The new Republican House Majority

This is pretty bad. The morons are winning. These incompetent power-mad shitheads are going to ruin everything, unless someone comes to our rescue.

President Obama, we need you to pull out the Superman outfit and please save us all from these evil supervillains! Rupert Murdoch (Lex Luthor), Dick Cheney (The Penguin), John Boehner (The Human Tan), Glen Beck (The Blob), Sarah Palin (The Harpy). HELP!

1 Reply

@kickycan,

Do you really think they are any worse than the annointed amateur in the White House and the likes of Harry Reid, Chris Dodd, Chuck Schumer, Nancy Pelosi, Barney Frank, Maxine Waters and the rest of that menagerie?

3 Replies

@georgeob1,

Nope. Which is why folks are pissed off with politics as usual and they'll continue to be pissed off until politicians figure out that they can't play obstructionist games or pass a budget that doesn't reduce the deficit.

McConnell is an absolute idiot if he thinks repealing health care is mission #1.

0 Replies

@Thomas,

It seems that you're spot-on.

Election doesn't end major discord for GOP, Obama

Quote:

WASHINGTON – Barely an hour after President Barack Obama invited congressional Republicans to post-election talks to work together on major issues, the Senate's GOP leader had a blunt message: His party's main goal is denying Obama re-election.

In a sign that combat and the 2012 elections rather than compromise could mark the next two years, Sen. Mitch McConnell on Thursday called for Senate votes to repeal or erode Obama's signature health care law, to cut spending and to shrink government.

"The only way to do all these things it is to put someone in the White House who won't veto any of these things," McConnell said in a speech to the conservative Heritage Foundation.

The Senate Republican leader's confrontational tone was in sharp contrast to the posture Obama took Wednesday in the face of a new GOP-controlled House and Republican gains in the Senate. Obama followed up Thursday morning by inviting Republican and Democratic congressional leaders for talks on Nov. 18 and challenging his own Cabinet to make Washington work better.

...

0 Replies

@Thomas,

I think the term "obstruction" is a bit misleading here. In the first place, while opposing policies that one believes will be truly harmful to the country is certainly obstructionism from the perspective of the advocates of those policies, it can be viewed as a very positive thing from a more elevated perspective. I'm not suggesting that this explains the whole process or motivation involved, but it is a significant aspect of the matter that Democrat partisans usually ignore.

Secondly, I believe we will see some cooperation and compromise fairly soon on the currently scheduled tax increases. Republicans (and a very large segment of the population) are fundamentally opposed to the health care legislation and would like to see it rescinded. That will likely be impossible for at least the next two years, given the President's veto power. However, in the interim they can likely find ways to eliminate some of the many awful specific provisions of this ill-conceived, complex and convoluted legislation, ranging from a doubling of the IRS to turn it into health insurance enforcement agency; to the huge financial burdens it transfers to already overburdened state governments; the asinine (and 1984 ish) requirement for reporting all financial transactions over $600 to the IRS; and the enormous regulatory power assigned to a new government bureaucracy whose still uncertain actions are already stifling business investment and job creation.

1 Reply

@georgeob1,

georgeob1 wrote:

. . . it can be viewed as a very positive thing from a more elevated perspective.

More elevated ? ! ? ! ? Please, O'George, don't piss down my leg and tell me it's raining. Politicians, and especially those dear to the hearts of the tea baggers, are not and never will be in the business of "elevating" political discourse and processes.

2 Replies

@Setanta,

Setanta, I wrote "can be" and you responded with "are not and never will". I appreciate your somewhat overly cynical opinion on the matter, however you should know better than to expect anyone to respect your logic here.

1 Reply

Respect my logic? It wasn't an appeal to logic, it was a flat statement. Polticians, of any stripe, only indulge in "elevated" discourse when they're trying to get elected. Once they are seated, their object is to get what their most generous constituents want, by any means possible. In the case of Republicans, that almost always means tax cuts for the already wealthy, and the consequences be damned. The Democrats aren't much better, i only prefer them because when they do hand out tax cuts, they give them to the lowest tier of wage earners. C.f. the Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993.

1 Reply

@georgeob1,

georgeob1 wrote:

Setanta, I wrote "can be" and you responded with "are not and never will". I appreciate your somewhat overly cynical opinion on the matter, however you should know better than to expect anyone to respect your logic here.

I respect his logic. Your pretension that the Republicans haven't been Obstructionists of the highest order for the last several years, and that they don't intend to continue doing exactly that, is the height of ridiculousness. Divorced from reality.

The truth is that the Republicans employed every procedural trick they possibly could to hold up business for the last two years. Every trick. They used the filibuster constantly and they refused to appoint Obama's nominees and judges in the Senate, to a degree that eclipses anything ever done in the past, despite the hypocrisy of this. Similar tactics were used in the House, such as motioning to adjourn 6 times a day, every single day, to keep anything from getting done.

