Cutting Through The Crap

Thursday, September 20, 2012

Horrible People, Even More

When Senate Republicans are willing to do this, right before an election, it's pretty damn clear that if Obama wins they'll continue to block everything they can throughout his next term.

The article in question describes yet another filibuster, this time against a bill to provide jobs to veterans. TO VETERANS, in case you missed it. How do you explain it except that they're willing to harm anyone in their efforts to prevent the President of The United States of America from claiming any accomplishment. Even when it comes to veterans. TO VETERANS. The heroes over whom they love to shed tears when the cameras roll. Truly, these really are horrible people, and it's really hard not to hate them. Matter of fact, I'm not even going to try.
Veterans won't be getting a new, billion-dollar jobs program, not from this Senate. Republicans on Wednesday afternoon blocked a vote on the Veterans Job Corps Bill after Jeff Sessions of Alabama raised a point of order -- he said the bill violated a cap on spending agreed to by Congress last year.
The bill's sponsor, Patty Murray of Washington, said that shouldn't matter, since the bill's cost was fully offset by new revenues.
Per R tactics pretty much continually since Obama took office, the bill "failed" with 58 votes in favor, 40 against, all of whom were Rs. They blame it on some rules issue; but you know damn well what's going on. And, in case you didn't watch the video, even the Rs who wrote much of the damn bill, because Ds wanted it to be bipartisan, ended up voting against it. AGAINST VETERANS. The people they like sending to war so much.

If their attempts to make Obama fail fall short, and he's reelected, does anyone really think (Obama says he does, but he's stayed optimistic through it all) that Rs will suddenly become all America-first? They'll be clinging to their pre-failed policies like they cling to guns and religion, as someone once said. The only way they'd see hope of ever getting their screw-everyone-but-us-and-our-financeers plans in place is to continue to try to say D ideas haven't worked. If Romney winning the election would be our country's last gasp (it would, as we'd stop spending on all the things that matter), an Obama win, and subsequent legislative success, would signal the end of theirs; and they know it.

Can anyone see Mitch McConnell reinventing himself as helpful, as caring about anything but his own power? Not me.

 C'mon, certain readers. Convince me why these people should be running our country.


16 comments:

Anonymous said...

Shouldn't the real challenge be to convince you why the people currently in office should be running our country?

Come on already.

Stop with the labeling and ad hominem attacks and look at objective data.

As one example, unemployment under the current administration has been at 8% or higher for more months than for the previous 11 presidents COMBINED.

Food stamps.
National deficit.
Power grabs.

And you actually need convincing why someone else should be in office?

I'm no big fan of Romney, but for many people, this election amounts to a decision of voting against the greater of two evils.

- Libnonymous

Sid Schwab said...

I'll accept the lesser evil argument; it's why I've tried to explain how horrible the R side is. I think that's factual. Everything in this post is factual. Ad hominem, to me, means resorting to name-calling when you have nothing else to say.

I think it's the ultimate example of chutzpah for Rs to have blocked D legislation time after time, the second stimulus, other jobs programs, and then to campaign by claiming Obama didn't create jobs.

Food stamps. Like Gingrich's claim, eh? I guess you consider Mitt Romney's parents moochers, too.

Have you read anything here or elsewhere, looked at graphs of which part of the deficits are due to what policies? (Hint: the biggest part, by far, is the Bush tax cuts, and the Bush wars.)

Power grabs: well, maybe we agree if you're talking about continuing some of Bush's patriot policies. Otherwise, I'm not sure. When Rs have filibustered more than any other Congress in history, who's trying to grab power?

Economists agree that the stimulus accounted for around 4.5 million jobs. I think it's safe to say unemployment would have been worse without it. Did Obama underestimate the severity of the downturn? Probably. Did Rs block virtually everything he wanted after the first stimulus. Duh. Did they explicitly say they'd do everything they could to keep him from succeeding? Literally, they did.

Why would they do that? So people would point to the 8% unemployment and blame it on Obama. Guess what? It's working.

