't need to be paid out right now to have an effect (the state aid counts towards their budgets as they work them out and let states avoid or minimize cuts, all the infrastructure funding lets companies keep on staff while they ramp up for jobs even if only minuscule of the total allotted sum has been paid, etc) but the premise is so wildly flawed it barely seems worth the effort.
'olol we didn't need the govmint' seems beneath getting worked up about when we're still shedding north of a half million jobs a month, we just closed 2000 dealerships, and the stock market is in a holding pattern while we're staring down the barrel of a second wave of ARM resets, a crash in commercial real estate, and a world of hurt in the credit card market.
I don't think there's anyone who wouldn't go insane with glee to have this have been nothing but a false alarm that only needed competent leadership at the helm as opposed to a boat load of cash and years to fix, but we aren't going to get that lucky.
I'd make the point that a vast chunk of the stimulus money doesn't need to be paid out right now to have an effect (the state aid counts towards their budgets as they work them out and let states avoid or minimize cuts, all the infrastructure funding lets companies keep on staff while they ramp up for jobs even if only minuscule of the total allotted sum has been paid, etc) but the premise is so wildly flawed it barely seems worth the effort.
'olol we didn't need the govmint' seems beneath getting worked up about when we're still shedding north of a half million jobs a month, we just closed 2000 dealerships, and the stock market is in a holding pattern while we're staring down the barrel of a second wave of ARM resets, a crash in commercial real estate, and a world of hurt in the credit card market.
I don't think there's anyone who wouldn't go insane with glee to have this have been nothing but a false alarm that only needed competent leadership at the helm as opposed to a boat load of cash and years to fix, but we aren't going to get that lucky.
That's besides the fallacy that the stimulus is meant to make people spend more than they can afford, when people are currently spending much less then they can afford due to employment insecurity, and the stimulus increases the amount they can spend by A) giving people money, and increasing the supply of jobs/ demand for workers, thereby forcing up wages.
I know that whenever I buy anything, I always give the seller the money before I receive any goods or services. And when someone works for me? I give them their pay before they do the work.
I will give Nash points for touching a nerve though. Not through any insight or by actually being right, but there are some real concern about the stimulus. It's going to be a long road back up and no one (except the morons buying SUVs) thinks we've even bottomed out yet.
We continue to Rip from today's headlines here, where we learn the cut of Robert Greasy's jib. Spoiler: the cut is somewhat nefarious. It is an ambitious, mercenary jib.
Russia is still a little scary. Now that I am an adult, I can understand that we were probably doing things they didn't like either, so they had to have their own stash of apocalyptic world-ending weaponry. The nuance of that doesn't really come across in elementary school. What you come away with is that those who survive the atomic blast will discover new agonies each day they persist. No context for irrational Russian aggression was offered because there was no framework that justified their loathing for America. The standout mental image from this period was my stuffed animals obliterated in a flash of coalesced science.
Allofmp3.com has really helped to heal these old wounds.
Every one of you already knows about this Soviet music service, but the experience has been so profound that I had to mention it. Quick information for you, if you don't know what I'm talking about: imagine that you could purchase digital media "by the pound," that is to say, purchase it according to the amount of space it takes up on the hard disk. Music as raw bits, a true commodity. That's essentially what the service is. A'feared to give our actual credit card number to the Russian Bear, we had a couple cash cards made and began to swim - as Scrooge McDuck might swim - in a luxuriant pool of shoulder-deep data.
Utilizing every engine of my creative power I imagined a way that this could be legitimate. What we were doing, see, was simply tasting the bulging, global fruit that was always the promise of international commerce. There's going to be some country out there where such licenses can be obtained for a negligible fee. So long as that nation is connected to my house via the Internet, I can begin greedily plucking the results of that loophole directly from a kind of electronic vine.
