# Harry Reid threatens obstruction if Romney wins.



## Katzndogz (Nov 2, 2012)

Reid says he can&#39;t work with Romney - Washington Times

It sounds like a reason to get democrats out of the senate like they were gotten out of Congress.


----------



## The Infidel (Nov 2, 2012)

The Senate is going GOP


----------



## Rat in the Hat (Nov 2, 2012)

Katzndogz said:


> Reid says he can't work with Romney - Washington Times
> 
> It sounds like a reason to get democrats out of the senate like they were gotten out of Congress.





> "Mitt Romney's fantasy that Senate Democrats will work with him to pass his 'severely conservative' agenda is laughable," Mr. Reid said in a statement on Friday



I guess he decided to make the Dems the new "Party of No".


----------



## jillian (Nov 2, 2012)

Rat in the Hat said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> > Reid says he can't work with Romney - Washington Times
> ...



i figure the way our last two democratic presidents were treated pretty much ends any pretense at cooperation.

and there isn't anything in the rightwingnut extremist agenda that any of us could support anyway.

ah well... i'm sure he'd get over it.

or not.


----------



## Dante (Nov 2, 2012)

Katzndogz said:


> Reid says he can't work with Romney - Washington Times
> 
> It sounds like a reason to get democrats out of the senate like they were gotten out of Congress.



Senator Reed was doing a comedy routine: Senator Reed was doing a parody of Sen Mitch McConnell


----------



## AceRothstein (Nov 2, 2012)

The Infidel said:


> The Senate is going GOP



Akin and Mourdoch have ensured that this will not happen.


----------



## Katzndogz (Nov 2, 2012)

It would not at all be surprising to see both parties obstruct the unwanted policies of the other.   The nation is divided, hopelessly divided.  There is no point of compromise left.  The divisions are getting deeper and wider and more acrimonious.    We were not this divided during the Civil War.


----------



## bripat9643 (Nov 2, 2012)

jillian said:


> _
> 
> i figure the way our last two democratic presidents were treated pretty much ends any pretense at cooperation.
> _
> ...



Democrats need to be defeated, not cooperated with.


----------



## bripat9643 (Nov 2, 2012)

Katzndogz said:


> It would not at all be surprising to see both parties obstruct the unwanted policies of the other.   The nation is divided, hopelessly divided.  There is no point of compromise left.  The divisions are getting deeper and wider and more acrimonious.    We were not this divided during the Civil War.



That's what happens when you have a nation where on half the population makes a living  by preying on the other half.


----------



## Dante (Nov 2, 2012)

bripat9643 said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> > It would not at all be surprising to see both parties obstruct the unwanted policies of the other.   The nation is divided, hopelessly divided.  There is no point of compromise left.  The divisions are getting deeper and wider and more acrimonious.    We were not this divided during the Civil War.
> ...



stfu and return your gov checks


----------



## Rat in the Hat (Nov 2, 2012)

jillian said:


> Rat in the Hat said:
> 
> 
> > Katzndogz said:
> ...



How is this kind of thing ever going to end if both parties announce in advance they are going to obstruct?

When will we get the government of the people, by the people, and for the people we used to have, instead of the "new normal" of "every party for themselves"?


----------



## lovemymutts (Nov 2, 2012)

Dante said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> > Reid says he can't work with Romney - Washington Times
> ...



Ah,Truer words have not been spoken.After all turn about is fair play.


----------



## jillian (Nov 2, 2012)

Rat in the Hat said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > Rat in the Hat said:
> ...



they probably should have thought of that when they said "i hope he fails" and obstructed everything for four years...to the point where they forced our credit rating down.

why does the right get bi-partisan the minute they think they're going to be in power?

i know...i know...bi-partisan means we do what the right wants. i heard that.


----------



## jwoodie (Nov 2, 2012)

*Harry Reid should be expelled from the Senate for failing to pass a budget bill for the last three years.*


----------



## Rat in the Hat (Nov 2, 2012)

jillian said:


> Rat in the Hat said:
> 
> 
> > jillian said:
> ...



Both parties were responsible for the credit downgrade because of their borrow & spend habits. It was because of wasteful spending on unfunded wars, bailouts, windmills, oil subsides, earmarks & pork, pork, pork.

Unless we get a viable third party (and soon!), both sides are going to have to work together and fix this mess.


----------



## Misty (Nov 2, 2012)

Dingy Harry is a relic.


----------



## Amelia (Nov 2, 2012)

AceRothstein said:


> The Infidel said:
> 
> 
> > The Senate is going GOP
> ...





I'm afraid you are correct.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Nov 2, 2012)

If Reid acts like the McConnell turd of the last two years, both Reid and McConnell have to go.

We need party leaders who are patriotic.


----------



## Article 15 (Nov 2, 2012)

Katzndogz said:


> Reid says he can't work with Romney - Washington Times
> 
> It sounds like a reason to get democrats out of the senate like they were gotten out of Congress.



Don't worry, in the unlikely scenario that the GOP take the senate, McConnell will be more than willing to use reconciliation to his heart's desire.  

He might even get froggy and make cloture a majority rules vote when the session starts.


----------



## Dante (Nov 2, 2012)

yawn...


Reed is a bore, but he's an honorable man


----------



## Article 15 (Nov 2, 2012)

JakeStarkey said:


> If Reid acts like the McConnell turd of the last two years, both Reid and McConnell have to go.
> 
> We need party leaders who are patriotic.



Reid has needed to go since his horrible first session as majority leader from 2007-2009.


----------



## Synthaholic (Nov 2, 2012)

Rat in the Hat said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > Rat in the Hat said:
> ...




Why are you such a fucking liar?


----------



## Synthaholic (Nov 2, 2012)

Article 15 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > If Reid acts like the McConnell turd of the last two years, both Reid and McConnell have to go.
> ...


I don't mind if he stays, just not in a leadership position.

In the House, I'm really looking forward to the return of Alan Grayson!


----------



## Gem (Nov 2, 2012)

I've heard a lot of people here and elsewhere screeching that if Obama hasn't been as successful as he could have/should have been its because the Republicans said from day one that they wouldn't work with him to pass his agenda and they'd do everything they could to make sure his agenda DIDN'T pass.

This was proclaimed awful, unreasonable, RACIST, unheard of...never been done before in the history of politics, etc. etc.

So the Democrats, being the "nice, reasonable, logical, calm, open-minded" party are going to be willing to listen to Romney's plans and work with him to reach decisions that will help our country move forward....right???



> "Mitt Romney's fantasy that Senate Democrats will work with him to pass his 'severely conservative' agenda is laughable," Mr. Reid said in a statement on Friday...


Reid says he can't work with Romney - Washington Times

Oh....nevermind.  I forgot.  Opposition to Obama means you're an unreasonable racist.  Opposition to Romney will go back to being what it was when Bush was president..."the highest form of patriotism."