Now, instead of trying to work with Obama or Reid in the Senate to find legislation they CAN work together to pass, they intend to keep ANYTHING from passing - at all - for years. They intend to find sneaky ways to undo legislation instead of voting out, because they don't have the votes to get rid of it. They will attempt to use the Subpoena power to embarrass Obama at every opportunity, and to waste his time. They will try to force government shutdowns, which won't help anyone, and they will blame it on Obama. They will persist with the ridiculous and unsupportable notion that only 'cutting spending' will balance the budget. In short, they are poised to act like complete shitheads, which is what they've been doing for the last two years.

I submit that you don't believe ANYONE could be an obstructionist, if you don't believe that's what your party has resorted to. Either you aren't paying attention or you don't know what the term means.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

georgeob1 wrote:
. . . it can be viewed as a very positive thing from a more elevated perspective.

More elevated ? ! ? ! ? Please, O'George, don't piss down my leg and tell me it's raining. Politicians, and especially those dear to the hearts of the tea baggers, are not and never will be in the business of "elevating" political discourse and processes.

Ha! It's more elevated so it can Trickle Down.

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Your problem here Cyclo is in assuming that there exists any reasonable compromise between what the current administration insists on and what the Republicans (and a very large segment of the public) want. One side wants government management of our health care system the other side wants to reduce it; one side wants (and politically needs) increased power to labor unions and government mandates to enable them to reverse a long term decline in the private sector workforce and throughly unionize the workforces of state & local governments already financially overburdened by their growth and exploitation, while the other side opposes it.

You have simply defined surrender as cooperation and fault the Republicans for choosing not to do it. I believe you also refuse to acknowledge some obvious consequences of the recent election.

2 Replies

@georgeob1,

georgeob1 wrote:

Your problem here Cyclo is in assuming that there exists any reasonable compromise between what the current administration insists on and what the Republicans (and a very large segment of the public) want.

There is a reasonable compromise, George. There are always areas of compromise. The Dems compromised with Bush over and over on things when Bush and the Republicans were running the show, despite the fact that 'very large segments of the populace' were against what they were doing, diametrically opposed to what they were doing. The Republican leadership insisted over and over the 'governing by poll' was ridiculous, and that since they won the day, they should get to pass legislation.

The Dems didn't like it but they hardly obstructed things to the level that your childish bunch has. Don't pretend that there's no room for compromise, George, it's a ridiculous position on your part.

Quote:

One side wants government management of our health care system the other side wants to reduce it

Reduce what? Our health-care system? You don't have the option! The laws are on the books, George, and to pretend that Defunding is somehow going to stop them is folly. Much of it CAN'T be defunded due to the way it's set up; all the Republicans can do is nibble around the edges.

Quote:

one side wants (and politically needs) increased power to labor unions and government mandates to enable them to reverse a long term decline in the private sector workforce and throughly unionize the workforces of state & local governments already financially overburdened by their growth and exploitation, while the other side exploits it.

Your anti-union rants are boring. Not only that, but the chances of this even coming up this cycle are around zero, so why bring it up?

Quote:

You have simply defined surrender as cooperation and fault the Republicans for choosing not to do it. I believe you also refuse to acknowledge some obvious consequences of the recent election.

Did you acknowledge the consequences of the last two elections, George? The consequences are that the other side should get to pass legislation that reflects THEIR ideology, and if you don't agree with it, tough ****! But your side didn't agree with that and neither did you, resorting to (and your supporting) ever single strategy and dirty trick they could to obstruct the lawful business of the majority in both houses.

Do you think Obstructionism even exists? You seem to have defined it down to nothing. Both sides can always claim to be part of a noble struggle for the soul and future of America, that they are doing their best to hold back the tide of Socialism/Corporatism/Fascism/Atheism/whatever the **** they want. However, such pabalum is rarely if ever true, and I'm rather surprised to see you trot out such obvious tripe.

Define Obstructionism in our government and give an example of it. By your metric, it doesn't exist. Nobody takes such an attitude seriously.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Your anti-union rants are boring. Not only that, but the chances of this even coming up this cycle are around zero, so why bring it up?

Oh, I see. Yo don't have a counter argument so you are "bored" That's very persuasive.

More to the point, I believe the follow3ing statement of yours pretty much sums up your real views of "cooperation and compromise".

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Did you acknowledge the consequences of the last two elections, George? The consequences are that the other side should get to pass legislation that reflects THEIR ideology, and if you don't agree with it, tough ****! But your side didn't agree with that and neither did you, resorting to (and your supporting) ever single strategy and dirty trick they could to obstruct the lawful business of the majority in both houses.

