There is no video of democrats that guido could post that would be more embarassing than the words of republican Congresswoman Michelle Bachman. Her ignorance is stunning.
http://dailycurrant.com/2012/09/28/bachmann-we-ban-falafel-school-lunches/
Bachmann: 'We Must Ban Falafel' in School Lunches
Minnesota Congresswoman Michelle Bachmann courted controversy today by claiming that falafel and other "jihadi foods" should be banned from school lunches in the United States. In an interview with local television station KSTP in Minneapolis, Bachmann explained that after visiting a local elementary school she was shocked to find that falafel - a fried vegetable patty popular in the Arab world - was being served as a option on the vegetarian menu.
Ostensibly in the studio to discuss her close race for reelection against Democratic challenger Jim Graves, Bachmann instead used the time to appeal for a nationwide movement against Arab cuisine. Startled by the parochial nature of her statements, KSTP anchor Chris Johnson felt obliged to challenge her reasoning:
"I have to ask Ms. Bachmann, why is that a problem? I mean some children like the taste of falafel, what's wrong with that?"
"Chris, falafel is a gateway food," responded Bachmann, "It starts with falafel, then the kids move on to shawarma.
After a while they say 'hey this tastes good, I wonder what else comes from Arabia?' "Before you know it our children are listening to Muslim music, reading the Koran, and plotting attacks against the homeland."
"We need to stop these terror cakes now, before they infiltrate any further."
God Hates Chick Peas
Bachmann stopped short of advocating a ban on all Arab food, saying that "responsible adults can probably use Arab food safely in moderation." However, she made clear that she was frightened by the pace at which the cuisine has permeated the U.S.: "I have a friend in Texas who has to homeschool her children because her local public school forces students to eat hummus. Its everywhere now. This is really scary stuff."
Bachmann then intimated that the widespread use of Arab foods in American schools could be the sign of a conspiracy that goes all the way to the top: "I have no proof that President Obama is forcing our children to eat Arab and Middle Eastern food. But it would certainly fit the pattern." Bachmann has a history of controversial statements regarding Islam and the role of Muslims in America.
She says her first priority upon returning to congress will be to introduce a bill protecting America's children from the dangers of Muslim cooking: "We must ban falafel and other jihadi foods in schools before its too late."
I could not possibly in my mind dream up a more bigoted, ignorant, idiotic person. What an embarrassment to our country.
EDIT: After looking this up, I've realized that this is satire. The sad thing is, I believed that she actually said it. For that reason my previous comment stands.
Quote from: RecycleMichael on September 30, 2012, 10:37:07 PM
There is no video of democrats that guido could post that would be more embarassing than the words of republican Congresswoman Michelle Bachman.
Don't bet your paycheck on it. I do admit that it will be difficult to top though.
Edit: see ZYX's satire comment.
It is pretty sad when you cannot discern satire from the truth about certain members of our representative government. Bachmann just has those crazy eyes...
(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-ckJ427ZGeqs/TqKFBgU-l0I/AAAAAAAADWY/7AVl0ZXfxao/s400/bachmann-crazy-eyes.jpg)
Man I sure hope that is not a satire site that is being linked...If it was, can you imagine how stunning the ignorance would be? Here's a link to the politics page of the Daily Currant:
http://dailycurrant.com/politics/
Here is the "about" page:
http://dailycurrant.com/about/
She has seriously argued that it's a bad thing that we now feed kids rational amounts of food at school and serve more fruits and vegetables, so it's not that far off from reality. They're being denied the FREEDOM to get a second helping of pizza and FORCED to eat vegetables! The horror!
I don't think she's taken up Gohmert's Ottoman Empire thing yet, though, so she's got that going for her.
On a related note, apparently Iranian news groups don't get satire:
http://newsfeed.time.com/2012/10/01/irans-top-news-agency-reposts-onion-article-as-fact/ (http://newsfeed.time.com/2012/10/01/irans-top-news-agency-reposts-onion-article-as-fact/)
Guess they are too busy enriching Iranium.
