3
   

Snow in DC until Algor cries "uncle"...

 
 
Reply Tue 9 Feb, 2010 03:22 pm

http://thehill.com/blogs/twitter-room/other-news/80395-demint-dc-snow-will-continue-until-al-gore-cries-uncle

Quote:
...

Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) on Tuesday used the D.C. snowstorm to make a political jab, saying that it provides evidence for global warming skeptics.

The conservative senator took to Twitter on Tuesday amid reports that the area is due to receive another 10 to 20 inches of snow this week:

It's going to keep snowing in DC until Al Gore cries "uncle"

Some conservatives have echoed DeMint's sentiments that the snowstorm should poke holes in evidence backing global warming.

DeMint took direct aim at the former vice president, who is one of the foremost proponents of government action to counter global warming.

Reports of more snow caused the House of Representatives to call off the rest of its votes scheduled for this week. The Washington, D.C. area was blanketed with about two feet of snow last weekend, causing the Senate to adjourn Thursday earlier than expected on Thursday.

The South Carolina senator was not the first Republican to use the snowstorm to make a political point. Rep. Lynn Jenkins (R-Kansas) said that absence of votes in the House is a plus for taxpayers.
...
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 3 • Views: 2,910 • Replies: 25
No top replies

 
roger
 
  1  
Reply Tue 9 Feb, 2010 03:57 pm
@gungasnake,
gungasnake wrote:

Rep. Lynn Jenkins (R-Kansas) said that absence of votes in the House is a plus for taxpayers.
...

[/quote]

It's strange; the things that make one feel safer.
parados
 
  1  
Reply Tue 9 Feb, 2010 04:01 pm
@roger,
Why? Because snow makes Republicans act even stupider?
roger
 
  1  
Reply Tue 9 Feb, 2010 04:08 pm
@parados,
Because congress isn't voting on anything for the rest of the week.
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Tue 9 Feb, 2010 04:11 pm
@roger,
roger wrote:

Because congress isn't voting on anything for the rest of the week.


Is this really what you guys want? Complete dysfunctionality of our government until the whole thing collapses?

It seems to be what Republicans are shooting for these days - a world in which compromise doesn't exist and majority rule decides the day, always.

Cycloptichorn
Foofie
 
  1  
Reply Tue 9 Feb, 2010 09:38 pm
Perhaps, the snow in DC is not to show that "global warming" in incorrect, but rather that God is a Republican?
panzade
 
  2  
Reply Tue 9 Feb, 2010 10:01 pm
@Foofie,
If God is a Republican....she must really hate McCain.
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Tue 9 Feb, 2010 10:18 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Cycloptichorn wrote:

Is this really what you guys want? Complete dysfunctionality of our government until the whole thing collapses?
No, I'd settle for mere paralysis. Less activity and mindless intervention is better than more.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

It seems to be what Republicans are shooting for these days - a world in which compromise doesn't exist and majority rule decides the day, always.
A very strange comment coming from an avid supporter of the party with large majorities in both houses of the legislature and its own saint-in-chief in the White House.

It is amusing to watch the after-the-fact rationalizations of those who failed politically as a result of their hubris and conviction that they alone posessed a true understanding of what is right and what the people really want. Now, in dissarray, they blame it all on the formerly despised and ignored opposition, and call for ..... compromise.

Such self-obsessed whimpering and whining merits only contempt. It is amost .... embarassing to behold.
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Tue 9 Feb, 2010 10:26 pm
@georgeob1,
Quote:
A very strange comment coming from an avid supporter of the party with large majorities in both houses of the legislature and its own saint-in-chief in the White House.

It is amusing to watch the after-the-fact rationalizations of those who failed politically as a result of their hubris and conviction that they alone posessed a true understanding of what is right and what the people really want. Now, in dissarray, they blame it all on the formerly despised and ignored opposition, and call for ..... compromise.

Such self-obsessed whimpering and whining merits only contempt. It is amost .... embarassing to behold.


What's really embarrassing is the straw-men that you create on a regular basis. You certainly aren't describing the argument I was making, or that most Dems are making.

The Dems' didn't fail to reform health-care because of the Republicans, they failed because of their own missteps. I don't believe that most dems are blaming the Republicans for this failure. So your accusations are pretty false, at least if you are talking about me they are. And I would challenge you to link to any post where I engaged in said behavior - but we all know that isn't going to happen, don't we?

What we're talking about tho is the double-talk that the Republican party engages in. They go on and on about 'compromise' and 'bipartisanship,' but when asked what they are willing to compromise on, the answer is: nothing. Nothing at all. Even if it means that nothing gets done ever - to them, letting the country's problems get worse isn't a big deal, for two reasons:

1, they can blame it all on the Dems and promise to fix it when they get into office, and

2, they don't really give a **** about problems which don't directly affect them anyway.

