PDA

View Full Version : Economics Sen. Mitch McConnell: 'Very close' to debt deal


mlyonsd
07-31-2011, 07:59 AM
I actually think this one might fly.

WASHINGTON (AP) --
Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell says negotiators are "very close" to nailing down an agreement that would avert a default of the nation's debt obligations.

McConnell tells CNN's "State of the Union" that lawmakers are looking at a $3 trillion package that would raise the debt ceiling in two stages through the elections next year.

McConnell says he is hopeful he will soon have a deal that he can recommend to his fellow Republicans.

On the Democratic side, Sen. Chuck Schumer of New York cautions that "there is no final agreement" and that much remains to be discussed.

The Treasury Department has said that it will not be able to pay off all its debt obligations after Tuesday if Congress does not act.

White House officials and congressional Republicans are reaching toward a potential end to their bitter debt limit showdown, raising hopes that a deal could be in place by Tuesday to avert a possible federal default.

After weeks of strident partisan conflict, the two sides were discussing an accord that would raise the government's borrowing authority in two steps by about $2.4 trillion and cut federal spending by slightly more, according to knowledgeable officials.

Congress would also have to vote on a constitutional amendment requiring a balanced federal budget, a top-flight GOP goal. Unlike a bill approved Friday by the Republican-run House, none of the debt limit increase would be tied to congressional approval of that amendment.

The vote is scheduled to take place Sunday at 1 p.m.

Details of a possible accord began emerging Saturday night after Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, R-Nev., said on the Senate floor that the two sides were trying to nail down loose ends and complete an agreement.

"I'm glad to see this move toward cooperation and compromise, and hope it bears fruit," he said.

A Democratic official said that while bargainers were not on the cusp of a deal, one could gel quickly. A Republican said there was consensus on general concepts but cautioned there were no guarantees of a final handshake. Both spoke on condition of anonymity to reveal details of confidential talks.

Any pact would have to quickly pass both chambers of Congress after a rancorous period that has seen the two parties repeatedly belittle each other's efforts to end the standoff.

Even so, the deal under discussion offers wins for both sides. Republicans and their tea party supporters would get spending cuts at least as large as the amount the debt ceiling would grow and avoid any tax increases. For President Barack Obama and Democrats, there would be no renewed battle over extending the borrowing limit until after next year's elections.

Under the possible compromise, the debt limit would rise by an initial $1 trillion.

A second, $1.4 trillion increase would be tied to a specially created congressional committee that would have to suggest deficit cuts of a slightly larger amount. If that panel did not act ó or if Congress rejected their recommendations ó automatic spending cuts would be triggered that could affect Medicare and defense spending, two of the most politically sacrosanct programs.

Obama and Democrats have been insisting on a one-shot debt ceiling increase of around $2.4 trillion, enough to last until 2013. Bowing to GOP pressure, they eventually agreed to include an equal amount of spending cuts and dropped their earlier bid for tax increases.

In a bill the House approved Friday ó and the Senate rejected ó Republicans would initially extend federal borrowing authority by $900 billion, accompanied by $917 billion in spending cuts. They would tie a second $1.6 trillion debt limit boost to spending cuts of up to $1.8 trillion and approval of the balanced budget amendment.

The government has exhausted its $14.3 trillion borrowing limit and has paid its bills since May with money freed up by accounting maneuvers.

The Treasury Department has said it will run out of available cash on Tuesday. The administration has warned that an economy-shaking default would follow that could balloon interest rates and wound the world economy.
http://www.cfnews13.com/article/news/2011/july/288193/Sen-Mitch-McConnell:-Very-close-to-debt-deal<!-- end story class -->

BucEyedPea
07-31-2011, 08:25 AM
I actually think this one might fly.

WASHINGTON (AP) --
Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell says negotiators are "very close" to nailing down an agreement that would avert a default of the nation's debt obligations.



This line here is false since we can meet our debt obligations currently. The media promotes this false line of thinking.

banyon
07-31-2011, 08:30 AM
http://images1.dailykos.com/i/user/2722/TMW2011-07-20colorKOS.png

Ace Gunner
07-31-2011, 08:39 AM
the gov't is about to spend a zillion dollars they don't have. exciting.

Bwana
07-31-2011, 09:16 AM
Can we recall everyone of these assholes, on both sides and start over? I don't think any of these clowns live in the "real world," with the rest of us.

healthpellets
07-31-2011, 09:33 AM
Can we recall everyone of these assholes, on both sides and start over? I don't think any of these clowns live in the "real world," with the rest of us.

there's no reason every one of these idiots should be primaried.

RINGLEADER
07-31-2011, 09:59 AM
If this is true then Obama folded on just about all of his "demands". Still means the deal sucks though as it doesn't address the problem sufficiently.

HonestChieffan
07-31-2011, 10:18 AM
If this is true then Obama folded on just about all of his "demands". Still means the deal sucks though as it doesn't address the problem sufficiently.


Pretty much.

Everyone gets to recalibrate. Lesson for TP is learn to lead, learn to govern, and learn you ain't the only guy with bullets. Lesson for Dems is, you may hate the TP and despise what they stand for but you gotta work with them.

Lesson for Repubs...stop over promising what you say. Unless its in the bag, dont go offering up shit that ain't real....the people deal better with bad news truth than they do with failed undelivered promises no matter how unrealistic.

Focus on 2012 and Senate seats first. Till Dingy Harry is put out to pasture, one house cannot control, you can only influence...clearly a LOT of influence but not enough to go it alone.

Control the dollars by controlling appropriations, cut the spending as you go and work toward the end game.

Get more face time for Obama. Everytime he goes to the people, he loses support.

HolyHandgernade
07-31-2011, 04:01 PM
If this is true then Obama folded on just about all of his "demands". Still means the deal sucks though as it doesn't address the problem sufficiently.

I agree. Its like Bill Mahr said, one party has no brains and the other has no balls.

Chocolate Hog
07-31-2011, 04:05 PM
Booooooo

gochiefs_va
07-31-2011, 04:17 PM
They've been 'close to a deal' since June....

banyon
07-31-2011, 05:00 PM
I agree. Its like Bill Mahr said, one party has no brains and the other has no balls.

Agreed.

This has got to be the most gutless bunch of p*ssies in the Democratic Party in our history.


Obama: Pass the debt ceiling with no strings attached.

Boehner/McConnel: Go to Hell

Obama: Pass the Debt ceiling with tax revenue reforms and some cuts

Boehner/McConnell: Go to Hell

Obama: Pass the Debt Ceiling with some slight tax loophole closures and many cuts

Boehner/McConnell: Go to Hell

Obama: Pass the debt ceiling with no revenue changes or taxes, and many cuts, but at least give me more than 6 months

Boehner/McConnell: Go to Hell

Obama: Pass the Debt Ceiling with no revenue changes or taxes, and a bunch of cuts (including Medicare and SS) that get triggered automatically so that you don't even have to be responsible for them and give me more than 6 months.