Quote from: carltonplace on October 01, 2012, 09:26:52 AM
On a related note, apparently Iranian news groups don't get satire:
http://newsfeed.time.com/2012/10/01/irans-top-news-agency-reposts-onion-article-as-fact/ (http://newsfeed.time.com/2012/10/01/irans-top-news-agency-reposts-onion-article-as-fact/)
Guess they are too busy enriching Iranium.
That's Ura....oh, I see what you did there. Well played.
RM makes it so easy sometimes:
Love how Gweed trots out a four year old video of gaffes by our VP.
Romney's gaffes make Biden look like a rank amateur.
Quote from: Hoss on October 01, 2012, 08:18:25 PM
Love how Gweed trots out a four year old video of gaffes by our VP.
He didn't want to embarrass the VP too much with even "better" current gaffes.
Even if it is 4 years old, it is still funny.
Sadly, disparaging 47% of the work force of the US isn't all that funny. Else, Romney could be entertaining, too.
And pissing off our best ally - in the world - isn't really very funny either. Well, I guess Romney can't be funny. Before he was lobotomized by the extreme right, he at least was lucid. I had great hopes for him, thinking we might just get another John McCain, but alas, it was not to be....
Biden says dumb things because he misspeaks or is overly direct. Bachmann says dumb things because she believes dumb things, like that teh gay can be cured.
Quote from: nathanm on October 01, 2012, 09:09:51 PM
Biden says dumb things because he ... is overly direct.
Saying things he believes.
She says dumb things because she is profoundly stupid.
Speaking of profoundly stupid...
Just saw how travel is gonna be so much more fun next year due to OK rejection of the real id federal program. Yeah...there's an endearment for an outside company to come here to try to do business - make business travel harder. Just like the turnpikes.
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on October 01, 2012, 09:36:25 PM
She says dumb things because she is profoundly stupid.
I am not a Bachmann fan. I do fall short of calling her "profoundly stupid" but she does have
some ideas that lead one to believe that she is.
Quote from: Red Arrow on October 01, 2012, 09:21:37 PM
Saying things he believes.
Sometimes a thought can be both not stupid and inelegantly expressed, to use Romney's term. I'm sure he believes some dumb stuff--most all of us do whether we know it or not--but the gaffe-a-minute videos don't really show that.
Quote from: Hoss on October 01, 2012, 08:18:25 PM
Love how Gweed trots out a four year old video of gaffes by our VP.
Romney's gaffes make Biden look like a rank amateur.
At least he trots out something he actually said. Hey I agree Michelle Bachmann is an idiot. But this is something The Onion would pull off.
She outdoes Biden by far. And that is going some, 'cause Biden is kind of a dipstick.
Quote from: Hoss on October 01, 2012, 08:18:25 PM
Love how Gweed trots out a four year old video of gaffes by our VP.
I guess I could have just trotted out some damned satire, that's better; right?
Quote from: guido911 on October 01, 2012, 11:45:11 PM
I guess I could have just trotted out some damned satire, that's better; right?
funny thing is, alot of the stuff the far right does, people don't know if it's satire or not. Pretty sad, isn't it?
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on October 01, 2012, 08:45:26 PM
Even if it is 4 years old, it is still funny.
Sadly, disparaging 47% of the work force of the US isn't all that funny. Else, Romney could be entertaining, too.
And pissing off our best ally - in the world - isn't really very funny either. Well, I guess Romney can't be funny. Before he was lobotomized by the extreme right, he at least was lucid. I had great hopes for him, thinking we might just get another John McCain, but alas, it was not to be....
A fair amount of the people Romney was characterizing are not part of the workforce, but rather the moocher class.
Campaigner In Chief isn't doing such a great job with Israel lately either.
Quote from: Conan71 on October 02, 2012, 09:35:37 AM
A fair amount of the people Romney was characterizing are not part of the workforce, but rather the moocher class.
If you want to criticize Grandpa because he quit working at 67, go right ahead. Somewhat less than 10% of people never work a day in their lives. Most of those people are, perish the thought, homemakers whose job is to stay home and raise the kids. Again, feel free to criticize if you want, just know who you're talking about.