----------



## RDD_1210 (Nov 2, 2012)

Gem said:


> I've heard a lot of people here and elsewhere screeching that if Obama hasn't been as successful as he could have/should have been its because the Republicans said from day one that they wouldn't work with him to pass his agenda and they'd do everything they could to make sure his agenda DIDN'T pass.
> 
> This was proclaimed awful, unreasonable, RACIST, unheard of...never been done before in the history of politics, etc. etc.
> 
> ...



What plans? He's provided a wishlist, not a plan.


----------



## Dante (Nov 2, 2012)

Dante said:


> yawn...
> 
> 
> Reed is a bore, but he's an honorable man


----------



## Liability (Nov 2, 2012)

Dante said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> > yawn...
> ...



Reid is entirely dishonorable, of course.


----------



## Caroljo (Nov 2, 2012)

RDD_1210 said:


> Gem said:
> 
> 
> > I've heard a lot of people here and elsewhere screeching that if Obama hasn't been as successful as he could have/should have been its because the Republicans said from day one that they wouldn't work with him to pass his agenda and they'd do everything they could to make sure his agenda DIDN'T pass.
> ...



At least Romney has a plan, and i believe he can do it.
Obama's just going to hire someone to "fix" the economy for him!  He has NO IDEA what to do!!!


----------



## Dante (Nov 2, 2012)

Dante said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> > Reid says he can't work with Romney - Washington Times
> ...


----------



## kiwiman127 (Nov 2, 2012)

bripat9643 said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > _
> ...



Yup, let's put party over country!  That a boy junior.
A huge majority of Americans want compromise in Washington but the children want it their way or they are going to take the ball and go home!


----------



## Gem (Nov 2, 2012)

> What plans? He's provided a wishlist, not a plan.



Of course he has plans, you can find them online easily and it is intellectually dishonest to say otherwise.  That being said, what you are referring to is the liberal talking point that he won't name specific loopholes or programs that he plans to get rid of...which is again, intellectually dishonest because you do not discuss WHY he doesn't list them.

He has stated NUMEROUS TIMES that he understands that you do not come to the negotiation table and scream "I WANT A, B, and C!!!  I WON'T GIVE YOU ANYTHING YOU WANT!!!  GIMMIE WHAT I WANT AND SHUT UP BECAUSE I WON!  I WON!  I WON!"  Well, I should clarify...you don't come to the negotiation table and say that unless you are Obama or you genuinely don't want to accomplish anything...or both.

Romney plans to come to the negotiation table with the Dems and congress and say, "I want these key items...you want these key items.  I might be willing to give up some things to get what I want...what are you willing to give up to get what you want?  Lets talk."

You don't work in a bi-partisan fashion by showing up with a list of demands and refusing to budge from them.  Therefore, there is NOTHING to be gained by coming up with such a list.  The only people that benefit from that sort of list are liberals who want Romney to name things so they can put out misleading ads demonizing him for whatever he says should be discussed.

The bottom line is...for 4 years we've listened to the left screech that anyone who opposes this President is racist and wrong.  When Governor Romney becomes President Romney..the Democrats in Congress need to state that they are looking forward to sitting down with the new President and working together to form plans to fix the problems facing our nation...or prove themselves hypocrites.

And it looks like we don't even need to wait until Election Day to see if they are hypocrites...Harry Reid just showed that they are.


----------



## WillowTree (Nov 2, 2012)

Katzndogz said:


> Reid says he can't work with Romney - Washington Times
> 
> It sounds like a reason to get democrats out of the senate like they were gotten out of Congress.



He can work with pomagranets.


----------



## NYcarbineer (Nov 2, 2012)

If Romney wins, I hope the Senate Democrats break the GOP's record for filibusters.

That would be awesome payback.


----------



## AceRothstein (Nov 2, 2012)

This is all going to be a moot point anyway as Obama is more than likely going to win on Tuesday.


----------



## Charles_Main (Nov 2, 2012)

Katzndogz said:


> Reid says he can't work with Romney - Washington Times
> 
> It sounds like a reason to get democrats out of the senate like they were gotten out of Congress.



I can tell you one thing. If Romney wins, all of the sudden it will become Patriotic to Oppose and Obstruct again.


----------



## Charles_Main (Nov 2, 2012)

NYcarbineer said:


> If Romney wins, I hope the Senate Democrats break the GOP's record for filibusters.
> 
> That would be awesome payback.



Not a chance. You know why? Because Romney will actually be willing to Compromise, and not just pretend he is.

If Romney wins, and the Republicans hold the house and pick up a few Senate seats but not enough to control it. It would be a Horrible Decision Politically for the Dems to Obstruct for the sake of Obstructing. That will have been 2 Election cycles in which Dems lost power, I would not call it wise to follow that up by be Obstructionist. Not if they want to get back into power.


----------



## Synthaholic (Nov 2, 2012)

Gem said:


> Harry Reid just showed that they are.




Republicans?

Fast learners?


----------



## Synthaholic (Nov 2, 2012)

Charles_Main said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> > Reid says he can't work with Romney - Washington Times
> ...



So you're admitting that it is not patriotic now?

Thanks!


----------



## Dante (Nov 2, 2012)

*Sudden danger signs in polling as Election Day nears*

By Dick Morris

Published November 02, 2012

FoxNews.com

Read more: Sudden danger signs in polling as Election Day nears | Fox News

Senator Reed will have the last laugh...


----------



## Katzndogz (Nov 2, 2012)

Maybe obama could have worked with republicans if he had shown up.   He didn't show up, he stopped showing up over a year ago.   He played golf and gave lavish policies that are now coming under congressional investigation for waste.

If obama is reelected, he is going to find every second of the last four years under investigation.


----------



## Liability (Nov 2, 2012)

Dainty and lots of lib idiots like him tell us that Morris is a joke.  That's not entirely untrue, either.

But when Dick Morris says ANYTHING that Dainty likes for his lib hack partisan bullshit present purpose, suddenly, the qualifiers about Morris go by the way.



Dainty is a true hack.

But, still, if we are going to cite Dick Morris, let's not do it by half measures:



> We are still likely to win. The undecided vote always goes against the incumbent and all the polling suggests we will be more successful than they will be at turning out our vote. But, early warning signs must be headed.
> 
> Bottom line: WORK LIKE HELL!!!


 -- Sudden danger signs in polling as Election Day nears | Fox News


----------



## Wiseacre (Nov 2, 2012)

"  I can tell you one thing. If Romney wins, all of the sudden it will become Patriotic to Oppose and Obstruct again.  "


The hypocrisy of the left and their supporters knows no bounds.


----------



## uscitizen (Nov 2, 2012)

Katzndogz said:


> Reid says he can't work with Romney - Washington Times
> 
> It sounds like a reason to get democrats out of the senate like they were gotten out of Congress.



All those can't work with the "other" side needs to remember they work for we the people not their political party.
We need to boot Reed and Boehner, etc out of there.