Do you agree that Bush left the nation in the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression? If so, what's the expected timeline for recovery? Include answers for 1) with cooperation from the Rs and 2) what happened.

By comparison, when George Bush told congressional Ds he needed their help on a couple of important pieces of legislation, they pitched in. Rightly or wrongly, they respected the process and the fact that it was bigger than party politics. When have Rs done that for Obama?

To vote for Romney you must be in favor of the drastic domestic cuts that will ensue, according to all neutral analysis. You must agree we need to spend more on the military and to cut taxes on upper incomes even more; and that to pay for that it's proper to cut education, infrastructure, research, consumer and environmental protection, school lunches, after school programs for at-risk kids, teachers, cops, firefighters...

If you do, you're riding the right horse. If your guy wins, we'll see whose vision was the right one.

I might agree someone else should be in office if it didn't mean the current option; and if it didn't mean empowering such (ad hominem attack) people as Michele Bachmann, Louie Gohmert, Vivian Foxx, Rick Perry, Rick Santorum, Eric Cantor, Mitch McConnell...

If it didn't mean turning public education into science-rejection and the country into a theocracy; if it didn't mean electing a president who bases his campaign on such blatant lies that even the few remaining thoughtful Rs call him on it, and who's never held a political or moral position without changing it with the winds.

Other than that, I think we're on the same page.

Anonymous said...

Food stamp issue - you dodge it, you don't address it. More people under food stamps in this administration than ever. Why?

Power grabs as in "I'm not going to enforce an immigration law because I don't agree with it."
Power grabs as in "I'm going to make a recess appointment when there's no recess." And you're OK with that?

So when do we stop blaming Bush for current state of affairs? On one hand, some people say we're better off than we were 4 years ago. On the other hand, people blame Bush for the state that the country is in. So which is it? Bush is to blame because the country is worse off or Obama made the country better? Or ... gasp ... did Bush make the country better? Commit to a position so we can analyze it further.

Then do a search for "Obama blames" on Google. Care to wager a guess how many hits you get?
Wait for it ...
Wait for it ...
More than 69 MILLION.
Go ahead. Check it out. I'll wait.

Man up already and take responsibility for the country you're supposed to be running.

Republicans are/were adept at blocking policies in a Democratically controlled Congress? That argument doesn't hold much water with me. If Democrats can't get their policies through when they control the vote, then we need to remove them from their positions and fill the positions with competent representatives.
That's like saying "I can't do my surgery because the administrators are being mean to me and won't let me operate the way I want to."
Every other president has gotten things done in the same political milieu that our president has faced. Not as many have had the benefit of their parties controlling both the Senate and the House. Why is it that our president is having such a hard time doing his job?

Hmmmm. Wonder if the 17 vacations and more than 100 rounds of golf have anything to do with it.

Naaah. The Republicans must just be so GOOD at legislating that they need to stay in office.

-Libnonymous

Sid Schwab said...

Okay, I can see we're not gonna get anywhere, so this'll be my last engagement; you're fully imbued with Foxified talking points, through which no known force can penetrate.

Food stamps: of course there are more people on them. The economy tanked.

Recess appointments: Rs filibustered virtually every appointment he made, more than any time in history. More than Ds did Bush, by far. To have a government, if there's no option in the face of such blatant obstructionism (many of the people filibustered had passed committee with full bipartisan support), yes, it's what's needed. A response to a senatorial power grab.

Not enforcing a law seems like the opposite of a power grab, but that's just me.

If you consider the number of hits on google a particular term gets dispositive, I guess we'll have a hard time arguing. But I'll look at each one and get back to you. When I'm done.

If a fact, like the number of filibusters, doesn't "hold much water" with you, there's even more proof that 1) we'll never get anywhere talking it out and 2) if you're not already a teabagger, you should sign up. You're their archetype.

Filibusters, in case you don't understand the meaning, allow a minority to block legislation. And Senate rules, as you must know, allow a single senator, anonymously, to put a hold on any legislation. I know: doesn't hold water.