Quote from: nathanm on October 02, 2012, 01:27:45 PM
If you want to criticize Grandpa because he quit working at 67, go right ahead. Somewhat less than 10% of people never work a day in their lives. Most of those people are, perish the thought, homemakers whose job is to stay home and raise the kids. Again, feel free to criticize if you want, just know who you're talking about.
See there you go again, those damn mooching, parasitic housewives...
Ol' JOe forgets who was president that last four years...
Quote from: guido911 on October 02, 2012, 03:20:01 PM
Ol' JOe forgets who was president that last four years...
No matter what you post about Biden, Bachman will always be the scarier of the two.
Quote from: Townsend on October 02, 2012, 03:21:27 PM
No matter what you post about Biden, Bachman will always be the scarier of the two.
This.
How creepy are your eyes on a scale of 1 to Michelle Bachmann?(http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lq241pSaco1qf64kp.jpg)
There's worse:
(http://weaselzippers.us/wp-content/uploads/dws-hair-550x412.jpg)
Quote from: Conan71 on October 02, 2012, 09:35:37 AM
A fair amount of the people Romney was characterizing are not part of the workforce, but rather the moocher class.
Campaigner In Chief isn't doing such a great job with Israel lately either.
I kind of went through this before - and no, he was not talking about welfare people who don't work at all, he was talking about people who don't make enough to pay income tax on their income. And retired and disabled people. The 47% he was talking about are people who go to work, contribute to this society in proportion greater than the substandard pay they receive for that contribution, and are ONE HALF of the American people. Doesn't even get to the "moocher housewives"....
What Mitt and the other 3rd basers refuse to admit or acknowledge is that those 47 percents form a massive part of the background of this economy. If they weren't doing those jobs for that substandard pay, he certainly wouldn't be enjoying the benefits of being born to privilege to the extent he does today.
I will submit again - and I am gonna raise it a notch - there is NO real job in this country that is worth pay of less than $12 per hour. (I used to say 10, but inflation has caught up.) IF some whiner of a boss thinks that he just can't make it without paying 5 or 6 or 7 bucks an hour, he proves himself to be incompetent in managing that endeavor by requiring work that is only worth that substandard pay. He is responsible for being the direction and as such, is responsible to see that work done is worth doing. By definition.
If it's only worth 6 bucks an hour - it should not be done. Use some imagination, leverage, productivity enhancer, better tools, more training or whatever it takes to make the work worth a living wage.
(http://www.papatodd.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/pelosi-nancy.jpg)
Quote from: Conan71 on October 02, 2012, 03:41:15 PM
There's worse:
I disagree. The Bachman eyes mess you up.
(http://m5.paperblog.com/i/5/54616/michele-bachmanns-eyes-everywhere-L-dflD3o.jpeg)(http://m5.paperblog.com/i/5/54616/michele-bachmanns-eyes-everywhere-L-4xiCte.jpeg)(http://m5.paperblog.com/i/5/54616/michele-bachmanns-eyes-everywhere-L-Bwy42l.jpeg%5Bimg%5D)http://m5.paperblog.com/i/5/54616/michele-bachmanns-eyes-everywhere-L-EfhFXi.jpeg[/img](http://m5.paperblog.com/i/5/54616/michele-bachmanns-eyes-everywhere-L-vsuI8e.jpeg)(http://m5.paperblog.com/i/5/54616/michele-bachmanns-eyes-everywhere-L-H8lwlF.jpeg)(http://m5.paperblog.com/i/5/54616/michele-bachmanns-eyes-everywhere-L-hJ6n53.jpeg)(http://m5.paperblog.com/i/5/54616/michele-bachmanns-eyes-everywhere-L-MG2FMh.jpeg)(http://m5.paperblog.com/i/5/54616/michele-bachmanns-eyes-everywhere-L-AYP3xN.jpeg)(http://m5.paperblog.com/i/5/54616/michele-bachmanns-eyes-everywhere-L-Zac9zO.jpeg)(http://m5.paperblog.com/i/5/54616/michele-bachmanns-eyes-everywhere-L-dXDXRF.jpeg)(http://m5.paperblog.com/i/5/54616/michele-bachmanns-eyes-everywhere-L-7Asb0B.jpeg)
That crap'll jack you up.
