Phil, you've oversimplified my argument.  I was not saying McConnell's strategy was limited to health care.  It was a conscious strategy from the get-go of organized non-cooperation.  While the Dems in the past may have cooperated rarely with a Republican administration McConnell's approach was far more disciplined, rejectionist and total.  He's acknowledged this.

"'When it comes time to default, they're not going to remember any of the Republicans' names. They are going to remember in history books one name, and that's Obama,' Trump said."

Along with Mitch McConnell's publicized strategies proposed to prevent Obama from being re-elected, I wonder if the average American will remember such statements during the next election. Will they view this, 'let's do whatever it takes to prevent from Obama winning re-election,' part of the reason for joblessness, and economic instability?

Dedicated to Breaker Morant & mrnotrouble.

But, at LEAST you have excellent knowledge of Boomer Zeitgeist. And I'm trying "whitewash" Muslim terrorists ?----what a delusional crock-------LOL !

Btw, are you & others SUCH a bunch of naive boobs that you don't think racism doesn't exist
on both sides of the political spectrum in this country ? From the Tea party on the right to
such racist leftists as as Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton & our own Xiaoming ? If so, then I have shares of "beefsteak mines" to sell you.
( See 1940 film "The Bank Dick" for that reference ).

Btw, I may even vote for Romney next time ( or maybe not ), so your BHO pic doesn't wash----but MY pic does----
 




-- Modified on 7/26/2011 11:22:26 AM

"I wonder if the average American will remember such statements during the next election. Will they view this, 'let's do whatever it takes to prevent from Obama winning re-election,' part of the reason for joblessness, and economic instability?"

You are very good at cowboy debating. What! Never heard of that!

It's just like when a cowboy cuts a cow out of the herd, ignoring all the rest.

You ignored Donald Trumps statement, and ignored my questions; well, actually wonderings.

You really don't think the Republican leadership is not taking my questions into consideration during their deliberations about how to proceed in the debt ceiling negotiations?

What does anything, you said, have to do with my question? If your not addressing question, we're not having a discussion. It just means you read my post as an accusation, and so you feel you must counter-accuse. There have been plenty of episodes played out on this board, and they never lead to any meaningful discussion.

Another question! Why in the world would you need an alias on this board? Let me see; you're afraid some provider will read what you have to say, and not see you? Or, you're concerned that your mail box will become inundated with responses? Or, you have a serious sexual and/or health issue you don't wish to reveal? Or, for the safety of other providers and hobbyists? Feel free to choose which ever one you desire. It can't possibly be because you're afraid to voice your political opinion without an alias!

Is it a shock? Hell, no! lol

I'm with you on not really knowing the answer to my question, but I still believe it's on the minds of the Republican leadership.

Cowboy debating??? Me??? I suppose I have. That's probably why I recognized it.

Please cite the most egregious example.

I would add to what you said, but I doubt that I could improve on it.

Do you really think any grown adult male would have their feelings heard by your remarks, or feel their manhood the least bit threatened, no matter what their political persuasion? No, you're using an alias doesn't piss me off. I just find it confusing how you can be such a coward!

Pointing out an issue is not necessarily an attack. I think it's a question the Republican leadership is taking quite seriously. You want to try and stay on topic, or start your own thread?

Obama's racebaiting media wing is hitting it's full stride.

Where'd ya get that, Media Matters?

-- Modified on 7/26/2011 9:15:09 AM

I feel the exact same way, and I am pretty sure you can figure out who I am behind this alias. Does that make the criticism any more justified?

The use of an alias doesn't change the facts, and besides I don't recall you having any manhood for him to threaten. lmao

Yes. McConnel said that his strategy is to prevent Obama from being elected.  

That is always what the other side wants.

Please, say with a straight face that The Drunk Kennedy wanted Bush elected in 2004.  Did Pelosi want Bush re-elected.

The fact that a GOP does not want a Dem to win next time does not mean that he will hurt the country intentionally.    It just means that in the long run he believes it will be better if that side loses.

Wow. He thinks we spend too much, and wants to stop it.  And that is a wing nut?

The "do what is necessary," is like any other statement.  It obviously implies an inherent level of reasonableness.  I don't think he would kill his kids to beat Obama.  But if you take it literally, that is what it means.

This statement has been repeated so many times that it is stupid.
And just what would any sincere Dem do to make sure the other side loses?

You have an opinion on my original question or not?

As far as your opinion of me! Don't waste your breath!

-- Modified on 7/26/2011 5:36:01 PM

Some time ago, there was a thread of why are we so divided.