I do know something that doesn't hold water: your surgery analogy. But it was a literary effort, so kudos.

What is "the same milieu" about an unprecedented level of obstructionism? It's documented that there've never been this many filibusters. Democrats never did it anywhere near this amount when they've been in the minority. I know: it's fact, and therefore...

Count the days Bush was at his ranch clearing brush and get back to me on vacations. Unlike you and me, though, I'm guessing a president has access to things while he's on vacation. Even on the golf course. Ya think? Even I don't think the level to which Bush screwed up everything he touched (except brush) had to do with the number of vacations he took.

If you consider the number of rounds of golf Obama has played significant (I guess you'll subtract that one with Boehner, to be fair), then you're fully Foxified. Congratulations. You no longer have to think for yourself. Trust me: it's a burden.

Feel free to respond. Expect no more from me. Much as I like the feeling of stopping beating my head against a wall, I know when not to start it up again.

P.S: speaking of not addressing things: what about that list of issues you must agree on to vote for Romney?





Sid Schwab said...

P.S:

So which is it? Bush is to blame because the country is worse off or Obama made the country better?

Wow. Do you walk to school, or carry your lunch?

Sid Schwab said...

P.P.S: Since you like searches and lists they provide, here's an amusing one.

Anonymous said...

OOOH. Here you go with with the ad hominem attacks and strawman arguments. How sad.

"The economy tanked." That's it? Ever consider WHY the economy tanked? Oh, I forgot, that must have been George Bush's fault.
I'm sure that when Romney is elected and turns things around, it will be all because of policies Pres Obama put in place. But if he doesn't, it will be because he is a crappy leader - because that is the spin that advances your lame arguments the most.
Oh, and if Pres Obama is re-elected, and things continue to tank, it will still be Bush's fault 4 years from now. And if Biden gets in after that, it will be Bush's fault 12 years removed. But if Pres Obama is re-elected and things turn around, it will definitely be because he was the greatest president in the history of the country. Do I have your logic correct, Sid? Never mind. Don't answer that question.

Regarding recess appointments, then you're admitting that Pres Obama violated the law because he was being "obstructed"? Seems reasonable ... for a dictator, maybe.

Play semantics with "power grab" if you want, but it is sad that Pres Obama has the distinction of being the only (to my knowledge, anyway) president to order that a law not be enforced. That's a precedent you're OK with?

It seems that most of your arguments boil down to the fact that no president can be a dictator because of a system of checks and balances created by the people who fought to create a government of the people by the people and for the people. If the administration wants more cooperation from Congress, then perhaps it should create laws that inure to the people instead of itself.
Don't like it? Go pledge allegiance to Hugo Chavez.

I consider the number of rounds of golf Pres Obama has played as much more significant than Mitt Romney's tax returns (and Mr. Obama's disappearing college records). They show what is important to our president. I've taken less than 2 weeks of vacation in the past two years. Our president? When our ambassadors are being murdered overseas, what's the proper course of action for the person to whom this country looks to for leadership? Hanging with Beyonce?

Also, consider your argument that Romney = domestic cuts.
Domestic cuts are bad? Our national deficit is more than $16 trillion. You propose that we just continue printing money and turn the dollar into a fiat currency?
Continue spending at this rate and there won't be an economy to save in four years.

-Libnonymous

SeaSpray said...

WELL SAID Libnonymous ...WELL SAID!!

Dr S - Good thing I wasn't drinking anything because I busted out laughing when I read that you said, " you're fully imbued with Foxified talking points, through which no known force can penetrate."

That always made me crazy when you did it to me, but I realize that anytime there is a valid argument made by a conservative ...you dismiss the points by shouting, "FOX FOX!"

It seems that liberals do that when they cannot dispute the facts/questions presented by someone with other than the liberal view. "FOX! FOXBECKIAN!"

Or they cry "racist." Not saying you do that, but is common for the politicians on left. Or "Nazi."

Do you really think everything discussed by a conservative is wrong? EVERYTHING Libnonymous said?