The Republicans put forward a HC plan which includes several elements which are ALREADY included in the Dem plan; yet they are completely unwilling to vote on the Dem plan at all. That is not the definition of compromise and bipartisanship.

I would remind you again that when asked 'which group is most responsible for the problems in America today?' the #1 answer - consistently - is the Republican party. They aren't responsible for the problems with HC reform, but they are responsible for a huge amount of the problems that we do face, and this is an opinion shared by a majority of Americans. I guess you should drip some condescension their way too.

Cycloptichorn
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Tue 9 Feb, 2010 10:40 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Cycloptichorn wrote:


What's really embarrassing is the straw-men that you create.

The Dems' didn't fail to reform health-care because of the Republicans, they failed because of their own missteps. I don't believe that most dems are blaming the Republicans for this failure. So your accusations are pretty false, at least if you are talking about me they are. And I would challenge you to link to any post where I engaged in said behavior - but we all know that isn't going to happen, don't we?

Oh ? Then we agree on this point. That indeed is what I meant when I wrote that the Democrats failed as a result of their own hubris and conviction that they alone had the answers.

There's no straw man here at all. You are merely throwing dust in the air.

Cycloptichorn wrote:
What we're talking about tho is the double-talk that the Republican party engages in. They go on and on about 'compromise' and 'bipartisanship,' but when asked what they are willing to compromise on, the answer is: nothing. Nothing at all. Even if it means that nothing gets done ever - to them, letting the country's problems get worse isn't a big deal, for two reasons:
The time for compromise has come and gone. The Democrats spurned it when they mistakenly believed they could win on their own. Now, in self-inflicted defeat and disarray, they childishly stomp their feet and demand compromise on their own terms and subject to their own rules. A pathetic spectacle exceeded only by their juvenile demands for instant satisfaction

Cycloptichorn wrote:
The Republicans put forward a HC plan which includes several elements which are ALREADY included in the Dem plan; yet they are completely unwilling to vote on the Dem plan at all.
No more so than the Democrats were willing to vote on the Republican plan you cited

You seem amazingly convinced that special rules must apply to you and yours, but no one else.
gungasnake
 
  1  
Reply Wed 10 Feb, 2010 04:31 am
We've just been through a period of dems having a super majority in the senate.

They could have passed anything they wanted without a single pubby vote and anything halfway rational which any of them had ever proposed WOULD have passed.

What's happened is that the lunatics in charge of the party were not able to get the leftover Kennedy/Stevenson/Humphrey i.e. halfway rational democrats on board for their agenda.


0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  0  
Reply Wed 10 Feb, 2010 11:17 am
@georgeob1,
Quote:

Oh ? Then we agree on this point. That indeed is what I meant when I wrote that the Democrats failed as a result of their own hubris and conviction that they alone had the answers.


The Dems failed for two reasons:

1, the members of the Dem party who have taken the most money from the health insurance industry successfully delayed the bill for months and months, and the leadership did nothing to stop them; and

2, the leadership made a tactical error in not choosing Reconciliation right off the bat. It gave too much power to guys like Lieberman who used that power to **** up the whole mess.

HC reform didn't fail because of hubris, or because of Dems having the wrong answers on the topic. This is nothing more than partisan carping on your part.

Quote:
No more so than the Democrats were willing to vote on the Republican plan you cited


The majority typically does not debate and vote on the plans of the minority; or perhaps you have a basic misunderstanding of the way our system works?

Is is the job of the minority to debate and vote on the legislation proposed by the majority. If the Republicans want their ideas to be the ones which make it into legislation, they can either learn to compromise or they can win the leadership, there's no third choice.

Nevertheless, the House Dems are asking the House Republicans to debate the 'shadow government' bill that Rep. Ryan has put together - and your own leadership refuses to do so.

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/02/democrats-were-excited-to-debate-gop-shadow-budgetwhy-arent-republicans.php?ref=fpblg

Your leadership is running from the proposed budget that your own guy in charge of creating such things has created, because it includes things like cuts to Medicare and SS and tax cuts for the rich.

Cycloptichorn
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Wed 10 Feb, 2010 12:12 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Cycloptichorn wrote:

The Dems failed for two reasons:

1, the members of the Dem party who have taken the most money from the health insurance industry successfully delayed the bill for months and months, and the leadership did nothing to stop them; and

2, the leadership made a tactical error in not choosing Reconciliation right off the bat. It gave too much power to guys like Lieberman who used that power to **** up the whole mess.
Interesting. Thus the Democrats failed because of the personal corruption of their elected leaders in the Congress, and their failure to (mis)use the reconciliation process to force their bill through in the face of long established legislative rules.