Boehner/McConnell: Go to Hell

(most recent)

Obama: Can I at least pick some of the cuts, like to defense?

Boehner/McConnell: Go to Hell



This guy has got to be one of the lousiest negotiators in the history of the Oval Office. Why should anyone who voted for him in 2008 bother voting for this ball-less coward? What's he done for the people who elected him?


I'm for balancing the budget, but to let yourself just get kicked in the nuts repeatedly like this is shameful.

I expect Pelosi and Reid to be gutless. They did nothing when they had the reins for 2 years, and continue to be tone deaf.


Clinton had his faults, but he'd have told these idiots to go f*ck themselves at the very beginning of this mess.

banyon
07-31-2011, 05:19 PM
Rep. Emanuel Cleaver, chairman of the Congressional Black Caucus, said early reports of the new deal appeared to be "a sugar-coated Satan sandwich." The Missouri Democrat said the CBC hadnít yet made a formal declaration that the group would oppose it, "but this is a shady bill."

BigRichard
07-31-2011, 05:32 PM
Didn't the Dems say there was going to have to be some sort of raise in taxes or at least a change to close loopholes??? So did they go into the Huard fetal position or something?

oldandslow
07-31-2011, 06:18 PM
Agreed.

This has got to be the most gutless bunch of p*ssies in the Democratic Party in our history.


Obama: Pass the debt ceiling with no strings attached.

Boehner/McConnel: Go to Hell

Obama: Pass the Debt ceiling with tax revenue reforms and some cuts

Boehner/McConnell: Go to Hell

Obama: Pass the Debt Ceiling with some slight tax loophole closures and many cuts

Boehner/McConnell: Go to Hell

Obama: Pass the debt ceiling with no revenue changes or taxes, and many cuts, but at least give me more than 6 months

Boehner/McConnell: Go to Hell

Obama: Pass the Debt Ceiling with no revenue changes or taxes, and a bunch of cuts (including Medicare and SS) that get triggered automatically so that you don't even have to be responsible for them and give me more than 6 months.

Boehner/McConnell: Go to Hell

(most recent)

Obama: Can I at least pick some of the cuts, like to defense?

Boehner/McConnell: Go to Hell



This guy has got to be one of the lousiest negotiators in the history of the Oval Office. Why should anyone who voted for him in 2008 bother voting for this ball-less coward? What's he done for the people who elected him?


I'm for balancing the budget, but to let yourself just get kicked in the nuts repeatedly like this is shameful.

I expect Pelosi and Reid to be gutless. They did nothing when they had the reins for 2 years, and continue to be tone deaf.


Clinton had his faults, but he'd have told these idiots to go f*ck themselves at the very beginning of this mess.

This.

ChiefaRoo
07-31-2011, 06:28 PM
Rep. Emanuel Cleaver, chairman of the Congressional Black Caucus, said early reports of the new deal appeared to be "a sugar-coated Satan sandwich." The Missouri Democrat said the CBC hadnít yet made a formal declaration that the group would oppose it, "but this is a shady bill."

Hey Bunyon, don't forget. Obama: "re-elect me in 2012" American people: "Go to hell"

banyon
07-31-2011, 06:33 PM
Obama to speak in 10 minutes. Probably to announce the deal.

Wonder if the Republicans are going to make him address the county in a giant chicken suit?

banyon
07-31-2011, 06:34 PM
Hey Bunyon, don't forget. Obama: "re-elect me in 2012" American people: "Go to hell"

It's not like there's anyone else out there either, though.

Just more of the same BS.

Bwana
07-31-2011, 06:42 PM
Done deal. Now get your shit together, clowns.

Bewbies
07-31-2011, 06:42 PM
Are there any actual cuts in this, or is there only reductions in future increases?

Bewbies
07-31-2011, 06:44 PM
Obama gets trillions in added debt ceiling and then claims this deal removes the debt cloud over the economy.

Clearly he gets it.

dirk digler
07-31-2011, 06:45 PM
Done deal. Now get your shit together, clowns.

No shit. Seems like a fair deal and we get on with more important things

BigChiefFan
07-31-2011, 06:47 PM
The line of credit on the credit card got upped. Now pay the fucking bill, stooges.

dirk digler
07-31-2011, 06:47 PM
Obama to speak in 10 minutes. Probably to announce the deal.

Wonder if the Republicans are going to make him address the county in a giant chicken suit?

Just looking at the basics of the deal it seems he got everything he wanted with the exception of revenues but those are on the table in the commission.

orange
07-31-2011, 06:47 PM
It's not like there's anyone else out there either, though.

Just more of the same BS.

It could be worse - Denise could still be here.

banyon
07-31-2011, 06:49 PM
Just looking at the basics of the deal it seems he got everything he wanted with the exception of revenues but those are on the table in the commission.

Everything he wanted?

Only after he moved the goalposts back 99 yards. See Post #12.

This guy completely sold out his electorate.

Chiefshrink
07-31-2011, 06:49 PM
Are there any actual cuts in this, or is there only reductions in future increases?

All smoke and mirrors BS that just kicks the "financial BOULDER" down the road and addresses NOTHING!!:rolleyes:

dirk digler
07-31-2011, 06:50 PM
Everything he wanted?

Only after he moved the goalposts back 99 yards. See Post #12.

This guy completely sold out his electorate.

I am curious why you think that? What did you want to happen?

KCWolfman
07-31-2011, 06:53 PM
Both sides of congress had multiple facets of interest in this event.

The only goal of the POTUS was to get the next vote on the ceiling past the next election as it is his only chance to get re-elected. If this deal includes that, he played both parties just as he wanted.

banyon
07-31-2011, 07:01 PM
I am curious why you think that? What did you want to happen?

I think that because he continually scaled back his requests until there was virtually nothing left of it. It's not really a change, it's his nature. He did the same thing on the Bush tax cuts and Health care.


As for my POV,

I do think we need aggressive solutions to get our debt under control, so it's not the worst thing in the world. We cannot have the pct of the budget devoted to paying interest on the debt continue to rise, particularly when it looks like we would just be almost completely beholden to China on it. I've been a deficit hawk all my life, it's actually the issue that got me interested in politics.

But it's hard to deny the cumulative effect lowering taxes for the first time ever during wartime (and 2 wars no less) had on federal revenues. Plus in the last 20 years, corporations have gotten really good at the shell game of hiding revenues to avoid taxes. So, I think a mix of solutions would have been the best. It's certainly a bad precedent to set to allow yourself to be publicly blackmailed. Knowing now how spineless Obama is, I guess they'll just do it to him every time, kind of like how the Senate Republicans turned the regular filibuster into the filibuster by threat in 08-10, so that the Democrats wouldn't pass anything productive.