I thought Lib asked good questions and brought up good points that you didn't answer. Instead you said you'll not respond.

I would've liked hearing *your* answers to Lib's questions.

Yes ...I KNOW you were waiting on me. I've been super busy and I do come in to comment and then get overwhelmed with everything I want to say and leave.

Sid Schwab said...

Seriously, SeaSpray: don't bother. If you think Lib's response was well-said, you'll never see the points. You like the Cesar Chavez retort? You're a lost cause. You think his answer about domestic spending has anything to do with what I've been asking, or suggesting we need to do, including cutting spending?

Have you even read what I've said here, a billion times: that we need conservatives, that there are good conservative arguments to be made; but that the Foxobeckian ones are nothing close to conservatism. That's just like Lib, and explains why you like it: it completely ignores what I've actually been saying. It is indeed an impenetrable wall.

I don't expect to convince you; but I'd like it if we could at least address the same issues. We can't.

What is considering the number of golf games significant except "Foxified?" When I said the time Bush spent clearing brush is irrelevant. "Well said," you said. How very Foxobeckian.

You make excuses for not answering the real questions, the important ones.
I think I need to stop trying with you, after years, as I did with Lib after two comments. Too bad. Really, it is.

SeaSpray said...

Lib did make some good points. And better than I could have.

Dr S - there is so much wrong with how this president and administration have done things.

And don't even get me started on Libya. Where is the nightly OUTRAGE on the news channels over that debacle?! I can't even bare to think of that poor ambassador and the others and the way Hillary and president handled this? DISGRACE. DISGRACE it was allowed to happen and DISGRACE how they handled it. But, It's an election year - cover up ..create distractions.

We are less safe as a nation because of his policies. We are LESS respected around the world. Our allies don't know if they can trust us. And Israel ...OMG I have NEVER seen a president ignore... pull support from Israel as this one has. And THAT just scares me. Israel will have to act on her own. She is our best ally in the middle east. He ignored the cries for help when the young people were begging for help in Iran. He is the weakest, dangerously most ineffective president we've ever had regarding foreign affairs and I think certain countries smell blood in the water and I did not hear that on FOX. Just read about Russia, China, the Muslim brotherhood, etc.

You don't negotiate with terrorists. And he is going to cut the military again!

And you know I have always said if we don't have a strong ntl defense/world policy ..NOTHING else will matter in the end.

I see lies coming out of his mouth and dem politicians all the time. It is NOT just republicans.

Or he is infamous for NOT answering the questions, stalling and even lying.

Kudos to Univision for putting some hard questions to him last week and not letting him off. WHEN do you see the cable channels or other channels do that with him. I wish THEY could ask the debate questions. They would be fair. It was REFRESHING seeing the president repeatedly being asked the hard questions. You just do not see that and if you do give me a link.

About Bush and going back to his home in Texas ...you know full well he always got criticized for that and the little golf he played. Do you deny that?

And he and Laura did NOT take lavish vacations and we weren't in the financial hard times most of America is in now. I actually do agree with Lib regarding president's choices - priorities (go with the stars ..over seeing Netanyahu, etc.) Bush also rarely missed the intelligence briefings and was at over 90% of them. I would take Bush or Romney over this president any day. This guy is amateur hour after almost 4 years. I have never been afraid for this country as I am now - never. I am not saying REPS haven't made mistakes, but I 100% believe it was a HUGE mistake that he was elected. And IF the press stopped giving him a pass and reported the facts ..he would not have been and he would not be now.

And I REALLY DO WANT to KNOW WHY OBAMA paid 2 MILLION DOLLARS to keep HIS RECORDS SEALED? DON"T YOU? Isn't that odd? No other president did that. ??? WHAT exactly is so damning that he has to hide it???

And no other president has ever tried to cause jealousy - pitting one group of people against another. I was never raised to envy my neighbor. But he would have people do that. It's WRONG. He is NOT a unifier at all. He is charming when speaking ...but he is not at all what he presents himself to be and I've paid attention. Good family man sure and I respect that. Presidential material ...ABSOLUTELY NOT.