Someone spent way too much time on Photoshop.
Quote from: Conan71 on October 02, 2012, 03:58:53 PM
Someone spent way too much time on Photoshop.
These were pictures placed in a pile with Bachman's picture. After 20 minutes, this is what happened.
Scary as F isn't it?
Quote from: Townsend on October 02, 2012, 04:04:29 PM
These were pictures placed in a pile with Bachman's picture. After 20 minutes, this is what happened.
Scary as F isn't it?
Yes...
(http://dl.dropbox.com/u/26442998/Photos/rancidbutter.jpg)
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on October 02, 2012, 03:46:39 PM
I will submit again - and I am gonna raise it a notch - there is NO real job in this country that is worth pay of less than $12 per hour.
Because of this reasoning employers have been granted license by the government to discriminate against an unskilled yet motivated workforce. Minimum wage laws always have a negative effect on employment and the opportunity for worker advancement.
Currently full time jobs that pay minimum wage of about $7.25, but cost the employeer about $10-$15 an hour with costs & benefits. That amount will increase dramatically with the requirements of Obamacare. Sure, everyone should work to make a living wage, but if it is mandated, those less skilled, less motivated, and less educated are the ones that suffer.
I deal with this all day long, and I must say, the promise of Obamacare has been very lucrative for me, even though I still maintain that it is disastrous for the country, and would welcome the drop in my own personal income to save my children from it. I've sold several a massively complex and expensive Inventory/Service systems to a companies who want to replace all of their low wage workers, because they are forecasting their employment expenses to rise dramatically over the next three to five years. In most cases, the systems costs them more than several years of pay for these workers, but the prospect of Obamacare has offered them an obvious ROI, and a significant reduction in liability. On paper they see it is as no different than an increase in minimum wage law.
Mandated wage increases drive companies to reduce labor force, just as increases in raw materials force them to seek efficiency. It's economics 101.
If you support the idea of increasing minimum wage above current averages, you must be prepared to accept a smaller workforce. You must also be able to accept that those with the least marketable skills will suffer the most through lack of work compensatory with their skills. The 47% increases. The most unfortunate part of this is that many of these people are hard workers that would gain necessary skills quickly and advance both their income and marketability if only given the chance.
Quotethere is NO real job in this country that is worth pay of less than $12 per hour.
Somewhere in your thought process, you were vigilant enough to add the word "real" to your statement. That would beg the question, what is the criteria for a "real" job? If the job is not "real" should it not exist. If I'm willing to pay a teenager $90 a day to bus tables, why should I not be allowed to do so, because you don't consider that job real?
Quote from: Hoss on October 02, 2012, 04:21:25 PM
Yes...
(http://thefilmexperience.net/storage/paleman-bachmann.jpg?__SQUARESPACE_CACHEVERSION=1314013448357)
That's a fantastic idea, Gaspar. Gut the unions so that workers have no bargaining power, then repeal the minimum wage so they can be legally exploited. Think how much better off everyone was before those nasty things existed!
P.S. Unskilled but motivated people can be trained. Then they are skilled and motivated people. Perhaps business leaders might consider making an investment with some risk, rather than expecting everything be handed to them on a silver platter.
Quote from: nathanm on October 02, 2012, 04:42:32 PM
P.S. Unskilled but motivated people can be trained. Then they are skilled and motivated people. Perhaps business leaders might consider making an investment with some risk, rather than expecting everything be handed to them on a silver platter.
Good point! But I don't need to hire a skilled worker. I need to hire a busboy who can clean tables. I can afford to pay $90.
It would be fantastic if my buss boy proves to be excellent at customer service and advances to the make-table, and then management, but today, I need a buss boy!
No one is exploiting anyone. The neighbor's teenager wants to make $90 a day, and I happen to have a job for him. We enter into a mutual contract.