Politically, he also put his party in a precarious position when the "super Congress' meets, because the Republicans will apparently have little incentive to cooperate, and then the cuts to entitlements will happen automatically and the Republicans won't even take the blame for it. Sweet, huh?

Chiefshrink
07-31-2011, 07:05 PM
Both sides of congress had multiple facets of interest in this event.

The only goal of the POTUS was to get the next vote on the ceiling past the next election as it is his only chance to get re-elected. If this deal includes that, he played both parties just as he wanted.

This!!!:thumb:

Did the Repubs allow for it to get past 2012? Or will we know more after the 2nd stage of this deal?

orange
07-31-2011, 07:10 PM
... and then the cuts to entitlements will happen automatically and the Republicans won't even take the blame for it.

If the Republicans don't take the blame for it, it will be because every Democratic politician in America suddenly becomes a tongue-tied idiot.

Chiefshrink
07-31-2011, 07:12 PM
I think that because he continually scaled back his requests until there was virtually nothing left of it. It's not really a change, it's his nature. He did the same thing on the Bush tax cuts and Health care.


As for my POV,

I do think we need aggressive solutions to get our debt under control, so it's not the worst thing in the world. We cannot have the pct of the budget devoted to paying interest on the debt continue to rise, particularly when it looks like we would just be almost completely beholden to China on it. I've been a deficit hawk all my life, it's actually the issue that got me interested in politics.

But it's hard to deny the cumulative effect lowering taxes for the first time ever during wartime (and 2 wars no less) had on federal revenues. Plus in the last 20 years, corporations have gotten really good at the shell game of hiding revenues to avoid taxes. So, I think a mix of solutions would have been the best. It's certainly a bad precedent to set to allow yourself to be publicly blackmailed. Knowing now how spineless Obama is, I guess they'll just do it to him every time, kind of like how the Senate Republicans turned the regular filibuster into the filibuster by threat in 08-10, so that the Democrats wouldn't pass anything productive.

Politically, he also put his party in a precarious position when the "super Congress' meets, because the Republicans will apparently have little incentive to cooperate, and then the cuts to entitlements will happen automatically and the Republicans won't even take the blame for it. Sweet, huh?

Interesting. You thought Obama was too much of a pussy in all this caving too much and I thought "hell we were just 3 votes away from the Senate in passing a truly deficit cutting debt deal in CCB. Boehner and McConnell refused to fight for those last 3 votes. They were the true "F'N" Cowards. They should have been "Alinsky tweeting" those Senators who were not on board but instead they chose to "Alinsky tweet" their own in the House voting for Boehner's BS bill:rolleyes:

You really think if this were the Dems who were just 3 votes away from something they wanted passed they would just say "Ok let's look at compromising"??

Not on your "F"ing life!!!

banyon
07-31-2011, 07:13 PM
If the Republicans don't take the blame for it, it will be because every Democratic politician in America suddenly becomes a tongue-tied idiot.

"becomes"? What have they been for the last month?

When the "trigger" moment comes around, Republicans will just insist that defense cuts couldn't be made and Democrats are p*ssies for wanting America to fight "armed with spitballs" or some nonsense like that, the Democrats will run scared and agree to 99% of their demands.

banyon
07-31-2011, 07:16 PM
Interesting. You thought Obama was too much of a pussy in all this caving too much and I thought "hell we were just 3 votes away from the Senate in passing a truly deficit cutting debt deal in CCB. Boehner and McConnell refused to fight for those last 3 votes. They were the true "F'N" Cowards. They should have been "Alinsky tweeting" those Senators who were not on board but instead they chose to "Alinsky tweet" their own in the House voting for Boehner's BS bill:rolleyes:

You really think if this were the Dems who were just 3 votes away from something they wanted passed they would just say "Ok let's look at compromising"??

Not on your "F"ing life!!!

"Alinsky tweet"? :bong:

ROFL

This has to be an elaborate Kotter mult.

dirk digler
07-31-2011, 07:24 PM
I think that because he continually scaled back his requests until there was virtually nothing left of it. It's not really a change, it's his nature. He did the same thing on the Bush tax cuts and Health care.


As for my POV,

I do think we need aggressive solutions to get our debt under control, so it's not the worst thing in the world. We cannot have the pct of the budget devoted to paying interest on the debt continue to rise, particularly when it looks like we would just be almost completely beholden to China on it. I've been a deficit hawk all my life, it's actually the issue that got me interested in politics.

But it's hard to deny the cumulative effect lowering taxes for the first time ever during wartime (and 2 wars no less) had on federal revenues. Plus in the last 20 years, corporations have gotten really good at the shell game of hiding revenues to avoid taxes. So, I think a mix of solutions would have been the best. It's certainly a bad precedent to set to allow yourself to be publicly blackmailed. Knowing now how spineless Obama is, I guess they'll just do it to him every time, kind of like how the Senate Republicans turned the regular filibuster into the filibuster by threat in 08-10, so that the Democrats wouldn't pass anything productive.

Politically, he also put his party in a precarious position when the "super Congress' meets, because the Republicans will apparently have little incentive to cooperate, and then the cuts to entitlements will happen automatically and the Republicans won't even take the blame for it. Sweet, huh?

I think that this is fair. I read an interesting article the other day in the Atlantic that sort of said that same thing you did but nicer. Obama is not the ideologue that many on the left thought he was, he makes deals that pisses off his supporters because he believes it is better to move forward even if it is a little. He has been doing this since he was a State Senator.

As far as this deal goes I think he came out alright. Revenues are still on the table and if they can't come to an agreement the Defense Department budget gets cut by 50% and they have across the board domestic cuts. So I think the chance a deal gets done is pretty good.

I am just happy hopefully this whole ordeal is over with.

Taco John
07-31-2011, 07:28 PM
If the Republicans don't take the blame for it, it will be because every Democratic politician in America suddenly becomes a tongue-tied idiot.

Status quo.

ChiefaRoo
07-31-2011, 07:30 PM
It's not like there's anyone else out there either, though.

Just more of the same BS.


Sure there is. If the R's take the Senate and Presidency they will go all Wisconsin on the Federal budget (including Obamacare), back off the bulls::t over regulation and start the constitutional BBA amendment process. The producers will in turn grow and expand their businesses which will increase prosperity and America will get itself back to business. Hopefully the R's and D's can get a handle on this whole GE not paying a proper amount of taxes and we can grow manufacturing jobs in America again.