SeaSpray said...

I am guessing that you don't have to worry about paying your energy bills. We do and so do most people. I adamantly disagree with his energy policy or lack thereof. His energy policy has hurt the American people. And what do you think of SOLYNDRA? And now with ships having to petrol the Suez canal for mines - we never know when our supply could be interrupted. We should be taking advantage of our resources, which would set us free from the middle east, provide jobs and revenue and then take that money to continue energy research. he's blocked everything and our energy bills are sky high and breaking household budgets everywhere. gas has doubled. Food - more expensive. We are WORSE off since he came into office.

Oh and I keep hearing more and more predicted bad outcomes from the health care bill ...by DOCTORS. I am very concerned. And you know doctors have their concerns as well. And this bill is going to cost us dearly on so many fronts. And the way they forced it through and didn't read it - I will n-e-v-e-r get past that.

Sid Schwab said...

Drink up, Seaspray.

Sid Schwab said...

See, the thing is, SeaSpray, everything you said is simply opinion, and, yes, Foxified. We are less safe? By what measure? We are seen as weak? By whom? According to which credible sources? Based on the embassy attacks? Did you read my post listing the numbers of attacks under Bush? After we'd invaded all up in their grill?

You consider vacations an issue? Really? How Foxobeckian. You'll comment on that but not on the drastic cuts to education, infrastructure, etc, etc that will follow if R/R get elected? You believe our military will be weakened when it's still the hugest and most powerful in the world, when the SecDef and CJC agree with Obama's budget?

If you believe in balanced budgets, do you really think R/R will do it? If so, you're fine with the way it's done? (Hint: no credible analysis thinks they'd get close: most think the deficits will increase.) Read the facts, SeaSpray, rather than spouting opinions that have no basis other than that Charles Krauthammer or Sean Hannity said them.

Records sealed? facts.

Intelligence briefings? Facts.

Jealousy? Facts.

SeaSpray, I still assume you're a nice person. But you are astoundingly gullible and resistant to facts. Your entire comment is nothing but Foxified opinion, based on lies or distortions. You can't tell the difference between a legitimate and serious discussion of differences, and the mouthing of meaningless drivel, fed to you intentionally, knowing you'd think it was an actual argument.

I don't know why I bother. So, from now on, unless you address actual issues with actual facts instead of repeating ... let's call it... crap, I'll post your comments out of (fading) respect, but I'll let others respond, if they can stand it.

Sid Schwab said...

Gotta admit you're good at jerking my chain, by continuing to repeat Foxobeckian comments.

What energy policy are you referring to? The one that's led to quadrupling the drilling compared to when Bush was in office? That the prices got as high under Obama as they were under Bush? Which policies of either led to those prices, and how? Or is it that we're closer to energy independence now that we've ever been? In what way is that hurting Americans?

Tell me the steps from when Solyndra was greenlighted under Bush to its failure under Obama, and what that tells us, okay?

Are you saying we shouldn't be petrolling the Gulf? (Nice pun, by the way.) Wouldn't that be seen as weakness? Do you think your sources would have nothing to say about Obama if we weren't???

Seaspray, you simply are unable to differentiate between RWS™ talking points and actual issues worthy of discussion. Does it interest you at all that every talking point you bring up is so easily refuted by facts? Have you ever heard the things to which I've been taking the time to link?

Does it occur to you that you're exactly the person the RWS™ and the Foxorovians are aiming at, knowing you'll buy their deceptions because you either don't care to question it, or don't know how?

Sid Schwab said...

P.S: your latest comment didn't get emailed to me, so I'd responded to others before I saw it. My comment above is responding to your "energy" mistakes that I only just now discovered and published.

Sid Schwab said...

P.P.S: Consider adding this to your reading list. And, for extra credit, ask yourself what your RWS™ would be saying if Obama had said, about any foreign leader, "tell me what you want me to do.