Quote from: Gaspar on October 02, 2012, 04:45:37 PM
No one is exploiting anyone.
Yes, in your self contradictory fantasy land, that is indeed the case. Out here in the real world where people need to work to have things like food and a place to live, workers have little bargaining power. Surely you understand how severely asymmetric bargaining power distorts markets.
As Americans, we should be proud that someone like Michelle Bachman can become a US senator and even run for president. It's the basis of all those Horatio Alger stories, where someone strives hard and becomes a successful person. Bachman is proof that anyone - literally anyone - can succeed in politics in our nation. There's no need for well-thought-out policy, judicious self-restraint, or any semblance of rational thought. Wild accusations, incoherent rambling, and raving xenophobia are enough.
I think I should revive my campaign for the presidency.
Quote from: Gaspar on October 02, 2012, 04:45:37 PM
Good point! But I don't need to hire a skilled worker. I need to hire a busboy who can clean tables. I can afford to pay $90.
It would be far better to split the $90 among the existing staff and not hire someone for that job that isn't worth a living wage. That person you didn't hire can find find a job somewhere else, maybe.
From Heiron:
QuoteIf it's only worth 6 bucks an hour - it should not be done.
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on October 02, 2012, 03:46:39 PM
I kind of went through this before -
Obviously you were ineffective. Either that or wrong.
Quote from: Conan71 on October 02, 2012, 03:41:15 PM
There's worse:
(http://weaselzippers.us/wp-content/uploads/dws-hair-550x412.jpg)
(https://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSCTkmctdZ8Q5xiw4CK-PmIoT7ulkb2v8ohuOfLK4pVEYDmCQJr)
Quote from: nathanm on October 02, 2012, 04:42:32 PM
P.S. Unskilled but motivated people can be trained. Then they are skilled and motivated people. Perhaps business leaders might consider making an investment with some risk, rather than expecting everything be handed to them on a silver platter.
With the price of avgas like it is and will be, I will need some supplemental income when I retire. Can I count on you for a good paying part time job? I have done some programming in the past but not recently.
Quote from: Gaspar on October 02, 2012, 04:33:17 PM
Because of this reasoning employers have been granted license by the government to discriminate against an unskilled yet motivated workforce. Minimum wage laws always have a negative effect on employment and the opportunity for worker advancement.
Currently full time jobs that pay minimum wage of about $7.25, but cost the employeer about $10-$15 an hour with costs & benefits. That amount will increase dramatically with the requirements of Obamacare. Sure, everyone should work to make a living wage, but if it is mandated, those less skilled, less motivated, and less educated are the ones that suffer.
I deal with this all day long, and I must say, the promise of Obamacare has been very lucrative for me, even though I still maintain that it is disastrous for the country, and would welcome the drop in my own personal income to save my children from it. I've sold several a massively complex and expensive Inventory/Service systems to a companies who want to replace all of their low wage workers, because they are forecasting their employment expenses to rise dramatically over the next three to five years. In most cases, the systems costs them more than several years of pay for these workers, but the prospect of Obamacare has offered them an obvious ROI, and a significant reduction in liability. On paper they see it is as no different than an increase in minimum wage law.
Mandated wage increases drive companies to reduce labor force, just as increases in raw materials force them to seek efficiency. It's economics 101.
If you support the idea of increasing minimum wage above current averages, you must be prepared to accept a smaller workforce. You must also be able to accept that those with the least marketable skills will suffer the most through lack of work compensatory with their skills. The 47% increases. The most unfortunate part of this is that many of these people are hard workers that would gain necessary skills quickly and advance both their income and marketability if only given the chance.
Somewhere in your thought process, you were vigilant enough to add the word "real" to your statement. That would beg the question, what is the criteria for a "real" job? If the job is not "real" should it not exist. If I'm willing to pay a teenager $90 a day to bus tables, why should I not be allowed to do so, because you don't consider that job real?
Wow! You managed to encapsulate every plaintive bleat about minimum wage from the Murdochian Non-News organization in one compact package. Every one of which has been proven wrong for decades.