And what a sweet harvest it was. It handles things a little different than other music services, largely because it is a shadowy online fence for stolen goods. There's no protection on the files, obviously - which means you can do what you want with them, just as you'd expect to do with other things you purchase with money. Of keen interest to me is that you can purchase the files not merely in whatever bitrate seemed appropriate to the service - the compression rate is completely up to you. Because you're paying for the file/song/album by size, you can get the son of a bitch at 320k lossless if you want. You can even download it in a way that takes solid shape and ride it down the hall.
I was talking about this before, that I don't want to be a person whose mutable morality allows for out and out theft, so I clapped my hands for a while and tried to believe it was okay to do this stuff. It was a lot easier when the jury was still kind of out on it, and I heard conflicting reports, because there's got to be a thousand posts out there from guys who say that it is "totally" legal. Now I'm hearing it might not even be legitimate behind the Iron Curtain. Thanks a lot, CNet. You've essentially stolen Christmas. My delicious, immoral holiday is gone because of your monstrous facts.
To nourish you news-wise, Tekken 5 drops today, which is to say Friday. The series completely lost me with the fourth one, which added interactive environments and removed my enjoyment absolutely. I've heard people say that the series has always aped Virtua Fighter, but I never found that to be the case until 4. The review I read of the new one makes it sound like the developer shares my low opinion of that title. We need a new fighter to carry us to the next Soul Calibur, I'll grab it and tell you what I find out.
The fourth content drop ("Issue") for City of Heroes is about to hit, and I've been looking with fondness upon some of the features. I don't know that I'd actually recidivate any time before the City of Villains expansion, but they really do keep dishing up neat shit. The main reason I mentioned it was the notes on their new Arena feature, listing how the regular powers players use against enemies have slightly different effects in Player vs. Player combat. Even as someone who doesn't play anymore, I found those distinctions interesting.
And something else, something fascinating: Hironobu Sakaguchi (Gabe: "Who?"), the inventor of Final Fantasy, is working with MS to drop an RPG on the next generation Xbox, whatever the fuck they end up calling it. That's sort of big news. The Xbox has always really hurt for RPGs that actually fit into the traditional genre. You've got action hybrids, okay great, but I think I can count the true RPGs and tactical strategy games on one hand. I've never understood why this is, because Microsoft owns the rights to some of the most potent intellectual property that could be applied to roleplaying and tactical games through FASA: Shadowrun, Mechwarrior, and Crimson Skies. In the last two cases, I've certainly enjoyed their rebirths as action franchises - but frankly, they're capable of more.
Posts
Does. Not. Compute. First you claim the Dems would be stonewalling, and then you bring up them caving. Which is it, buddy?
It's the same thing as fox news complaining both about how Obama is a completely powerless wimp of a leader who will never amount to anything because he's a prissy boy(And probably gay shhhh), while complaining that he's radically changing the foundation of america into a socialist nation with no morals.
By which I mean shut up you liberal hippie get off my lawn get a job stop smoking pot and accept that I'm right because I'M VERY LOUD ABOUT IT
Because the Democrats of that time saw "negotiate" as "begrudgingly negotiating", while Republics now see it as "I'm not going to listen to you, but let me see how far I can jam my senate lamp up through your rectum, your commie fascist darkie scumbag?"
It is possible to stonewall and then cave. You had to really twist arms sometimes to get the Democrats to budge.
BUT THEY BUDGED.
Republicans today are the fucking Blob in that respect.
Care to actually cite an example of this?
Silly lawn, asking for facts.
Judicial nomination filibustering?
Now, I really wasn't into politics at the time, so forgive me in the highly likely event that I'm wrong, but the only Bush nomination I remember that didn't go through was Harriet Miers, who wasn't qualified in the first place. Were there others?
True. Nobody was actually kept from being nominated after a period of time.
What happened was that the Democrats began filibustering the nominations of the nominees they disagreed with. Then the Republicans told Fox News to start complaining, and it did, and the Republicans gained public support, and then the Democrats compromised. The compromise was that they stopped filibustering, and the Republicans would get to pass the nominees they wanted.
It wasn't a very good compromise.
That's the best example of Democratic opposition to anything Bush did over the past eight years that I can think of. That's why I mentioned it.