That's not the same BS

banyon
07-31-2011, 07:35 PM
Sure there is. If the R's take the Senate and Presidency they will go all Wisconsin on the Federal budget (including Obamacare), back off the bulls::t over regulation and start the constitutional BBA amendment process. The producers will in turn grow and expand their businesses which will increase prosperity and America will get itself back to business. Hopefully the R's and D's can get a handle on this whole GE not paying a proper amount of taxes and we can grow manufacturing jobs in America again.

That's not the same BS

Did you forget what happened the last time those guys controlled all three branches?

That's how we got most of this debt in the first place.

These clowns aren't any different. Where were they in the middle of this debate? They didn't even want to state a position on it out of fear.

...Perot might have been different.

I wonder how much better a position we'd be in if we'd have let the little Texan give it a go?

ChiefaRoo
07-31-2011, 07:40 PM
Did you forget what happened the last time those guys controlled all three branches?

That's how we got most of this debt in the first place.

These clowns aren't any different. Where were they in the middle of this debate? They didn't even want to state a position on it out of fear.

...Perot might have been different.

I wonder how much better a position we'd be in if we'd have let the little Texan give it a go?


You are looking backward. The new wave of Conservatives are generationally different. They're in their 30s and 40s and they won't let the selfish baby boomers loot the country on their way out the proverbial door.

Ill give you one example. Marco Rubio vs John McCain.

ChiefaRoo
07-31-2011, 07:43 PM
2008 message was HOPE
2012 message will be GROWTH

I'll take a caretaker President like Romney and an aggressive Congress with many new conservative faces and new ideas.

banyon
07-31-2011, 07:46 PM
You are looking backward. The new wave of Conservatives are generationally different. They're in their 30s and 40s and they won't let the selfish baby boomers loot the country on their way out the proverbial door.

Ill give you one example. Marco Rubio vs John McCain.

None of those guys are serious contenders for the Presidency are they?

Chiefshrink
07-31-2011, 07:46 PM
"Alinsky tweet"? :bong:

ROFL

This has to be an elaborate Kotter mult.

Guess you were not following closely. This really happened:thumb: Outing all those Tea Party "loons"(as the RINOs call them) by their own leader and you wonder why they want this RINO out of his leadership position??

Pay attention:rolleyes:

Chiefshrink
07-31-2011, 07:51 PM
2008 message was HOPE
2012 message will be GROWTH

I'll take a caretaker President like Romney and an aggressive Congress with many new conservative faces and new ideas.

If Romney runs we are doomed to keep O'bummer in office.

Here are the names of any combo you like that will win IMO.

Perry,Bachman,Rubio,Ryan, Palin,Christie. Any one of those names of any combo you like defeats Obama handsdown NOW and will do the same in 2012.:thumb:

Romney is a prettier version of McCain. He will not fight either and Obama would love for either him or Huntsman to run against.

ChiefaRoo
07-31-2011, 07:52 PM
None of those guys are serious contenders for the Presidency are they?

Don't need one yet. Conservatives need a reform oriented Congress. Romney as President with his business experience and age makes sense for the times we live in. Then in four to eight years guys like Christie, or Rubio or someone we don't even know can run. Palin, Paul and the rest of the retreads are already history.

banyon
07-31-2011, 07:53 PM
Guess you were not following closely. This really happened:thumb: Outing all those Tea Party "loons"(as the RINOs call them) by their own leader and you wonder why they want this RINO out of his leadership position??

Pay attention:rolleyes:

WTF does that have to do with Alinksy? Or an "Alinsky tweet" for f*cks sake?

Chiefshrink
07-31-2011, 07:55 PM
Don't need one yet. Conservatives need a reform oriented Congress. Romney as President with his business experience and age makes sense for the times we live in. Then in four to eight years guys like Christie, or Rubio or someone we don't even know can run. Palin, Paul and the rest of the retreads are already history.

Too late ChiefaRoo!!! Tea Party(We The People) calls the shots now and no way in hell Romney represents the Repubs. We see right thru this guy!:thumb:

banyon
07-31-2011, 07:56 PM
Don't need one yet. Conservatives need a reform oriented Congress. Romney as President with his business experience and age makes sense for the times we live in. Then in four to eight years guys like Christie, or Rubio or someone we don't even know can run. Palin, Paul and the rest of the retreads are already history.

By that time, the fervor for the movement will have sputtered out, much like the "green party" for the Dems in 2000 and the "Reform party" from 1996.

|Zach|
07-31-2011, 07:58 PM
Too late ChiefaRoo!!! Tea Party(We The People) calls the shots now and no way in hell Romney represents the Repubs. We see right thru this guy!:thumb:

You see this Patteu? They will cut of their noses to spite their face and run the GOP into the ground in this coming election.

Beholden to completely different masters.

ChiefaRoo
07-31-2011, 08:00 PM
If Romney runs we are doomed to keep O'bummer in office.

Here are the names of any combo you like that will win IMO.

Perry,Bachman,Rubio,Ryan, Palin,Christie. Any one of those names of any combo you like defeats Obama handsdown NOW and will do the same in 2012.:thumb:

Romney is a prettier version of McCain. He will not fight either and Obama would love for either him or Huntsman to run against.


I agree in principal. That being said we need to take the white hot focus off the President and calm down for a few years. IMO. Don't worry amigo we can get fiscal discipline in place with a conservative congress and a supportive President. We don't have a Ronald Reagan and we don't need one to beat Obama. The narrative politically is all set up and Obama is crippled and clueless about how to create private sector jobs and people see he's a huge liberal. Conservatives should roll into the House and even more so into the Senate. They will write the laws and Romney will sign them. Rubio and Company can learn, grow up and be ready in the future.

ChiefaRoo
07-31-2011, 08:01 PM
By that time, the fervor for the movement will have sputtered out, much like the "green party" for the Dems in 2000 and the "Reform party" from 1996.

Not with nearly 10% unemployment. Obama is fooked.

Chiefshrink
07-31-2011, 08:02 PM
WTF does that have to do with Alinksy? Or an "Alinsky tweet" for f*cks sake?

C'mon you already forgot the 13th rule of your bible(Rules for Radicals)? This is what Boehner and the so-called DC conservative press did to many of the freshman tea party by outing them on twitter, not in the name of Alinsky of course but applied the same principle. :thumb:

banyon
07-31-2011, 08:03 PM
You see this Patteu? They will cut of their noses to spite their face run the GOP into the ground in this coming election.

Beholden to completely different masters.

It's funny, but it seems another of Lawrence Frank's predictions is coming to fruition.