----------



## uscitizen (Nov 2, 2012)

Wiseacre said:


> "  I can tell you one thing. If Romney wins, all of the sudden it will become Patriotic to Oppose and Obstruct again.  "
> 
> 
> The hypocrisy of the left and their supporters knows no bounds.



Another outstanding ironic projection.

the word "compromise" and Bipartisan have become words not to be said among the right.


----------



## Sallow (Nov 2, 2012)

Katzndogz said:


> Reid says he can't work with Romney - Washington Times
> 
> It sounds like a reason to get democrats out of the senate like they were gotten out of Congress.



That just sucks..don't it? 

Next thing you know he'll be saying that the Democrats main agenda will be to make Romney a one term President if he wins.

That would really be outrageous..no?


----------



## Wiseacre (Nov 2, 2012)

Sallow said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> > Reid says he can't work with Romney - Washington Times
> ...




At least he'll be honest about it.   Does it matter if he says it out loud, the proof is in the pudding.


----------



## Dante (Nov 2, 2012)

Liability said:


> Dainty and lots of lib idiots like him tell us that Morris is a joke.  That's not entirely untrue, either.
> 
> But when Dick Morris says ANYTHING that Dainty likes for his lib hack partisan bullshit present purpose, suddenly, the qualifiers about Morris go by the way.
> 
> ...



*appendage: definition:*
ap·pend·age/&#601;&#712;pendij/
Noun:

(often with negative or pejorative connotations) A thing called 'Liability' that is often attached to something larger or more important....like Dante's ass.


----------



## Sallow (Nov 2, 2012)

Wiseacre said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> > Katzndogz said:
> ...



Sure as heck is..

Democrats worked with Bush in both his terms. They only rejected his tax cuts and plan to privatize SSI. Oh..and Harriet Miers..

I wish they did work against him.


----------



## Sallow (Nov 2, 2012)

Charles_Main said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > If Romney wins, I hope the Senate Democrats break the GOP's record for filibusters.
> ...



That's total bullshit.

He had his veto overridden 700 times in Massaschusettes.

And Obama compromised with Republicans at every turn.


----------



## Wiseacre (Nov 2, 2012)

Sallow said:


> Wiseacre said:
> 
> 
> > Sallow said:
> ...




So, you don't want anything to get done in the next 4 years if Romney is elected?   Somehow Bush managed to get things done with the democrats, as did Clinton with the repubs when he was the prez.   But Obama has not done that, his idea of compromise seems to be to do it his way.   And maybe the dems shouldn't have treated the GOP like shit during his 1st 2 years.


----------



## Caroljo (Nov 2, 2012)

Sallow said:


> Charles_Main said:
> 
> 
> > NYcarbineer said:
> ...


*

*

when?
How many times did he compromise?
What did he compromise on?


----------



## JakeStarkey (Nov 2, 2012)

With Romney and responsible, moderate House leaders in the GOP, I believe much can be done to get the things back on track.  (1) Tea Party does not obstruct; (2)  the Far Left does not obstruct; (3) if they do, their party leadership must destroy the careers of the senators and representatives who put philosophy above patriotism.   

We have no more time for that nonsense.



Charles_Main said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > If Romney wins, I hope the Senate Democrats break the GOP's record for filibusters.
> ...


----------



## mamooth (Nov 2, 2012)

Caroljo said:


> when?
> How many times did he compromise?
> What did he compromise on?



Pretty much every single thing on the health care bill, for starters.

Everything having to do with the budget, to add to that.

Stop trying to pass off this bizarro version of history where the noble bipartisan Republicans have tried to work with the evil president. That's a complete reversal of reality, and it reveals the speaker as a FOX cultist.

I do hope the Democrats have learned their lesson and will stop trying to be so bipartisan. For example, Reid needs to change senate rules to kill the filibuster. Sure, the republicans will shriek, but they'll shriek in any case, so there's no point trying to appease them. You can't appeal to their better nature, as they don't have one. Force is all they understand, so that's how you have to deal with them.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Nov 2, 2012)

If Obama wins, the Dem senate will kill the rules on the filibuster.  If Romney wins, the Dem senate will keep the rules on the filibuster.  Let's stay in reality, folks.


----------



## Stephanie (Nov 2, 2012)

jillian said:


> Rat in the Hat said:
> 
> 
> > jillian said:
> ...



ah, so the Democrats are going to BIGGER ASSES is that it?
won't be any whining about how they aren't WORKING FOR THE PEOPLE I suppose


----------



## Charles_Main (Nov 2, 2012)

Sallow said:


> Charles_Main said:
> 
> 
> > NYcarbineer said:
> ...



Fantasy bud. Pure Fantasy. The Fact is Obama only needed to compromise enough to get a couple Republican Votes and he could have had what ever he wanted. Instead he and the Dems in Congress made it clear they wanted Republicans to sit down and shut the fuck up and it was their way or the fucking highway. Obama has been the most divisive, and Partisan President in a very long time, and his time has come. 

Time for a Moderate to be in the WH.


----------



## Soggy in NOLA (Nov 2, 2012)

I think the people of Nevada have had a snoot full of Dingy Harry and his bullshit.


----------



## mamooth (Nov 2, 2012)

Jake, given Reid didn't change the rules on the filibuster the last time Obama won, or in 2010, what makes you so sure he'd do it this time?


----------



## Charles_Main (Nov 2, 2012)

mamooth said:


> Caroljo said:
> 
> 
> > when?
> ...



I never claimed Republicans tried to work with Obama bud. I am saying Obama never tried to Compromise either, your spin aside. That is the case, even when he pretended to Compromise it always came with something he knew the Republicans could not agree to attached to it. 

Obama is a showmen, not a leader.


----------



## mamooth (Nov 2, 2012)

Charles_Main said:


> . The Fact is Obama only needed to compromise enough to get a couple Republican Votes and he could have had what ever he wanted. Instead he and the Dems in Congress made it clear they wanted Republicans to sit down and shut the fuck up and it was their way or the fucking highway.



You realize that's a total rewrite of history, right?

Oh wait. You're a FOX cultist. You don't realize it. You exist in an alternate reality, where there are whole lot of drooling morons who actually believe the retarded BS that you just crapped out.


----------



## Truthmatters (Nov 2, 2012)

by whom?


----------



## Truthmatters (Nov 2, 2012)

Katzndogz said:


> Maybe obama could have worked with republicans if he had shown up.   He didn't show up, he stopped showing up over a year ago.   He played golf and gave lavish policies that are now coming under congressional investigation for waste.
> 
> If obama is reelected, he is going to find every second of the last four years under investigation.



sorry that was for this post


----------



## JakeStarkey (Nov 2, 2012)

Did not need, too.  He may during the lame duck session in order to push legislation that Obama wants, whether he is re-elected or not.





mamooth said:


> Jake, given Reid didn't change the rules on the filibuster the last time Obama won, or in 2010, what makes you so sure he'd do it this time?


----------



## del (Nov 2, 2012)

Caroljo said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> > Gem said:
> ...



link?