Cycloptichorn

Apparently you believe the "Lawful business of the majority" is the unopposed power to govern us in all areas of our lives without question or inconvenience at the hands of others. Unfortunately for you many of us do not agree.

1 Reply

@georgeob1,

georgeob1 wrote:

Apparently you believe the "Lawful business of the majority" is the unopposed power to govern us in all areas of our lives without question or inconvenience at the hands of others. Unfortunately for you many of us do not agree.

You're Appealing to Extremes in order to avoid answering a simple question: what would be an example of Obstructionism in government? Can you give a historical example of it?

I ask, because you apparently don't believe the concept even exists at all. These are simple questions and I await your answers.

Not only that, but you refuse to acknowledge that when the Republicans were in control, the Dems DID compromise with them - on many occasions. Apparently you think that they are expected to, but the Republicans are on a sacred mission and shouldn't be expected to do so.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

@georgeob1,

No need to ask
He's a smooth operator
Smooth operator, smooth operator
Smooth operator

Coast to coast, LA to Chicago, deceptive male
Across the north and south, to Key Largo, deception for sale

Smooth operator, smooth operator
Smooth operator, smooth operator
Smooth operator, smooth operator
Smooth operator, smooth operator
Smooth operator, smooth operator

0 Replies

@georgeob1,

georgeob1 wrote:

Do you really think they are any worse than the annointed amateur in the White House and the likes of Harry Reid, Chris Dodd, Chuck Schumer, Nancy Pelosi, Barney Frank, Maxine Waters and the rest of that menagerie?

Does not really work for the right, does it; to have a black man in the white house, and a woman speaker of the house??? How can anyone inspire their children to aspire to the greatness of the white house once a black man has owned it... You don't see whites lining up to buy houses in black neighborhoods... Saying a black man lives there is like saying it is ready for rehab, and no doubt that is true of the white house no matter what color it is... And here is the surprise: We are suffering a constitution that is a piece of junk older than that piece of crap white house... How's that for a hoot....

0 Replies

Now it appears that Nancy Pelosi wants to keep her job as Democrat Leader in the House. A struggle with her current #2, Rep. Stanley Hoyer may be in the offing. I can't think of a more favorable foil for the new Republican makority than her.

1 Reply

@georgeob1,

georgeob1 wrote:

Now it appears that Nancy Pelosi wants to keep her job as Democrat Leader in the House. A struggle with her current #2, Rep. Stanley Hoyer may be in the offing. I can't think of a more favorable foil for the new Republican makority than her.

Why shouldn't she keep her job? She was extremely effective and passed each and every bill she was tasked with passing. Those Democrats who opposed her initiatives were the ones who lost on Tuesday.

Are you just going to ignore my request for you to provide either a valid definition or historical example of obstructionism? You seem to have been caught out here, and I just want to give you a chance to clarify the logical inconsistencies with your position.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Usually following such a setback in an election the House Leader of the losing party steps down. Doesn't always happen, but usually does : this was an unusually large setback in a mid term election for any Party.

Pelosi represents the relatively extreme liberal wing of the House Democrat membership: Hoyer the more moderate group. This doesn't bode well for the "cooperation" you (falsely, I believe) claim to seek.

I was very clear that "obstructionism" is a relative (and perjorative) term that is entirely dependent on one's point of view. There is no absolute test for it that would be acceptable to all observers. You are playing word games, just as with your repeated use of phrases like "argument from extremes". I note you didn't object to Fido's **** above.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

Respect my logic? It wasn't an appeal to logic, it was a flat statement. Polticians, of any stripe, only indulge in "elevated" discourse when they're trying to get elected. Once they are seated, their object is to get what their most generous constituents want, by any means possible. In the case of Republicans, that almost always means tax cuts for the already wealthy, and the consequences be damned. The Democrats aren't much better, i only prefer them because when they do hand out tax cuts, they give them to the lowest tier of wage earners. C.f. the Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993.

You r flat statement is entirely false... We are all politicians, and if you put two people in a room there will be politics at work.... There are politics in a pick up bar, and politics in a whore house... In every gathering, and in every organization, politics is the expression of personality... Unless people are to become totally selfless, and unself conscious there will always be politics... It does not always have to work to the detriment of the organization, or demean it members.... People around here on the radio and television were decying the fact that christmas music and displays go up the day after halloween... Well welcome to our reality... The election is over, so put away the tar barrels because it is time for baby Jesus and peace on earth.... Politics has ceased to serve the best interest of the nation... It no longer brings the best ideas and the burghtest minds to the fore... What it does is demonstrate the universal contempt of those who own or seek office for those who are powerless in every respect save their votes... They think they can throw mud everywhere and money at public opinion and they are right, and the fact demeans us all

0 Replies

The new Republican House Majority

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know