He talked about how Kansas is often a flashpoint for the next great political wave, whether that was abolition, free silver, early 20th century progressivism, prohibiton, etc. It seems now, the Kansas model of state government is coming to the country. For several years, Kansas has had an out of power group of Democrats, regular republicans (called the "mods" or "moderates"), and the crazy looney far right Republicans. It's always required some combination of the mods and Democrats to govern or correct the exuberances of the far right. Seems like this same fracture is being wedged open in the middle of the national GOP.

banyon
07-31-2011, 08:05 PM
Not with nearly 10% unemployment. Obama is fooked.

I didn't say Obama would win. I was commenting on your timetable for the planned movement. With Romney in control, there would not be as polarizing a figure to motivate them, and their movement will peter out.

banyon
07-31-2011, 08:06 PM
C'mon you already forgot the 13th rule of your bible(Rules for Radicals)? This is what Boehner and the so-called DC conservative press did to many of the freshman tea party by outing them on twitter, not in the name of Alinsky of course but applied the same principle. :thumb:

It's as if you are talking Swahili.

I don't know WTF you are talking about. What's the 13th rule?

English, do you speak it?

Chiefshrink
07-31-2011, 08:06 PM
I agree in principal. That being said we need to take the white hot focus off the President and calm down for a few years. IMO. Don't worry amigo we can get fiscal discipline in place with a conservative congress and a supportive President. We don't have a Ronald Reagan and we don't need one to beat Obama. The narrative politically is all set up and Obama is crippled and clueless about how to create private sector jobs and people see he's a huge liberal. Conservatives should roll into the House and even more so into the Senate. They will write the laws and Romney will sign them. Rubio and Company can learn, grow up and be ready in the future.

Spoken like a true RINO it appears to me. Nothing personal but we need to keep "the heat on" because until we get "true conservative leadership" for the Repubs it's the same ol song and dance my friend and apparently you have not recognized it yet.

|Zach|
07-31-2011, 08:09 PM
Spoken like a true RINO it appears to me. Nothing personal but we need to keep "the heat on" because until we get "true conservative leadership" for the Repubs it's the same ol song and dance my friend and apparently you have not recognized it yet.

Yea!

<iframe width="640" height="510" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/8de2W3rtZsA" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

ChiefaRoo
07-31-2011, 08:12 PM
Spoken like a true RINO it appears to me. Nothing personal but we need to keep "the heat on" because until we get "true conservative leadership" for the Repubs it's the same ol song and dance my friend and apparently you have not recognized it yet.

I'm plenty conservative. I'm saying we can let the young guns in the House and Senate drive the agenda until one of them can run. Timing sucks for a conservative President. Rubio is only 40, Christie won't run. The RINOS. Are all we got.

Chiefshrink
07-31-2011, 08:22 PM
It's as if you are talking Swahili.

I don't know WTF you are talking about. What's the 13th rule?

English, do you speak it?

I'm shocked you have never read Saul Alinsky's "Rules for Radicals". This is the bible and playbook of your Progressive Marxist Dem Party my friend. I'm not calling you a Marxist of course but if you want to know how your party approaches political,social,economic,religous issues....etc and destroying America, whoops I mean "transforming America" RFR is the Dem party's playbook on how to do it.

Here is a brief synopsis of the book but a helluva alot more in the book on how to bring down capitalism and America:

Saul Alinsky's "Rules For Radicals" explained,

Union organizers are often highly trained. In many unions this training includes indoctrination in Saul Alinsky's "Rules for Radicals."

Saul Alinsky was a ruthless radical organizer. He would stop at nothing to win. Before he passed away in 1972 he published a book called "Rules for Radicals" in which he outlined his power tactics and questionable ethics.

Rules for Power Tactics:

1. Power is not only what you have but what the enemy thinks you have.
2. Never go outside the experience of your people.
3. Whenever possible, go outside of the experience of the enemy.
4. Make the enemy live up to their own book of rules.
5. Ridicule is man's most potent weapon.
6. A good tactic is one that your people enjoy.
7. A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag.
8. Keep the pressure on with different tactics and actions, and utilize all events of the period for your purpose.
9. The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself.
10. The major premise for tactics is the development of operations that will maintain a constant pressure upon the opposition.
11. If you push a negative hard and deep enough, it will break through into its counterside.
12. The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative.

13. Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.

Because Alinsky was sensitive to criticism that he wasn't ethical, he also included a set of rules for the ethics of power tactics. You can see from these why his ethics were so frequently questioned.

Rules to test whether power tactics are ethical:

1. One's concern with the ethics of means and ends varies inversely with one's personal interest in the issue.
2. The judgment of the ethics of means is dependent upon the political position of those sitting in judgment.
3. In war the end justifies almost any means.
4. Judgment must be made in the context of the times in which the action occurred and not from any other chronological vantage point.
5. Concern with ethics increases with the number of means available and vice versa.
6. The less important the end to be desired, the more one can afford to engage in ethical evaluations of means.
7. Generally, success or failure is a mighty determinant of ethics.
8. The morality of means depends upon whether the means is being employed at a time of imminent defeat or imminent victory.
9. Any effective means is automatically judged by the opposition to be unethical.
10. You do what you can with what you have and clothe it in moral garments.

11. Goals must be phrased in general terms like "Liberty, Equality, Fraternity," "Of the Common Welfare," "Pursuit of Happiness," or "Bread and Peace

Chiefshrink
07-31-2011, 08:30 PM
Timing sucks for a conservative President.

Seriously???:rolleyes: Then how in the hell did we win 60 seats in the House who were conservative btw and able to change the narrative on this whole debt BS debate eventually outing Boehner and McConnel on their phony conservatism?

Nothing personal Roo man but you are way off on this. Timing is PERFECT for CONSERVATISM:thumb:

KEEP THE F'N HEAT ON O'Marxist, I say !!!!!!

Chiefshrink
07-31-2011, 08:31 PM
Yea!

<iframe width="640" height="510" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/8de2W3rtZsA" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

You play drums, uh?

banyon
07-31-2011, 08:33 PM
I'm shocked you have never read Saul Alinsky's "Rules for Radicals". This is the bible and playbook of your Progressive Marxist Dem Party my friend. I'm not calling you a Marxist of course but if you want to know how your party approaches political,social,economic,religous issues....etc and destroying America, whoops I mean "transforming America" RFR is the Dem party's playbook on how to do it.

Here is a brief synopsis of the book but a helluva alot more in the book on how to bring down capitalism and America:

Saul Alinsky's "Rules For Radicals" explained,

Union organizers are often highly trained. In many unions this training includes indoctrination in Saul Alinsky's "Rules for Radicals."

Saul Alinsky was a ruthless radical organizer. He would stop at nothing to win. Before he passed away in 1972 he published a book called "Rules for Radicals" in which he outlined his power tactics and questionable ethics.