Neither of us knows what may have followed a Democrat attempt to apply the reconciliation tactic. It might have led to open warfare between progressives and moderates among the Democrats themselves. More likely it would have pushed the public outrage over their policies and methods over the top. This outrage has already led to a succession of Democrat losses in key special Congressional elections and more are already likely. I suspect this would have caused whatever Democrat unity is left in the Congress to quickly mely away in the attempt.

In fact reconciliation is still a tactical oprion for the Democrats on Health Care legislation. Any bets on whether they will try it?


Cycloptichorn wrote:

The majority typically does not debate and vote on the plans of the minority; or perhaps you have a basic misunderstanding of the way our system works?

Is is the job of the minority to debate and vote on the legislation proposed by the majority. If the Republicans want their ideas to be the ones which make it into legislation, they can either learn to compromise or they can win the leadership, there's no third choice.
Thank you for the tutorial on the supposed role of the minority. In fact the Republicans did indeed debate on and vote against the Democrat legislative proposals in this matter. The fact that Democrats overplayed their hand and included no accomodation to the wishes of the minority very obviously explains why they got none of its votes - a classical example of the hubris you reject.

As for the rest..... these are merely the clever but ill-conceived, desperate and futile devices of an Administration that has still not recognized the significance of the political reversal it has encountered. Oddly they seem to believe that the remedy for their current difficulties is more of the same antics that got them in the situation they see today.

However, it is OK by me. It is going to be an entertaining year.
[/quote]
Cycloptichorn
 
  2  
Reply Wed 10 Feb, 2010 12:18 pm
@georgeob1,
Quote:
The fact that Democrats overplayed their hand and included no accomodation to the wishes of the minority


It's bullshit like this which proves that you know so little of what you talk about. The truth is that the Dems did accommodate many of the plans of the minority. The Dem bill is chock full of stuff that the Republicans want and say they support. Much of this was added in the Senate Finance committee, after Baucus and Nelson negotiated for months with the Republicans on the committee.

What you have written is completely untrue; which is to say, you're just spouting lies now in pursuit of making political points about the ideas the other side has. I'm quite sure however that at the end of the day, your opposition to the Dem plans lies squarely in the fact that they will raise YOUR taxes - it always comes down to greed in the end with your party. All other objections you raise are cover for this simple motivator.

Quote:
This outrage has already led to a succession of Democrat losses in key special Congressional elections and more are already likely.


Rolling Eyes Are you ******* kidding George? How many losses do you believe makes a 'succession?'

I'll ask you a simple question: in the last 6 'special elections' of Congressmen and Senators, how many have the Republicans won? If you can't answer this question accurately, then do yourself a favor and quit spreading lies.

Cycloptichorn
georgeob1
 
  0  
Reply Wed 10 Feb, 2010 12:32 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Your denial of the obvious and self-absorption are truly formidable. With such an impenetrable wall the likelihood of any new perception or understanding on your part seems very remote.

I'll simply await the forthcoming successful use of the reconciliation process to pass its Health Care legislation by the current Democrat leadership in the White House and Congress, and patiently observe the growing string of Democrat victories in key special Congressional elections in the months ahead, all to culminate in renewed large Democrat majorities in the November Congressional elections.

Do you have any specific predictions to offer us on the forthcoming senatorial elections to fill the seats vacated by the president and Vice President? (I always take a great interest in your predictions.)

Yeah sure.
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Wed 10 Feb, 2010 12:35 pm
@georgeob1,
No admission whatsoever that you reported two things factually incorrectly. Don't ever lecture anyone on Hubris, George.

You don't seem to have the guts to admit your mistakes, or that you are talking about things that you haven't researched at all. Do you believe that posts which are riddled with factual errors - not opinion differences, but factual errors- are impressive or convincing to anyone?

Cycloptichorn
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Wed 10 Feb, 2010 12:52 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
It's getting to the point where there's no reason to have conversations with you, George, because you don't care about facts or supporting your arguments. Ever. You get pissy when asked to do so. These are not the qualities of a fine debater but instead of an ideologue.

Everything under discussion is nothing more then another opportunity for you to express your disdain for the Democratic party. Every single problem is evidence of the failure of Dem ideas. All issues boil down in the end to your point of view being right and all others being wrong. You pretend that the public supports your positions but ignore evidence that shows they do not; even after repeatedly having this demonstrated to you, you persist in speaking on behalf of 'Americans.'