----------



## RoadVirus (Nov 2, 2012)

How is this any different then what Harry Reid's been doing since the Dumbos took control of the Senate?


----------



## Stephanie (Nov 2, 2012)

RoadVirus said:


> How is this any different then what Harry Reid's been doing since the Dumbos took control of the Senate?



it's not...but now he is being cheered for it..
so much for wanting Bipartisanship..
Democrats are a joke


----------



## copsnrobbers (Nov 2, 2012)

Rat in the Hat said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > Rat in the Hat said:
> ...



I'm confident Mitt will fix us...


----------



## NYcarbineer (Nov 2, 2012)

If Obama loses, he can just let the Bush tax cuts expire if the GOP won't make a deal.


----------



## Charles_Main (Nov 2, 2012)

NYcarbineer said:


> If Obama loses, he can just let the Bush tax cuts expire if the GOP won't make a deal.



Which means a tax increase on all Income levels. So I guess he was lying when he said he would not raise taxes on the Middle class?

lol


----------



## Charles_Main (Nov 2, 2012)

copsnrobbers said:


> Rat in the Hat said:
> 
> 
> > jillian said:
> ...



I'm not, but I am Confident we can't afford to let Obama keep trying his way.


----------



## NYcarbineer (Nov 2, 2012)

Charles_Main said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > If Romney wins, I hope the Senate Democrats break the GOP's record for filibusters.
> ...



Romney has promised to repeal Obamacare.  Are you saying he's lying?


----------



## Stephanie (Nov 2, 2012)

NYcarbineer said:


> Charles_Main said:
> 
> 
> > NYcarbineer said:
> ...



and the MAJORITY of the people are behind him..


----------



## Sallow (Nov 2, 2012)

Wiseacre said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> > Wiseacre said:
> ...



No..I don't want a Bush redux.

Democrats need to take lessons from the Tea Party if Romney is elected.


----------



## Sallow (Nov 2, 2012)

Stephanie said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > Charles_Main said:
> ...



No they aren't.

The Majority of people now like ObamaCare.


----------



## Stephanie (Nov 2, 2012)

Sallow said:


> Wiseacre said:
> 
> 
> > Sallow said:
> ...



please, the Tea Party would have to take lessons from the Democrats. We watched them in action against Bush


----------



## copsnrobbers (Nov 2, 2012)

Hey, whats better than a silent voting giant? Get ready liberals your in for a big surprise. 
You're Muslim Racist Communist Con artist is going down.


----------



## Rozman (Nov 2, 2012)

What would have changed...
He doesn't work with anyone now....


----------



## Stephanie (Nov 2, 2012)

Sallow said:


> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> > NYcarbineer said:
> ...




no they don't...sorry


----------



## American Horse (Nov 2, 2012)

Reid is a fool and a thug.  If he's still majority leader next spring Romney won't put up with his worthless shit; he'll go over his head two ways: to the people exposing his record which up to now has been a non-story in in the liberal media, and he will confer with his senate colleagues and foment a coup for a replacement who will place the welfare of the country above his own. There have to be democrat senators who care more for building a record of positive legislative  achievement over stonewalling the country's elected chief executive.


----------



## uscitizen (Nov 2, 2012)

Caroljo said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> > Charles_Main said:
> ...



Extending the Bush tax cuts?


----------



## Toro (Nov 2, 2012)

The OP is amusing, given how obstinate the Tea Party Republicans were.


----------



## Stephanie (Nov 2, 2012)

Toro said:


> The OP is amusing, given how obstinate the Tea Party Republicans were.



they weren't as obstinate as Harry Reid


----------



## Political Junky (Nov 2, 2012)

Katzndogz said:


> Reid says he can&#39;t work with Romney - Washington Times
> 
> It sounds like a reason to get democrats out of the senate like they were gotten out of Congress.


Turn about is fair play, right?


----------



## Stephanie (Nov 2, 2012)

Political Junky said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> > Reid says he can't work with Romney - Washington Times
> ...



ah yes, screw the of country and people...Revenge is the game


----------



## Sallow (Nov 2, 2012)

Stephanie said:


> Political Junky said:
> 
> 
> > Katzndogz said:
> ...



Ooookay..

On the longshot that Obama wins..would you support congress working with him?


----------



## JakeStarkey (Nov 2, 2012)

Obama, win or lose, will not negotiate on the tax cuts.

They will go through, and if the Tea Party does not compromise, so will sequestration.



NYcarbineer said:


> If Obama loses, he can just let the Bush tax cuts expire if the GOP won't make a deal.


----------



## Stephanie (Nov 2, 2012)

JakeStarkey said:


> Obama, win or lose, will not negotiate on the tax cuts.
> 
> They will go through, and if the Tea Party does not compromise, so will sequestration.
> 
> ...



well how lovely


----------



## American Horse (Nov 2, 2012)

Toro said:


> The OP is amusing, given how obstinate the Tea Party Republicans were.



The congress-people of the tea party are representing their constituents and honoring the promises they gave.  Reid was not elected by his constituents to create a blockade to leeguslation, and the office of majority leader has a responsibility to the legislative process.  There really is no comparison between the two in their relative roles.


----------



## Sallow (Nov 2, 2012)

JakeStarkey said:


> Obama, win or lose, will not negotiate on the tax cuts.
> 
> They will go through, and if the Tea Party does not compromise, so will sequestration.
> 
> ...



He got burned the last time he capitulated on the tax cuts..so yeah..the rich are going to see their taxes go up a couple of points.

What's being threatened is the big fat defense contractors that the "cut government spending" conservatives want to get government spending.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Nov 2, 2012)

The TP _minority _have a responsibility to help govern, not obstruct.  The tail does not wag the dog.


----------



## Stephanie (Nov 2, 2012)

Sallow said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Obama, win or lose, will not negotiate on the tax cuts.
> ...



seeing you people suggest playing games with the tax cuts then laugh that ANY Amercian citizens having their taxes raised is simply amazing and rather sad


----------



## Sallow (Nov 2, 2012)

JakeStarkey said:


> The TP _minority _have a responsibility to help govern, not obstruct.  The tail does not wag the dog.



No they don't.

They are ideologues..and meant to obstruct.

The responsiblity really falls to the people to put responsible and professional politicians into congress.

Not nuts.


----------



## Sallow (Nov 2, 2012)

Stephanie said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



I don't have a problem with raising taxes on those American citizens that use the lion's share of government resources, then use other people's labor to make obscene amounts of money. Then use those profits offshore to generate even more wealth for themselves.

Then..use part of that obscene wealth to seize power.

It's the whole cycle that I just posted..I have problems with..

And it's rather sad conservatives cheer it.


----------



## Stephanie (Nov 2, 2012)

Sallow said:


> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> > Sallow said:
> ...



Yeah right, that's why you liberals VOTE for all those with Obscene wealth who use it to seize power then bitch about other who have it..you make me laugh


----------



## daveman (Nov 2, 2012)

Rat in the Hat said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> > Reid says he can't work with Romney - Washington Times
> ...