Actually, I wasn't talking about minimum wage and did not mention it. But nice try to deflect. "A" for effort. What I did say was that there is no real job in this country that is worth less than $12 per hour. And if some alleged "manager" cannot figure out how to make any job worth that to the organization, it is the symptom of that persons incompetence. Either the job should be upgraded to be worth that to the organization or it should not be done at all.
One statement in particular - mandated wage increases etc, etc... Economics 101.
Econ 101 for who?? Murdochians only.
The actual, real live US Department of Labor quotes studies and analysis by several entities, including a Nobel winning economist Robert Solow, Princeton University, University of Wisconsin, and 10 other studies (un-named), one of which done by the US Labor Department.
Quote from: Red Arrow on October 02, 2012, 08:16:48 PM
Obviously you were ineffective. Either that or wrong.
Neither. It is symptomatic of deflection by Disciples of The Script. Paying no attention and not learning from their mistakes.
Quote from: nathanm on October 02, 2012, 04:58:14 PM
Yes, in your self contradictory fantasy land, that is indeed the case. Out here in the real world where people need to work to have things like food and a place to live, workers have little bargaining power. Surely you understand how severely asymmetric bargaining power distorts markets.
He does. He doesn't want YOU to understand it, though.
Quote from: Conan71 on October 02, 2012, 03:41:15 PM
There's worse:
(http://weaselzippers.us/wp-content/uploads/dws-hair-550x412.jpg)
That's probably about an 8 on the creepy eye scale.
Quote from: Red Arrow on October 02, 2012, 08:02:02 PM
It would be far better to split the $90 among the existing staff and not hire someone for that job that isn't worth a living wage. That person you didn't hire can find find a job somewhere else, maybe.
That is exactly what he did as long as he possibly could, but when he found out he couldn't get the tables cleaned in a reasonable, timely fashion, he finally - belatedly - came to the realization that another bus boy was necessary. Darn the bad luck...now someone has to be hired just to clean tables. And when there are 24, 4 top equivalents, 1/3 of which stay dirty during a 2 hour rush because no one cleans them - what is the lost revenue due to the number of people who could not find seating, so decide never to bother such a busy place again, or came in, saw the mess and decided not to stay for that visit. I bet it is more than the money the newby is gonna cost.
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on October 02, 2012, 11:26:50 PM
Neither. It is symptomatic of deflection by Disciples of The Script. Paying no attention and not learning from their mistakes.
You were unable to reach your audience. That is being ineffective.
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on October 02, 2012, 11:39:38 PM
That is exactly what he did as long as he possibly could, but when he found out he couldn't get the tables cleaned in a reasonable, timely fashion, he finally - belatedly - came to the realization that another bus boy was necessary. Darn the bad luck...now someone has to be hired just to clean tables. And when there are 24, 4 top equivalents, 1/3 of which stay dirty during a 2 hour rush because no one cleans them - what is the lost revenue due to the number of people who could not find seating, so decide never to bother such a busy place again, or came in, saw the mess and decided not to stay for that visit. I bet it is more than the money the newby is gonna cost.
You are making a lot of assumptions which may not be accurate.
Quote from: Hoss on October 02, 2012, 11:36:27 PM
That's probably about an 8 on the creepy eye scale.
That's more than bad enough for me.
Quote from: Red Arrow on October 03, 2012, 08:03:58 AM
You are making a lot of assumptions which may not be accurate.
It's not important. We've had 50 years of observation on how minimum wage affects employment and the negative affect it has on the poor. It's unreasonable to argue with amorphic scenarios like this.
The high rate of unemployment among teenagers, and especially black teenagers, is both a scandal and a serious source of social unrest. Yet it is largely a result of minimum wage laws. We regard the minimum wage law as one of the most, if not the most, anti-black laws on the statute books. – Milton Friedman, Nobel Prize-winning economist
Past studies by and large confirm the prediction that higher minimum wages reduce employment opportunities and raise unemployment, particularly among teenagers, minorities and other low-skilled workers. – Masanori Hashimoto
Low-income workers as a group are the major victims of minimum wage legislation. – Keith B. Leffler
The primary purpose of proposals to raise minimum wage above natural averages is primarily for the purchase of votes before an election. The electorate is typically incapable of anticipating the consequence.