You are unwilling to provide evidence or links to back up anything you say and you refuse to admit errors when they are pointed out to you.

Tell me - why should anyone here bother conversing with you on a political subject? What do you bring to the conversation that allows productive discussion to move forward? Your behavior over the last year or so has grown increasingly poor in this regard and you ought to take the time to examine your posts and answer those questions.

Cycloptichorn
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Wed 10 Feb, 2010 01:54 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Cycloptichorn wrote:

Everything under discussion is nothing more then another opportunity for you to express your disdain for the Democratic party. Every single problem is evidence of the failure of Dem ideas. All issues boil down in the end to your point of view being right and all others being wrong. You pretend that the public supports your positions but ignore evidence that shows they do not; even after repeatedly having this demonstrated to you, you persist in speaking on behalf of 'Americans.'

Change "Democrat" to Republican" and you have aptly described your own rhetorical style.

Apparently you deny that there has been a serious reversal in the political fortunes of the current administration - both in Congress and probably the White House. Apparently you deny that there is evidence of continuing and possibly growing public disenchantment with both the President and his program, and that, as a result, their majorities in both houses of Congress are likely in some jeopardy. Apparently you believe that the current health Care legislation, or some amorphous combination of the House and Senate bills, will emerge from the misuse of the reconciliation process, and an adoring public will welcome this outcome. I do not.

Moreover I believe that there is substantial evidence for the likely truth of each of the following propositions;
1. There will be no broad health care legislation emerging from the present Congress, and the Democrats will not even attempt to use the reconciliation process.
2. The Democrats will suffer significant setbacks in both the House and Senate in the November elections (significantly higher than "normal" for mid term elections), reducing their majority in the Senate to no more than two or three, including Republican victories to fill the Senate seats once occupied by the President and Vice President..

You are free to pick out details suggesting the contrary, but they do not (in my view) constitute a persuasive argument.
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Wed 10 Feb, 2010 02:00 pm
@georgeob1,
Quote:

Change "Democrat" to Republican" and you have aptly described your own rhetorical style.


With the critical difference between the two of us being that I am willing to provide evidence and links to support my argumentation, whereas you are not. This makes all the difference in the world; I am arguing in good faith and with supporting documentation and you are not; you merely assert that things are true. There really is no comparison here.

Quote:

Apparently you deny that there has been a serious reversal in the political fortunes of the current administration - both in Congress and probably the White House.


Polling data does not support your contention, but you don't really give a **** about any evidence which counters your beliefs, do you?

Quote:
Apparently you believe that the current health Care legislation, or some amorphous combination of the House and Senate bills, will emerge from the misuse of the reconciliation process, and an adoring public will welcome this outcome. I do not.


I challenge you to link to a post where I have stated this. I expect you to fail this challenge, because I don't believe you know how to search for posts OR link to them. I would be more then happy to educate you in this regard.

Quote:

2. The Democrats will suffer significant setbacks in both the House and Senate in the November elections (significantly higher than "normal" for mid term elections), reducing their majority in the Senate to no more than two or three, including Republican victories to fill the Senate seats once occupied by the President and Vice President..


Funny, I predicted the exact same thing months ago and you gave me a hard time for making predictions. I wonder if you even remember this Laughing

I still have a hanging question which you haven't answered: How many special elections for national office have been won by Republicans, out of the last 6 (which is how many have occurred since 2008)? Your inability to respond or even acknowledge simple questions like this does not reflect well upon you.

Cycloptichorn
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Wed 10 Feb, 2010 06:44 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
If in an earlier post you forecasted significant, above normal Democrat losses in the coming November elections, in both the House & Senate, including the senate seats formerly held by the President and Vice President, I would be very glad to read it. Frankly I don't recall such a prediction of yours.

More significantly I can't reconcile such a prediction with the following assertion from your last post denying my suggestion of a significant reversal in the political fortunes of both the President and the Democrat members of Congress. You noted that "polling data does not support that contention". Interesting too that you didn't cite the specific poll that supposedly make your point.

The number of Democrat/Republican wins in "the last six special elections since 2008" has very little relevance on the proposition that the Democrats have suffered a significant recent reversal of political fortunes - and therefore doesn't deserve a response.. A data set that included all such elections since (say) October 09 (when you triumphantly forecast the President would sign a Health Care Bill containing a government option) would be relevant to the point. Moreover, I believe such data would reinforce my point.

OK two questions: Do you believe the Democrats will attempt to pass health care legislation using the reconciliation process? Do you believe the public will welcome it if they try?
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Snow in DC until Algor cries "uncle"...
Copyright © 2020 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 08/06/2020 at 07:38:34