It's only obstruction when Republicans do it.

When Dems do it, it's "sticking to their principles".  

Or some hypocritical horseshit like that.


----------



## Stephanie (Nov 2, 2012)

daveman said:


> Rat in the Hat said:
> 
> 
> > Katzndogz said:
> ...



yep, that's the horseshit alright


----------



## daveman (Nov 2, 2012)

RDD_1210 said:


> Gem said:
> 
> 
> > I've heard a lot of people here and elsewhere screeching that if Obama hasn't been as successful as he could have/should have been its because the Republicans said from day one that they wouldn't work with him to pass his agenda and they'd do everything they could to make sure his agenda DIDN'T pass.
> ...


"Hope."  "Change."  "Forward."

I guess it's different...somehow...it just is!! when Obama does it, huh?


----------



## daveman (Nov 2, 2012)

Dante said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> > yawn...
> ...


Sheesh.  Will somebody _please_ pay attention to this attention whore?


----------



## mudwhistle (Nov 2, 2012)

jillian said:


> Rat in the Hat said:
> 
> 
> > Katzndogz said:
> ...



Yeah.....treated with a surplus......


----------



## Greenbeard (Nov 2, 2012)

Charles_Main said:


> Instead he and the Dems in Congress made it clear they wanted Republicans to sit down and shut the fuck up and it was their way or the fucking highway.



This isn't ancient history, I'm reasonably certain you're old enough to have lived through this era. How is your memory of it so faulty?

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nz5AmhI9g7o]Senate Republicans Block Own Amendments on Health Care Bill - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## daveman (Nov 2, 2012)

uscitizen said:


> Wiseacre said:
> 
> 
> > "  I can tell you one thing. If Romney wins, all of the sudden it will become Patriotic to Oppose and Obstruct again.  "
> ...


Among the left, the word "compromise" means "do what we say and STFU".


----------



## daveman (Nov 2, 2012)

Sallow said:


> Wiseacre said:
> 
> 
> > Sallow said:
> ...


Acting normally?  Yes, that would be refreshing.


----------



## HomeInspect (Nov 3, 2012)

The Dems are already saying they won't work with Romney. And to think the mindless refered to Republicans as the party of "NO". Well Reid is saying "NO" before it even happens.

Harry Reid: 'We Won't Work With Romney'


----------



## Seawytch (Nov 3, 2012)

It would be such a shame to see the RWs tactics used against them wouldn't it?


----------



## konradv (Nov 3, 2012)

Of course they severely clip Reid's statement.  He just said Dems wouldn't be rubber stamping the TP platform and that Romney's going to have to prove he can work across the aisle.


----------



## editec (Nov 3, 2012)

I hope to god they won't.

After all, if Romney advances the plans he claims he'll advance, they'd have to completely alter their POV to work with him.


----------



## buckeye45_73 (Nov 3, 2012)

Seawytch said:


> It would be such a shame to see the RWs tactics used against them wouldn't it?



Awwww... i guess you gorgot about the 06 elections.....where democrats said no for several years and didnt run on any issues at all....and the country has sucked ever since.....


----------



## WillowTree (Nov 3, 2012)

konradv said:


> Of course they severely clip Reid's statement.  He just said Dems wouldn't be rubber stamping the TP platform and that Romney's going to have to prove he can work across the aisle.



Then Romney can just use "executive privilige" I know that ALL liberals on this board approve of "executive privilege".. Yep them dew.


----------



## RDD_1210 (Nov 3, 2012)

Gem said:


> > What plans? He's provided a wishlist, not a plan.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Ok, what are those "key items" that Romney wants?


----------



## RDD_1210 (Nov 3, 2012)

daveman said:


> uscitizen said:
> 
> 
> > Wiseacre said:
> ...



Why don't you give an example of that?

_Please say healthcare reform......please say healthcare reform......_


----------



## daveman (Nov 3, 2012)

RDD_1210 said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > uscitizen said:
> ...


Obama to GOP: &#8216;I Won&#8217; - Washington Wire - WSJ


----------



## tooAlive (Nov 3, 2012)

Someone needs to remove this useless old bat from the senate.


----------



## longknife (Nov 3, 2012)

Today, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid pledged to stonewall any attempt by Mitt Romney to pass his agenda if elected. Mitt Romneys fantasy that Senate Democrats will work with him to pass his severely conservative agenda is laughable, spat Reid. Of course, when Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) suggested two years into President Obamas presidency (after the stimulus package and Obamacare) that Obamas failures to lead in bipartisan fashion made his defeat his first political priority, the left went insane; they still cite the line as evidence that McConnell wouldnt let Obama get anything done. But Reid is doing it before Romney even takes office.

Said Reid: Senate Democrats are committed to defending the middle class, and we will do everything in our power to defend them against Mitt Romneys Tea Party agenda.

This is the supposed bipartisanship the Democrats stand for. 

From Reid: We Won't Work With Romney

*If there was ever a reason to do everything possible to give the GOP a majority in the center - this is it! Thank you Harry.*


----------



## longknife (Nov 3, 2012)

*Harry Reid laughs at bipartisanship*

by John Hayward @ Harry Reid laughs at bipartisanship | Conservative News, Views & Books 

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, who spent the last few months insisting that little voices in his head told him Mitt Romney didn&#8217;t pay any taxes for the last ten years, decided it would be a great idea to threaten Americans into voting for Barack Obama, by promising endless bitter partisan gridlock if Mitt Romney wins.

&#8220;Mitt Romney&#8217;s fantasy that Senate Democrats will work with him to pass his &#8216;severely conservative&#8217; agenda is laughable,&#8221; said Reid in a statement reported by the Washington Times.  This works great if you combine it into a scorched-earth hyper-partisan cocktail along with Barack Obama telling his supporters that voting is an act of vengeance against people they hate:

And remember, Obama&#8217;s silly little picture book that supposedly outlined his big second-term agenda was entitled &#8220;The New Economic Patriotism,&#8221; which implies that people who disagree with his tax-raising plans are unpatriotic &#8211; far from the first time he&#8217;s made that accusation.  Boy, the days of &#8220;unity&#8221; and &#8220;hope & change&#8221; are distant memories, aren&#8217;t they?

Reid is specifically trying to deflate Romney&#8217;s claim of being better at working across the aisle than Obama is &#8211; a claim indisputably supported by the two candidates&#8217; histories.  Romney isn&#8217;t the one who ran around &#8220;I won&#8221; and telling his opponents to &#8220;go to the back of the bus&#8221; after becoming governor of Massachusetts.  Romney isn&#8217;t the one who passed a few thousand pages of Constitutionally dubious paradigm-shifting legislation in the dead of night on a party-line vote, after making an utter fool of reluctant votes in his own party, like Bart Stupak.  Obama&#8217;s idea of &#8220;bipartisanship&#8221; doesn&#8217;t even extend to recalcitrant Democrats.