I honestly believe the Feds spend too much.  I am sorry, but I have felt that way for years.
I honeslty believe that the Feds should not take over health care.  I am sorry, but I felt that way when Clinton tried.
I honestly believe that billions of dollars were wasted in the stimulus, and that we will have to pay all that back with interest.
I am sorry, but I think that $40 billion to build a train from Corcoran to Concord CA is a WASTE.

And what does that make me?  A racist with a KKK hood, who wants to lynch black people.

Gosh, a few months ago, the Dems were crying because the evil GOP used a symbolic bulls eye on maps indicating which districts they wanted to take over.  (The same symbol the Dems used, but that was different.)

The Dems cried, "Oh, oh, oh. Such hostile rhetoric. Why can't we have a nice converstaion?"

Now, I am wearing a hood and you associate me with the worst group in American history because I think Greece is a warning shot.

Why are we divided?  Because my honest concerns are made to make me look evil.

Of course he never wanted Obama re-elected.  He never wanted him elected to begin with.  But his strategy has been much more than that.  It has been to block any attempt by Senate Democrats to push through Obama-backed legislation, even when it contained things Republicans favored.  To block any Republican Senator from voting with the Democrats (he only failed once or twice), all to be able to point to a "record of failure" of the administration which he consciously helped create.  Sure, Democrats have tried to block legislation as well, but not with this much consistency and not as part of a broader strategy of zero cooperation.

Of course he also wants to block "Obama backed legislation."

He thinks it is bad.  WHat did Obama care have that the GOP liked?  There is no reason why any GOP would back that.  Of course he was against it. And of course he wants to repeal it, any way possible.

If he (they) think it is a bad idea, why not.

Please, look at yourself in the mirror and say, "The Dems really wanted Bush to succeed."
If you don't smile, then say, "And the Dems were hoping that Bush could point to a record of success."

It is not a question of the president be a success.  It is a question of the president getting what he wants.  That goes for both sides.  

If I wanted Obama to succeed, I would be a Dem.  I think his success would be bad for the country, so I don't want it. That is all people are saying.

I just use health care as an example. You name your issue.

Actually, that is also not true.  The GOP has supported the pres on the surge.  They believed it was right.  They knew that if Obama stabalized that, he would get credit.  But they didn't jump ship.

But name your other issue.  Why would they support it.

Show me one issue where he would normally support that position, but has rejected it because of Obama.

True, in the past, the GOP has supported raising the debt limit.  But the jump is huge.  There had never been the type of danger signals that there are from failed European states showing what happens with insanse spending.

BOTH SIDES have been saying that the current situation is unsustainable.  Why would any GOP support the current path.  

Actually, since both sides have said it is unsustainable, I am amazed that so many Dems are not jumping ship.  Why would they support the continuation of an "unusustainable" situation?

to quote you : "This in NO WAY states that Bachmann believes blacks were "better off as slaves". Rather, it is a comment on the state of the black family unit. This is the type of demaguagery[ sic ] leftists imploy to fire up their black and brown pawns."

Drawing below bear a similarity to you, mr.n ?



-- Modified on 7/26/2011 6:23:44 PM

Excuse me...but Pelosi and Reid successfully blocked every single piece of legislation offered by the Repubs during the “HealthCare Wars”...  Not a single one made it out of committee of either chamber for a vote.  Pay backs can be a bitch!  If you want cooperation...you must first learn to cooperate.  Sorry...it’s a twist on "in order to have friends you must first show yourself to be friendly”.  Or...otherwise known as “common sense”.

Where are the daily videos on the major networks of our troops being blown sky high by IEDs like they used to run pre Novemebr '04/'08 ?   And that's the least of the DEM BS leading up to those two elections. Those on the left are not just a bunch of HJs they're a bunch of Hypocritical HJs !

Not trying to cop out, but I have no idea how people will remember the debate in 12 months or 2 years.

I am not trying to be coy, but people forget things so quickly.  They get distorted.  Just an example, how many Dems remember how clearly the entire Clinton State and Defense dept called Saddam a horrific danger that had to be stopped.

Please, I am not trying to re-open Iraq, but it is just an example of major statements people forget.

Finally, anything Trump says is motivated by one factor: Love of Trump.  I never took him seriously.  He may be right at times with the same frequency as a broken clock.  But to cite him as wisdom from either side.

I would pay attention if he was talking about hair.

And tell me, you haven't done your fair share of cowboy debating.  Please, tell me you never latched on to something I said as a sideline and ran the post with it.

which sums it up pretty well.  And which you, no doubt, will dismiss.

And how did we get here in the first place?

Obama/Pelosi/Reid are the ones who drove us to the cliff. Joblessness and economic instability since 2008 have been all about the above 3 career politicians / Attorneys running the largest corporation in the world into the ground.