Rules for Power Tactics:

1. Power is not only what you have but what the enemy thinks you have.
2. Never go outside the experience of your people.
3. Whenever possible, go outside of the experience of the enemy.
4. Make the enemy live up to their own book of rules.
5. Ridicule is man's most potent weapon.
6. A good tactic is one that your people enjoy.
7. A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag.
8. Keep the pressure on with different tactics and actions, and utilize all events of the period for your purpose.
9. The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself.
10. The major premise for tactics is the development of operations that will maintain a constant pressure upon the opposition.
11. If you push a negative hard and deep enough, it will break through into its counterside.
12. The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative.

13. Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.

Because Alinsky was sensitive to criticism that he wasn't ethical, he also included a set of rules for the ethics of power tactics. You can see from these why his ethics were so frequently questioned.

Rules to test whether power tactics are ethical:

1. One's concern with the ethics of means and ends varies inversely with one's personal interest in the issue.
2. The judgment of the ethics of means is dependent upon the political position of those sitting in judgment.
3. In war the end justifies almost any means.
4. Judgment must be made in the context of the times in which the action occurred and not from any other chronological vantage point.
5. Concern with ethics increases with the number of means available and vice versa.
6. The less important the end to be desired, the more one can afford to engage in ethical evaluations of means.
7. Generally, success or failure is a mighty determinant of ethics.
8. The morality of means depends upon whether the means is being employed at a time of imminent defeat or imminent victory.
9. Any effective means is automatically judged by the opposition to be unethical.
10. You do what you can with what you have and clothe it in moral garments.

11. Goals must be phrased in general terms like "Liberty, Equality, Fraternity," "Of the Common Welfare," "Pursuit of Happiness," or "Bread and Peace

I'd be surprised if 1% of people who identify themselves as progressives have read that piece of garbage. I'm pretty well versed in political ideology, and no one had any clue who this Alinksy clown was until Glenn Beck started hyperventilating about him.

They appear to just be some general principles. "Pick a target and polarize it" is a political phenomenon that has been going on since there has been politics, probably back to the Romans. The connections between Republicans tweeting and Alinsky appears to exist squarely in the confines of your skull.

Bizarrely your logic that, if something corresponds to one of these 13 rules, then they are Alinskyites probably renders anyone in politics an "Alniskyite", including (gasp!) our Founding Fathers who under "Rule No. 11", used phrases like "General Welfare" and "Pursuit of Happiness".

It's completely illogical.

ChiefaRoo
07-31-2011, 08:34 PM
Seriously???:rolleyes: Then how in the hell did we win 60 seats in the House who were conservative btw and able to change the narrative on this whole debt BS debate eventually outing Boehner and McConnel on their phony conservatism?

Nothing personal Roo man but you are way off on this. Timing is PERFECT for CONSERVATISM:thumb:

KEEP THE F'N HEAT ON O'Marxist, I say !!!!!!

You aren't understanding me. There are no Conservatives who can win because they aren't running. A guy like Rubio, Christie Noem from South Dakota, Gov. Christie et all are either too young, haven't planned for Obamas crumble or just plain aren't running.


Who are you for?

|Zach|
07-31-2011, 08:35 PM
I'd be surprised if 1% of people who identify themselves as progressives have read that piece of garbage. I'm pretty well versed in political ideology, and no one had any clue who this Alinksy clown was until Glenn Beck started hyperventilating about him.

They appear to just be some general principles. "Pick a target and polarize it" is a political phenomenon that has been going on since there has been politics, probably back to the Romans. The connections between Republicans tweeting and Alinsky appears to exist squarely in the confines of your skull.

Bizarrely your logic that, if something corresponds to one of these 13 rules, then they are Alinskyites probably renders anyone in politics an "Alniskyite", including (gasp!) our Founding Fathers who under "Rule No. 11", used phrases like "General Welfare" and "Pursuit of Happiness".

It's completely illogical.

I had never once heard of the guy until sportsshrink started referencing him in literally every single post he made. I did a quick wikipedia look up and shrugged my shoulders.

lol.

|Zach|
07-31-2011, 08:37 PM
The biggest losers in this are the Pentagon and the unemployed.

orange
07-31-2011, 08:37 PM
7. A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag.

You should take special note of that one.

ChiefaRoo
07-31-2011, 08:40 PM
The biggest losers in this are the Pentagon and the unemployed.

This is only the beginning. The first small bite at the fiscal apple. The unremployed can be on the dole for nearly two years currently. It should be cut back. The Pentagon needs to be protected from stupid major cuts. I believe those triggers will never be activated.

It's all about the R's taking power in 2012 anyway

go bowe
07-31-2011, 09:14 PM
Rep. Emanuel Cleaver, chairman of the Congressional Black Caucus, said early reports of the new deal appeared to be "a sugar-coated Satan sandwich." The Missouri Democrat said the CBC hadnít yet made a formal declaration that the group would oppose it, "but this is a shady bill."

satan sandwich? :facepalm:

BigChiefFan
07-31-2011, 09:16 PM
Spoken like a true RINO it appears to me. Nothing personal but we need to keep "the heat on" because until we get "true conservative leadership" for the Repubs it's the same ol song and dance my friend and apparently you have not recognized it yet.

Good post. I'm glad to see some are awake to the bullshit Americans have been served from these phonies for far too long.

HolyHandgernade
07-31-2011, 09:28 PM
I'd be surprised if 1% of people who identify themselves as progressives have read that piece of garbage. I'm pretty well versed in political ideology, and no one had any clue who this Alinksy clown was until Glenn Beck started hyperventilating about him.

They appear to just be some general principles. "Pick a target and polarize it" is a political phenomenon that has been going on since there has been politics, probably back to the Romans. The connections between Republicans tweeting and Alinsky appears to exist squarely in the confines of your skull.

Bizarrely your logic that, if something corresponds to one of these 13 rules, then they are Alinskyites probably renders anyone in politics an "Alniskyite", including (gasp!) our Founding Fathers who under "Rule No. 11", used phrases like "General Welfare" and "Pursuit of Happiness".

It's completely illogical.

And, as someone with a great amount of experience within a Union, I can honestly say I wasn't even familiar with these tactics or principles. Dragging issues out is a management technique, not a union one. Management knows its harder for a large group to maintain solidarity the longer an issue plays out. Once dissent takes hold, the union is basically busted. Sounds like a lot of made up horsesh!t someone made up and then "discovered" to be attached to unions.

BucEyedPea
07-31-2011, 09:28 PM
Good post. I'm glad to see some are awake to the bullshit Americans have been served from these phonies for far too long.

Meanwhile, Mitt Romney hires a Bernanke apologist for his economic advisor. Lolz!