So your definition of bipartisanship isn't 'good faith effort to reach common ground' but rather 'to crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentation of the women.' Am I getting this right? Because that's pretty retarded.
No, no, you're not quite getting Obs here.
What he's saying is that if the Democrats are in power, bipartisanship means caving to the Republican minority.
If the Republicans are in power, bipartisanship is making the Democratic minority cave.
I defended. What say you?
Some on left souring on Obama
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0509/22604.html
I think there are some on the left who expected Obama to be the Bizarro version of Bush.
Hillary is never mentioned in that article.
Also, fuck those Notre Dame students who turn their backs and shit. At my graduation, the .01% of people who didn't like their commencement speaker just didn't attend.
Let 'em eat fucking pineapples!
And oddly you can't find evidence of them. There are either people who insisted he was too moderate in the primary and never fully bought in (though voted for him) that remain in that camp, or people who are happy with most things, but disappointed in certain areas (usually civil liberties or gay rights).
Rust would be your example of the former from these forums. Myself, Jeffe, half the people in the Justice Department memo thread would be examples of the latter.
His approval rate is over 90% among Democrats and that has increased since his inauguration. So your question is dumb. Hell, his approval rate among Republicans is greater than Bush's final overall approval rating. I'd say you were trying to be wrong but I think that would be giving your general competence too much credit.
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
I might have been the only person who went into this thinking, "You know, he's a human, American politician. He's supposed to say some things and do other things. That's how American democracy works."
Frankly, the danger of creating a precedent--George H. W. Bush, followed by Bill Clinton twice, followed by George W. Bush twice, followed by Hillary Clinton--was enough to convince me on the issue. Of course, I've had some reservations towards Clinton, but that's nothing new. I think it's a dangerous precedent.
To answer your question, no. I don't regret that Obama won the primary. I especially don't regret that he won the election. I'm probably just being wishy-washy by saying this, but I'm confident that the other potential outcomes would have left me, personally, considerably more upset.
Lack of evidence of this phenomenon aside, I think the reasoning that leads you to ask this question is flawed. Consider: + =
Obama supporters regretting that they didn't vote for Hillary because Hillary would've done the exact same thing as Obama is doing? Why would they regret not voting for Hillary? If anything, they would regret either not having a viable candidate further to the left (issues of electability in the general aside), or they would regret Obama's not being as liberal as they thought, while still probably preferring him to Hillary.
We're in serious danger of coming out of the recession on our own with minimal government intervention. People are even threatening to continue buying only that which they can afford if the government doesn't act as fast as possible.
We are half a year away from the Recession being technically over at the absolute earliest assuming we bottomed out yesterday. Which all facts and figures point to not being the case. In reality we'll be lucky if 2010 marks a return to 'normalcy' rather than 2011, though that will be cold comfort to people still suffering under the lagging indicators which generally hit closer to home.
Heh.
We'll see.
'olol we didn't need the govmint' seems beneath getting worked up about when we're still shedding north of a half million jobs a month, we just closed 2000 dealerships, and the stock market is in a holding pattern while we're staring down the barrel of a second wave of ARM resets, a crash in commercial real estate, and a world of hurt in the credit card market.
I don't think there's anyone who wouldn't go insane with glee to have this have been nothing but a false alarm that only needed competent leadership at the helm as opposed to a boat load of cash and years to fix, but we aren't going to get that lucky.
That's besides the fallacy that the stimulus is meant to make people spend more than they can afford, when people are currently spending much less then they can afford due to employment insecurity, and the stimulus increases the amount they can spend by A) giving people money, and increasing the supply of jobs/ demand for workers, thereby forcing up wages.
Is it possible to maybe cancel the stimulus if things turn out to be not so bad?
people need to start getting jobs again before they can think about that.
I'm sure all those guys at Chrysler agree.
Our first game is now available for free on Google Play: Frontier: Isle of the Seven Gods
Numbers are known to have a liberal bias.
Em, don't let me see you resurrect an old thread if you don't have a damn good reason to do so.