Mitch McConnell strategizing to keep a Socialist Progressive from being re-elected? OMG... what a surprise! Geez... when the Republicans get around to figuring out who is going to run, I wonder how many people are going to be strategizing for them not to get elected? DUH! The campaigner in chief never left campaign mode from the last election...

Maybe you are a little confused ... there's a plan but the President is just going to veto it because it puts a cap on spending and requires a Balanced Budget Amendment... which means... no more pissing away money that you do not have.

Maybe that's a little above your head considering you read the socialist progressive McClatchy report...

Get a Clue.

That's a Socialist Progressive Strategy.... demean those that do not share the same views. The Tea Party is made out to be racists.... if it's not that... then it's something else to make them seem so Taboo.

Just a political maneuver so don't feel bad about it. Since the majority of the media is run by socialist progressives... there is obviously an advantage here.

They also use Class Warfare in their strategy to place blame on troubles. The rich are not paying enough of their share, blah, blah, blah. No mention about pissing all of the money away when it was there.

Sound Familiar?

Throughout history... communist movements have always started off this way. Have a crisis, mobilize the poor (which always far outnumber the wealthy) and take over.

We are so divided because some people see what is going on.... others are just getting brainwashed by the lamestream media.

Think about it all... Tea Party members want Government out of their daily laws so they are considered Anti-Government.

Socialist Progressives want Government to run your life. Just send them all of the money and they'll take care of you...

And that's why we are so divided. 20% on either side clashing.... somewhere in the middle are Americans just happy that there will be NFL games on this Fall.

Regardless.... we certainly do not have a Leader of the people in the White House... We have a complainer in chief stirring up the pot whenever he can....

Mobilizing the poor attempting to get their anger pointed in the wrong direction.

I use an alias because it's an option that I enjoy and it pisses off tools like you. Now, after reading your stupid sh*t, the real question that should come to the mind of many on here is how many times a week does your B/F pound you in the chute ? I bet you see providers to pick up tips on how to please him or so you can still look your Father in the face at Thanksgiving and Christmas. Thilly lefty boy you !

Sounds like it pisses you off to me there ole Thilly boy. It also sounds like I hit the nail on the head.

That is no more unfair a question than the one you asked.

I refuse to answer loaded questions, I'd rather just mock the person asking such a question. Your loaded question is not worth answering.  You've actually have received many answers to your question, I can't help it if you don't like the answers.

what makes it a "loaded question?" Both DCPhil and I have admitted that neither one of us have an absolute answer, since no one can predict what percent of the voting public will remember or even care. So why all this paranoia about loaded questions. It's just a topic of discussion. Get a grip!

-- Modified on 7/27/2011 5:19:39 PM

and it isn't the question itself that's loaded, it's the way you phrased it.

You might as well have asked "do you think the GOP obstructionism is going to come back to haunt them?"  again it's a "Have you quit fucking your sister?" type of question" and you're goddamned right I am going to call you on it.

...prevent Obama from getting re-elected, he said it was his SINGLE MOST IMPORTANT GOAL. Big difference.

Your question is a general question. Mine is specific regarding the possible perception not of obstructionism, but whether the obstructionism has had a negative impact on the average voters life.

So, what's the big deal about answering the question? You can say; "Hell, no," and say why. Or; Well, of course," and say why. No big deal really. Personally, I don't know, but believe there will be some that will perceive that that obstructionism has impacted them negatively, though I have no idea how many. I do think the Republican leader is concerned about that, not in regards to Democrats or Republicans, but rather independents. And, they are concerned it won't be forgotten, because they know the Democratic leadership will continually bring it up.

I'd settle for one you simply find annoying. How about at least one that's mildly annoying?

Or maybe you've realized that McConnell is simply doing his job and that everything he objects to leans far more in favor of the Democrats than the Republicans. Obama's version of compromise is he gets 90% of what he wants and McConnell gets 10%.

Your very answer proves my point.

To answer your question one must stipulate that the GOP is being obstructive which is a premise I don't buy

You are nothing more than a partisan hack, why I even bother to respond to you in the first place is beyond you.

So how much longer are you going to fuck your own sister?  No answer?, I didn't think so, and that is the same answer you are going to get from me.

the Republican leadership is not concerned that they will be perceived as obstructionistic by the independent voters? OK!

Opposition to Obamacare, check.
Oppsisition to more free money to GE green jobs, check.
Opposition to Obama's immigration amnesty, check.
Opposition to unlimited unemployment extensions, check.

Cheers for McConnell.

I stand behind my 90/10 claim 100%.

Please answer my question.
This.

which links to an article referencing the McConnell strategy.  Not that you'll believe it, so what's the point?