But as to Reid&#8217;s specific threat, it makes excellent campaign fodder for every Republican Senate candidate.  Remember, a vote for any Democrat is a vote to keep Harry Reid as Crypt Keeper of a Senate where every good idea, including dozens of pro-growth bills passed by the Republican House, goes to die.  Every swing voter in a tight Senate race should see only Harry Reid&#8217;s face when they walk into the voting booth, not whichever Democrat is on the ballot.

Harry Reid has already cost you a lot, my fellow Americans, and not just in stalled legislation.  Just the other day, the House Oversight Committee released an investigation of the Energy Department&#8217;s corrupt loan program, and revealed huge piles of taxpayer cash were pumped into Reid&#8217;s district to get him re-elected in 2010.  No matter what state you live in, you put money into Reid&#8217;s re-election slush fund.  He&#8217;s not up for re-election this time, but you can vote to make him Minority Leader, by voting for your friendly neighborhood Republican Senate candidate.

Americans always tell pollsters they hate &#8220;gridlock.&#8221;  Well, here&#8217;s Harry Reid, openly threatening gridlock as your punishment unless you vote the way he tells you to.  He&#8217;s as blatant about it as anyone has ever been.  Do you want to prove that you really mean it when you tell pollsters how much you want a government that gets things done?  Here&#8217;s your chance.  Break Harry Reid&#8217;s heart on Tuesday, and put the rest of the Democrat caucus on notice that you&#8217;re not willing to settle for another four years of malaise and finger-pointing.

Update: A perfect response to Reid&#8217;s gridlock theatrics from RNC chair Reince Priebus: &#8220;I am encouraged that Harry Reid recognizes Governor Romney&#8217;s momentum and is joining the hundreds of millions of Americans who are preparing for a Romney Administration.  While Senator Reid might want to continue Washington politics as usual, I&#8217;m confident that there are many Democrats who value balancing the budget, reducing burdensome regulations, investing in U.S. energy resources and will be willing to work with Governor Romney to help grow our stagnant economy.&#8221;

The post Harry Reid laughs at bipartisanship appeared first on Conservative News, Views & Books.


----------



## longknife (Nov 3, 2012)

BETTER VOTE REPUBLICAN FOR SENATE: Reid Says He Can&#8217;t Work With Romney

by MacAoidh @ http://thehayride.com/2012/11/better-vote-republican-for-senate-reid-says-he-cant-work-with-romney/ 

Who&#8217;s the worst person in American government?

Why, it&#8217;s Harry Reid, of course.






Five days before the election, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has ruled out trying to work with Mitt Romney should he win next week.

    &#8220;Mitt Romney&#8217;s fantasy that Senate Democrats will work with him to pass his &#8216;severely conservative&#8217; agenda is laughable,&#8221; Mr. Reid said in a statement on Friday, trying to puncture Mr. Romney&#8217;s closing election argument that he&#8217;ll be able to deliver on the bipartisanship President Obama promised in 2008 but has struggled to live up to.

And then just a little more&#8230;

    &#8220;Mitt Romney has demonstrated that he lacks the courage to stand up to the tea party, kowtowing to their demands time and again. There is nothing in Mitt Romney&#8217;s record to suggest he would act any differently as president,&#8221; Mr. Reid said.

Because Harry Reid stands up to the loons in his party all the time, right?

It will take a net GOP gain of three seats in the Senate to make Reid the minority leader.

Republican-held seats in Indiana, Arizona, Nevada, Maine and Massachusetts are in jeopardy, which in the worst case scenario would make it necessary to win eight Democrat seats to put Reid&#8217;s tyranny-of-the-majority out to pasture.

There are eight such seats possible &#8211; though it&#8217;s our guess the GOP won&#8217;t need quite so many (Jeff Flake will hold the Arizona seat for the Republicans, and Richard Mourdock has a poll showing him barely ahead in Indiana, which the Obama campaign has given up on; we think he&#8217;ll hang on despite his falling into the pro-life-rape trap, plus Scott Brown isn&#8217;t dead in Massachusetts yet and Dean Heller is likely to win re-election in Nevada).

Rick Berg is likely to win a close race in *North Dakota.*

Deb Fischer is going to pull through in *Nebraska*.

George Allen is as likely to win in *Virginia* as not. The polls are back-and-forth on the race with neither Allen nor Tim Kaine showing much sign of a breakout.

Linda McMahon is a little behind in *Connecticut*, but given the little-recognized chaos going on there in the aftermath of Sandy and what it could do to the Democrats&#8217; turnout there, don&#8217;t count her out.

Connie Mack is a bit behind in *Florida*, but he&#8217;s being written off thanks to two laughably pro-Democrat polls put out by the New York Times and PPP; outside of those polls the race has been consistently within the margin of error. It wouldn&#8217;t be a surprise for Mack to make a late surge and top Bob Nelson.

In *Missouri*, Todd Akin ran within two of Claire McCaskill (46-44) in a Mason-Dixon poll last week. Though other polls have the race further apart than that, most of them are Democrat polls (with a 51-43 Rasmussen poll from two weeks ago the exception), and other than a poll put out by the McCaskill campaign and the Rasmussen poll just mentioned, McCaskill doesn&#8217;t poll above 47 percent. Given the way Akin has been demonized and outspent to date, the idea that McCaskill hasn&#8217;t been able to put him away means that race could very well go differently than everyone assumes. She should not be under 50 at this point, but she is &#8211; even her internal poll only has her at 53.

Denny Rehberg is in a dead heat with Jon Tester in* Montana*.

The most recent poll in *Ohio*, done by Republican firm Wenzel strategies, has Josh Mandel with a 50-45 lead over Sherrod Brown. That poll is a bit of an outlier, but then the majority of the Ohio polls have been done by national firms polling the presidential race with grossly pro-Democrat skews in the party-ID of their samples.

In *Pennsylvania*, Bob Casey is consistently polling below 50 percent against Tom Smith with the exception of three polls by Democrat firms. The race is too close to call, and Smith clearly has the momentum &#8211; as does Romney in that state.

And in *Wisconsin*, Tommy Thompson is neck-and-neck with Tammy Baldwin. That race will come down to the ground game, and the GOP&#8217;s ground game in Wisconsin is legendary &#8211; not to mention well-tested thanks to the endless failed recall elections there.

Ultimately, this means of 15 seats that will decide the Senate there are 10 currently in Democrat hands, and only a slight overperformance by GOP candidates in the polls &#8211; which GOP candidates typically do &#8211; would move the Senate into Republican hands.

And put Harry Reid out of his job as majority leader.

Which needs to happen, coincidentally. Because in the event Romney wins, we now know Reid isn&#8217;t capable of productive leadership. He just told us so.

What&#8217;s more, Romney has a record of working across party lines. When has Harry Reid ever done that?

This is a man who continues to promulgate the proven lie that Mitt Romney is a tax cheat. Without evidence, and without remorse or apology. He can&#8217;t govern.