BigChiefFan
07-31-2011, 09:32 PM
This is only the beginning. The first small bite at the fiscal apple. The unremployed can be on the dole for nearly two years currently. It should be cut back. The Pentagon needs to be protected from stupid major cuts. I believe those triggers will never be activated.

It's all about the R's taking power in 2012 anyway

Unemployment wages aren't an issue in the least. In fact, it's the furthest thing on the list to cut, IMO.

Unemployment benefits are PAID FOR by the EMPLOYEE and EMPLOYER, every pay check.

SS should not be cut. WE PAID our share.

What should be cut is the defense department's budget.

Foreign aid should be cut.

Department of Education, amongst many other government entities are what should be cut.

Get the fortune 500 to PAY TAXES.

Employees and Employers(of companies other than fortune 500) pay for ALL OF THIS. You don't fuck over those that foot the bill.

The middle class and lower upper class foot the bill, you've been brain-washed into thinking it's conservative to let the fortune 500 companies rape the country and that the burden falls on the little guy, AGAIN of bailing these fools out of it. MULTI-BILLION DOLLAR companies need to pay up. They've exploited the system for far too long.

P.I.F.


NO MORE should we be raked over the coals for this corporations to exploit even more out of the working class.

Amnorix
07-31-2011, 09:38 PM
If Romney runs we are doomed to keep O'bummer in office.

Here are the names of any combo you like that will win IMO.

Perry,Bachman,Rubio,Ryan, Palin,Christie. Any one of those names of any combo you like defeats Obama handsdown NOW and will do the same in 2012.:thumb:

Romney is a prettier version of McCain. He will not fight either and Obama would love for either him or Huntsman to run against.

Reality isn't a place you like to visit much, is it?

Amnorix
07-31-2011, 09:46 PM
I'd be surprised if 1% of people who identify themselves as progressives have read that piece of garbage. I'm pretty well versed in political ideology, and no one had any clue who this Alinksy clown was until Glenn Beck started hyperventilating about him.

They appear to just be some general principles. "Pick a target and polarize it" is a political phenomenon that has been going on since there has been politics, probably back to the Romans. The connections between Republicans tweeting and Alinsky appears to exist squarely in the confines of your skull.

Bizarrely your logic that, if something corresponds to one of these 13 rules, then they are Alinskyites probably renders anyone in politics an "Alniskyite", including (gasp!) our Founding Fathers who under "Rule No. 11", used phrases like "General Welfare" and "Pursuit of Happiness".

It's completely illogical.

+1 Never heard of Alinsky, outside of SirShrinkage's ranting about Alinskization or whatever the hell he's ranting about. I mostly ignore him, but whatever.

Amnorix
07-31-2011, 09:49 PM
This is only the beginning. The first small bite at the fiscal apple. The unremployed can be on the dole for nearly two years currently. It should be cut back. The Pentagon needs to be protected from stupid major cuts. I believe those triggers will never be activated.

It's all about the R's taking power in 2012 anyway

Becaues adequate self defnse requires the US to spend as much on defense as the ENTIRE REST OF THE WORLD COMBINED?!

Our defense budget is so retardedly high, I'm stunned that it's not a source of universal agreement that it needs to be managed better. I'm not saying it's the only thing to do, of course it isn't, but I'm constantly amazed that people who otherwise seem to have some rational thoughts regarding budgetary matters think that the defense budget is the product of logical thought or an untouchable, sacred and sacrosanct thing.

It's not and it's not.

BucEyedPea
07-31-2011, 09:52 PM
It's all about the R's taking power in 2012 anyway

I'm luvin' the gridlock because what happened with a single R party in power last time.

Under Bush:

• No Child Left Behind.
• Federal government was much more intrusive and costly part of local schools.
• Project Safe Neighborhoods - more gutting of the 2nd Amendment
• Medicare Prescription Drug Benefit
• Sarbanes-Oxley Act
• Ownership Society Socialism - One of root causes of the current financial crisis due easy credit which inflated the housing market.
• Free-Speech Zones - Now used for herding opponents
• Farm Subsidies - which are NOT free market but Bush signed a record $190 billion farm bill — probably why he's HCf's man.
• Vetoes - fewest ever of any president under Bush, giving congress a free-ride
• Appointed Ben Bernanke

Remember it was Republican Bob Dole trying to persuade Republicans to vote for Obamacare too.
Can you imagine what it would have been like with him President when Rs were dominant in congress. I have to tell ya' Bush would have arrived early.

There's more but...never mind. Just know that if more Rs, the right kind, win the Senate then Obama can be made into jellyfish.

BigChiefFan
07-31-2011, 09:53 PM
Becaues adequate self defnse requires the US to spend as much on defense as the ENTIRE REST OF THE WORLD COMBINED?!

Our defense budget is so retardedly high, I'm stunned that it's not a source of universal agreement that it needs to be managed better. I'm not saying it's the only thing to do, of course it isn't, but I'm constantly amazed that people who otherwise seem to have some rational thoughts regarding budgetary matters think that the defense budget is the product of logical thought or an untouchable, sacred and sacrosanct thing.

It's not and it's not.

I agree with all of that. Good post. The defense spending is out of control.

BucEyedPea
07-31-2011, 09:57 PM
I agree with all of that. Good post. The defense spending is out of control.

The wars are out of control.

BigChiefFan
07-31-2011, 10:11 PM
The wars are out of control.

Agreed. We should have never gone into IRAQ and Afghanistan should have been looked at long and hard before going in there. I think some special ops could have achieved nearly the same thing. We certainly aren't any closer to winning. Libya is treasonous, IMO.

What part of DEFENSE do they not quite grasp?

Oil, Opium, Lithium, and more Oil. Plus the strategic areas of these nations, while WE FOOT THE BILL.

Our country is run by corporations and these are what they wish to net out of the deal.

patteeu
08-01-2011, 06:07 AM
If this is true then Obama folded on just about all of his "demands". Still means the deal sucks though as it doesn't address the problem sufficiently.

I agree with this for the most part, but it's unrealistic to have expected any deal to address the problem sufficiently. No one involved ever proposed anything more than a first step toward a solution.

Chiefshrink
08-01-2011, 08:49 AM
but it's unrealistic to have expected any deal to address the problem sufficiently.

Not picking a fight here but why was it unrealistic? This was the lie put out there by the Marxist Dems,RINOs(including Boehner & McConnel) Marxist Media and especially the so-called DC conservative media. It's not even a baby step towards dealing with the debt IMO. We could have gotten a helluva alot more with Obama on the ropes politically in his poll numbers and his base beginning to abandon him as the Independents continue to flee.