We have had nine years of the Bush tax cuts for the rich. Where are the jobs?
Marshall's beer is tasty and a Wookie belly dancing to a Klingon band.
Quote from: RecycleMichael on October 03, 2012, 08:31:14 AM
We have had nine years of the Bush tax cuts for the rich. Where are the jobs?
We had a bump in the road.
(http://www.newyorker.com/images/2009/01/12/p233/090112_r18105_p233.jpg)
Quote from: RecycleMichael on October 03, 2012, 08:31:14 AM
We have had nine years of the Bush tax cuts for the rich. Where are the jobs?
Ask President Obama. I'm sure he's got a great excuse!
It's now his tax cut anyhow it was supposed to expire at the end of 2010. Last I checked, he'd been in office almost two years at that point and even had a lame duck majority in the House.
Quote from: Conan71 on October 03, 2012, 10:02:58 AM
Ask President Obama. I'm sure he's got a great excuse!
It's now his tax cut anyhow it was supposed to expire at the end of 2010. Last I checked, he'd been in office almost two years at that point and even had a lame duck majority in the House.
Get out da Bushes!
Quote from: Conan71 on October 03, 2012, 10:02:58 AM
It's now his tax cut anyhow it was supposed to expire at the end of 2010. Last I checked, he'd been in office almost two years at that point and even had a lame duck majority in the House.
That pesky filibuster, always a thorn in the side of the majority.
It's always interesting how business owners are too stupid whenever it's convenient for Gaspar's political arguments, yet the rest of the time they're godlike figures who make the whole world go.
Quote from: nathanm on October 03, 2012, 04:15:01 PM
That pesky filibuster, always a thorn in the side of the majority.
It's always interesting how business owners are too stupid whenever it's convenient for Gaspar's political arguments, yet the rest of the time they're godlike figures who make the whole world go.
Voting in favor of extending the Bush Tax Cuts in 2010 were 139 Democrats and 138 Republicans, while 112 Democrats and 36 Republicans voted against it. Seemed like a rather bi-partisan vote in the house, but you're on a roll.
Quote from: Gaspar on October 03, 2012, 04:22:28 PM
Voting in favor of extending the Bush Tax Cuts in 2010 were 139 Democrats and 138 Republicans, while 112 Democrats and 36 Republicans voted against it. Seemed like a rather bi-partisan vote in the house, but you're on a roll.
It's what liberals are good at. Cobbling together their own reality.
He's got an excuse at every turn for Obama's anemic leadership. A real leader can steer the legislature past gridlock. He doesn't want to lead, he just wants to be "The President".
Quote from: Gaspar on October 03, 2012, 04:22:28 PM
Voting in favor of extending the Bush Tax Cuts in 2010 were 139 Democrats and 138 Republicans, while 112 Democrats and 36 Republicans voted against it. Seemed like a rather bi-partisan vote in the house, but you're on a roll.
I believe that was the vote after the filibuster of the bill that would have extended the cuts only for those making less than $250,000 a year.
Quote from: nathanm on October 03, 2012, 04:26:00 PM
I believe that was the vote after the filibuster of the bill that would have extended the cuts only for those making less than $250,000 a year.
On the initial bill they did filibuster, and the dems couldn't overcome it because Sen. Russ Feingold [D, WI], Sen. Joe Manchin [D, WV], Sen. Ben Nelson [D, NE] and Sen. Jim Webb [D, VA]. Independent Sen. Joe Lieberman [CT] voted with the Republicans. Damn by-partisanship.
On the amended bill, the one that passed, Republicans and Democrats worked together producing the 277-148 bi-partisan passage that was signed by the Prez.
This is actually an example of a case where the filibuster served the exact purpose it was intended to. The result was the death of a piece of partisan legislation and the birth, or rebirth of bi-partisan legislation. Of cours that depends on you own level of partisanship. ;)