Neither can Obama, as we&#8217;ve seen.

Perhaps Romney and Mitch McConnell can do better. One imagines they could produce a federal budget, something Reid has refused to do for four years.


----------



## P@triot (Nov 3, 2012)

Harry Reid made news yesterday when he publicly refused to work with Mitt Romney if he's elected president. Reid said, "Mitt Romney's fantasy that Senate Democrats will work with him to pass his 'severely conservative' agenda is laughable."

He doesn't even know what Mitt Romney will propose and he's already promising to handcuff the government and paralyze government in the name of his radical and insane agenda.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Nov 3, 2012)

Far left and Far right: listen and be quiet.

Either we come together in the center and learn how to work together, no matter how much the country blames the Dems (and they will), the great majority of the country will come to blame the Pubs even more and make them pay.

The America of Contumacious, Huggy, Daveman, Chris, bripat, etc is not what America as a whole wants or needs.


----------



## gallantwarrior (Nov 3, 2012)

JakeStarkey said:


> If Reid acts like the McConnell turd of the last two years, both Reid and McConnell have to go.
> 
> We need party leaders who are patriotic.



We need leaders who do the job they are elected to do.


----------



## EriktheRed (Nov 3, 2012)

AceRothstein said:


> The Infidel said:
> 
> 
> > The Senate is going GOP
> ...



http://www.usmessageboard.com/elect...-senate-53-47-for-the-dems-3.html#post6268266


----------



## daveman (Nov 3, 2012)

JakeStarkey said:


> Far left and Far right: listen and be quiet.
> 
> Either we come together in the center and learn how to work together, no matter how much the country blames the Dems (and they will), the great majority of the country will come to blame the Pubs even more and make them pay.
> 
> The America of Contumacious, Huggy, Daveman, Chris, bripat, etc is not what America as a whole wants or needs.



"Mainstream Republicans" who kiss Obama's ass don't get to dictate what America needs, boy.


----------



## Stephanie (Nov 3, 2012)

We could get rid of half the people in this Congress.. A lot of them are nothing but crooks, liars and shysters who should be in jail..
And they are sitting up there MAKING up and passing silly laws, tax and fees against US like what kind of light bulb we need to use..

Harry Reid is all of the above...nasty nasty crooked man

Kick them all to the damn curb would be fine by me


----------



## longknife (Nov 3, 2012)

Today, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid pledged to stonewall any attempt by Mitt Romney to pass his agenda if elected. Mitt Romneys fantasy that Senate Democrats will work with him to pass his severely conservative agenda is laughable, spat Reid. Of course, when Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) suggested two years into President Obamas presidency (after the stimulus package and Obamacare) that Obamas failures to lead in bipartisan fashion made his defeat his first political priority, the left went insane; they still cite the line as evidence that McConnell wouldnt let Obama get anything done. But Reid is doing it before Romney even takes office.

Said Reid: Senate Democrats are committed to defending the middle class, and we will do everything in our power to defend them against Mitt Romneys Tea Party agenda.

This is the supposed bipartisanship the Democrats stand for. 

From Reid: We Won't Work With Romney


----------



## Moonglow (Nov 3, 2012)

fire 'em all and start all over.


----------



## Warrior102 (Nov 3, 2012)

Fuck that snot-nosed, elitist, wealthy, invests off-shore panty waste limp wristed cocksucker. He's your typical Libberhoid man.


----------



## longknife (Nov 3, 2012)

*Harry Reid laughs at bipartisanship*

by John Hayward @ Harry Reid laughs at bipartisanship | Conservative News, Views & Books 

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, who spent the last few months insisting that little voices in his head told him Mitt Romney didn&#8217;t pay any taxes for the last ten years, decided it would be a great idea to threaten Americans into voting for Barack Obama, by promising endless bitter partisan gridlock if Mitt Romney wins.

&#8220;Mitt Romney&#8217;s fantasy that Senate Democrats will work with him to pass his &#8216;severely conservative&#8217; agenda is laughable,&#8221; said Reid in a statement reported by the Washington Times.  This works great if you combine it into a scorched-earth hyper-partisan cocktail along with Barack Obama telling his supporters that voting is an act of vengeance against people they hate:

And remember, Obama&#8217;s silly little picture book that supposedly outlined his big second-term agenda was entitled &#8220;The New Economic Patriotism,&#8221; which implies that people who disagree with his tax-raising plans are unpatriotic &#8211; far from the first time he&#8217;s made that accusation.  Boy, the days of &#8220;unity&#8221; and &#8220;hope & change&#8221; are distant memories, aren&#8217;t they?

Reid is specifically trying to deflate Romney&#8217;s claim of being better at working across the aisle than Obama is &#8211; a claim indisputably supported by the two candidates&#8217; histories.  Romney isn&#8217;t the one who ran around &#8220;I won&#8221; and telling his opponents to &#8220;go to the back of the bus&#8221; after becoming governor of Massachusetts.  Romney isn&#8217;t the one who passed a few thousand pages of Constitutionally dubious paradigm-shifting legislation in the dead of night on a party-line vote, after making an utter fool of reluctant votes in his own party, like Bart Stupak.  Obama&#8217;s idea of &#8220;bipartisanship&#8221; doesn&#8217;t even extend to recalcitrant Democrats.

But as to Reid&#8217;s specific threat, it makes excellent campaign fodder for every Republican Senate candidate.  Remember, a vote for any Democrat is a vote to keep Harry Reid as Crypt Keeper of a Senate where every good idea, including dozens of pro-growth bills passed by the Republican House, goes to die.  Every swing voter in a tight Senate race should see only Harry Reid&#8217;s face when they walk into the voting booth, not whichever Democrat is on the ballot.

Harry Reid has already cost you a lot, my fellow Americans, and not just in stalled legislation.  Just the other day, the House Oversight Committee released an investigation of the Energy Department&#8217;s corrupt loan program, and revealed huge piles of taxpayer cash were pumped into Reid&#8217;s district to get him re-elected in 2010.  No matter what state you live in, you put money into Reid&#8217;s re-election slush fund.  He&#8217;s not up for re-election this time, but you can vote to make him Minority Leader, by voting for your friendly neighborhood Republican Senate candidate.

Americans always tell pollsters they hate &#8220;gridlock.&#8221;  Well, here&#8217;s Harry Reid, openly threatening gridlock as your punishment unless you vote the way he tells you to.  He&#8217;s as blatant about it as anyone has ever been.  Do you want to prove that you really mean it when you tell pollsters how much you want a government that gets things done?  Here&#8217;s your chance.  Break Harry Reid&#8217;s heart on Tuesday, and put the rest of the Democrat caucus on notice that you&#8217;re not willing to settle for another four years of malaise and finger-pointing.