3 votes away in the Senate from passing CCB(something real) and our side just say's, OK let's come to the middle because I guess we don't have the leverage? WE DID HAVE THE LEVERAGE BUT POLITICS RULES when your leadership has been on the take from the get go. This is what you get when you have RINO leadership. IMO we just kicked the financial boulder debt rock down the road thus maintaining status quo Washington politics and spending at every whim.

You know why this special super commission of 6, 3 from both sides of the aisle will be created? (btw which is UNCONSTITUTIONAL) It is there to stop any "real change"(a la conservatism) from having any kind of impact on our economic debt issues so that "status quo" continues in DC. You just watch who McConnell and Boehner pick for our side. I assure you they won't be die-hard conservatives

This special super commission is a perfect symbolic act of politically flipping the bird to "We The People"(Tea Party) essentially saying "we still call the shots here in DC so back the "F" off". The super committee is just a political vehicle to go around "The Tea Party" (a la "We The People",Conservatism and our Constitution).

Chiefshrink
08-01-2011, 08:55 AM
I'd be surprised if 1% of people who identify themselves as progressives have read that piece of garbage. I'm pretty well versed in political ideology, and no one had any clue who this Alinksy clown was until Glenn Beck started hyperventilating about him.

They appear to just be some general principles. "Pick a target and polarize it" is a political phenomenon that has been going on since there has been politics, probably back to the Romans. The connections between Republicans tweeting and Alinsky appears to exist squarely in the confines of your skull.

Bizarrely your logic that, if something corresponds to one of these 13 rules, then they are Alinskyites probably renders anyone in politics an "Alniskyite", including (gasp!) our Founding Fathers who under "Rule No. 11", used phrases like "General Welfare" and "Pursuit of Happiness".

It's completely illogical.

Read the book:rolleyes: Then you will be more educated about your Dem party's worldview and their approach to destroying America, whoops there I go again, I mean 'transforming America'. Hillary loves Alinsky and Alinsky is Obama's Apostle Paul:thumb:

Chiefshrink
08-01-2011, 08:56 AM
I had never once heard of the guy until sportsshrink started referencing him in literally every single post he made. I did a quick wikipedia look up and shrugged my shoulders.

lol.

Get educated on your Progressive Marxist party instead of looking like the uneducated "useful idiot".:rolleyes:

mlyonsd
08-01-2011, 08:58 AM
I agree with this for the most part, but it's unrealistic to have expected any deal to address the problem sufficiently. No one involved ever proposed anything more than a first step toward a solution.The best I saw was Coburn's $9T plan.

Not that it had a chance mind you, even he knew that. But him claiming it could be used in the future as a blueprint for things to cut might come in handy with this new crazy deal.

|Zach|
08-01-2011, 09:02 AM
Get educated on your Progressive Marxist party instead of looking like the uneducated "useful idiot".:rolleyes:

Nobody else knows about or cares about your personal boogie man.

mlyonsd
08-01-2011, 01:35 PM
Oh-oh....could be a fly in the ointment:

CNN) -- As the details of the debt ceiling deal start to emerge, it's not surprising that there's a disagreement between the White House and Republicans on whether the deficit reduction committee can or will tackle tax reform.

However, the politics of these positions are fairly clear: Republicans want to reassure members that taxes aren't really on the table, and Democrats want to reassure members that they are.

Here's what's behind the spin:



Story....... (http://www.cnn.com/2011/POLITICS/08/01/taxes.deal/index.html?hpt=hp_c1)

BucEyedPea
08-01-2011, 01:36 PM
Get educated on your Progressive Marxist party instead of looking like the uneducated "useful idiot".:rolleyes:

I notice lefties Alinskyize naturally without ever having heard or read about the guy. :evil:

orange
08-01-2011, 01:45 PM
Oh-oh....could be a fly in the ointment:


http://www.joystiq.com/media/2006/05/fly_swatter.jpg


Today 1:22 PM Boehner Says He's Got The Votes
@ rickklein : Speaker Boehner tells @dianesawyer he's got the votes...

Today 1:26 PM House To Vote Around 6:30 P.M.
@ ChadPergram : House will begin actual debate on the debt bill sometime after 4:30. Final vote around 6:30 pm

mlyonsd
08-01-2011, 01:49 PM
http://www.joystiq.com/media/2006/05/fly_swatter.jpg


Today 1:22 PM Boehner Says He's Got The Votes
@ rickklein : Speaker Boehner tells @dianesawyer he's got the votes...

Today 1:26 PM House To Vote Around 6:30 P.M.
@ ChadPergram : House will begin actual debate on the debt bill sometime after 4:30. Final vote around 6:30 pmThe debate might be awesome.

orange
08-01-2011, 01:52 PM
http://www.joystiq.com/media/2006/05/fly_swatter.jpg



Good article, though.

mlyonsd
08-01-2011, 01:53 PM
Good article, though.Can't see it on the PC I'm using.

Chiefshrink
08-01-2011, 02:28 PM
I notice lefties Alinskyize naturally without ever having heard or read about the guy. :evil:

And this is how the Marxists leaders who run the Dem party and the nation's business want it:thumb:

Chiefshrink
08-01-2011, 02:32 PM
Oh-oh....could be a fly in the ointment:



Story....... (http://www.cnn.com/2011/POLITICS/08/01/taxes.deal/index.html?hpt=hp_c1)

If you notice that most of the Lefty media is calling the Tea party the victors in all of this but what they are really doing is kissing their ass in hopes to get the same amount of votes back on this phony debt bill that does NOTHING. This bill will pass and even Bachmann just said minutes ago on Cavuto that it has a good chance of passing tonight even though she is still voting NO which I agree with her.

orange
08-01-2011, 05:36 PM
Today 5:09 PM House Passes Debt Ceiling Deal
Vote is 269 to 161.

banyon
08-01-2011, 06:03 PM
Read the book:rolleyes: Then you will be more educated about your Dem party's worldview and their approach to destroying America, whoops there I go again, I mean 'transforming America'. Hillary loves Alinsky and Alinsky is Obama's Apostle Paul:thumb:

Well, I tried to reason logically with you.

Now you can't explain your post,but "go read a book and then you'll understand my posts". You should realize at some point that clinging to this nonsense makes you look like a lunatic. But if you want to believe Republicans (or anyone really) is "Alinskyizing" without being able to explain it, I guess keep on keepin on'. :thumb:

BigChiefFan
08-01-2011, 06:20 PM
You don't solve a debt crisis, by piling on more debt.

Bewbies
08-01-2011, 07:52 PM
You don't solve a debt crisis, by piling on more debt.

Sure you do. Sillyhead.

patteeu
08-02-2011, 09:13 AM
You don't solve a debt crisis, by piling on more debt.

You certainly can. It all depends on the timeframe of your solution. Having said that, the longer the timeframe, the less likely it is that future legislators will stick to the plan.