Update: A perfect response to Reid&#8217;s gridlock theatrics from RNC chair Reince Priebus: &#8220;I am encouraged that Harry Reid recognizes Governor Romney&#8217;s momentum and is joining the hundreds of millions of Americans who are preparing for a Romney Administration.  While Senator Reid might want to continue Washington politics as usual, I&#8217;m confident that there are many Democrats who value balancing the budget, reducing burdensome regulations, investing in U.S. energy resources and will be willing to work with Governor Romney to help grow our stagnant economy.&#8221;

The post Harry Reid laughs at bipartisanship appeared first on Conservative News, Views & Books.


----------



## mamooth (Nov 3, 2012)

Could you at least check the threads for dupes before posting yet another conservative victimhood thread?


----------



## longknife (Nov 3, 2012)

*BETTER VOTE REPUBLICAN FOR SENATE: Reid Says He Can&#8217;t Work With Romney*

by MacAoidh @ http://thehayride.com/2012/11/better-vote-republican-for-senate-reid-says-he-cant-work-with-romney/ 

Who&#8217;s the worst person in American government?

Why, it&#8217;s Harry Reid, of course.






Five days before the election, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has ruled out trying to work with Mitt Romney should he win next week.

    &#8220;Mitt Romney&#8217;s fantasy that Senate Democrats will work with him to pass his &#8216;severely conservative&#8217; agenda is laughable,&#8221; Mr. Reid said in a statement on Friday, trying to puncture Mr. Romney&#8217;s closing election argument that he&#8217;ll be able to deliver on the bipartisanship President Obama promised in 2008 but has struggled to live up to.

And then just a little more&#8230;



> &#8220;Mitt Romney has demonstrated that he lacks the courage to stand up to the tea party, kowtowing to their demands time and again. There is nothing in Mitt Romney&#8217;s record to suggest he would act any differently as president,&#8221; Mr. Reid said.



Because Harry Reid stands up to the loons in his party all the time, right?

It will take a net GOP gain of three seats in the Senate to make Reid the minority leader.

Republican-held seats in Indiana, Arizona, Nevada, Maine and Massachusetts are in jeopardy, which in the worst case scenario would make it necessary to win eight Democrat seats to put Reid&#8217;s tyranny-of-the-majority out to pasture. *[GOP candidate here in Nevada waaaay ahead of Dem!*

There are eight such seats possible &#8211; though it&#8217;s our guess the GOP won&#8217;t need quite so many (Jeff Flake will hold the Arizona seat for the Republicans, and Richard Mourdock has a poll showing him barely ahead in Indiana, which the Obama campaign has given up on; we think he&#8217;ll hang on despite his falling into the pro-life-rape trap, plus Scott Brown isn&#8217;t dead in Massachusetts yet and Dean Heller is likely to win re-election in Nevada).

Rick Berg is likely to win a close race in North Dakota.

Deb Fischer is going to pull through in Nebraska.

George Allen is as likely to win in Virginia as not. The polls are back-and-forth on the race with neither Allen nor Tim Kaine showing much sign of a breakout.

Linda McMahon is a little behind in Connecticut, but given the little-recognized chaos going on there in the aftermath of Sandy and what it could do to the Democrats&#8217; turnout there, don&#8217;t count her out.

Connie Mack is a bit behind in Florida, but he&#8217;s being written off thanks to two laughably pro-Democrat polls put out by the New York Times and PPP; outside of those polls the race has been consistently within the margin of error. It wouldn&#8217;t be a surprise for Mack to make a late surge and top Bob Nelson.

In Missouri, Todd Akin ran within two of Claire McCaskill (46-44) in a Mason-Dixon poll last week. Though other polls have the race further apart than that, most of them are Democrat polls (with a 51-43 Rasmussen poll from two weeks ago the exception), and other than a poll put out by the McCaskill campaign and the Rasmussen poll just mentioned, McCaskill doesn&#8217;t poll above 47 percent. Given the way Akin has been demonized and outspent to date, the idea that McCaskill hasn&#8217;t been able to put him away means that race could very well go differently than everyone assumes. She should not be under 50 at this point, but she is &#8211; even her internal poll only has her at 53.

Denny Rehberg is in a dead heat with Jon Tester in Montana.

The most recent poll in Ohio, done by Republican firm Wenzel strategies, has Josh Mandel with a 50-45 lead over Sherrod Brown. That poll is a bit of an outlier, but then the majority of the Ohio polls have been done by national firms polling the presidential race with grossly pro-Democrat skews in the party-ID of their samples.

In Pennsylvania, Bob Casey is consistently polling below 50 percent against Tom Smith with the exception of three polls by Democrat firms. The race is too close to call, and Smith clearly has the momentum &#8211; as does Romney in that state.

And in Wisconsin, Tommy Thompson is neck-and-neck with Tammy Baldwin. That race will come down to the ground game, and the GOP&#8217;s ground game in Wisconsin is legendary &#8211; not to mention well-tested thanks to the endless failed recall elections there.

Ultimately, this means of 15 seats that will decide the Senate there are 10 currently in Democrat hands, and only a slight overperformance by GOP candidates in the polls &#8211; which GOP candidates typically do &#8211; would move the Senate into Republican hands.

And put Harry Reid out of his job as majority leader.

Which needs to happen, coincidentally. Because in the event Romney wins, we now know Reid isn&#8217;t capable of productive leadership. He just told us so.

What&#8217;s more, Romney has a record of working across party lines. When has Harry Reid ever done that?

This is a man who continues to promulgate the proven lie that Mitt Romney is a tax cheat. Without evidence, and without remorse or apology. He can&#8217;t govern.

Neither can Obama, as we&#8217;ve seen.

Perhaps Romney and Mitch McConnell can do better. One imagines they could produce a federal budget, something Reid has refused to do for four years.


----------



## mamooth (Nov 3, 2012)

What's the point of all the last minute whining and demonization? Are you under the impression that there's some army of invisible lurking undecided voters here, all just waiting to be swayed by one of your long rants?

There are no undecideds, and nobody reads long posts anyways. You're wasting your time. At this point, it's all just smack-talking.


----------



## Pasco08 (Nov 3, 2012)

Well what do you Republicans expect after you have done the same thing to Obama what comes around goes around.


----------



## Dreamy (Nov 3, 2012)

mamooth said:


> What's the point of all the last minute whining and demonization? Are you under the impression that there's some army of invisible lurking undecided voters here, all just waiting to be swayed by one of your long rants?
> 
> There are no undecideds, and nobody reads long posts anyways. You're wasting your time. At this point, it's all just smack-talking.



What do you think about Reid's comments? Let me help you. Pretend he has an "R" after his name.


----------



## Dreamy (Nov 3, 2012)

Pasco08 said:


> Well what do you Republicans expect after you have done the same thing to Obama what comes around goes around.



And the Dems did the same to Bush....and a round and a round we go.

So are you saying this is a petulant leader from the Democrat party just doing "neener neener neener"?


----------



## Pasco08 (Nov 3, 2012)

Dreamy said:


> Pasco08 said:
> 
> 
> > Well what do you Republicans expect after you have done the same thing to Obama what comes around goes around.
> ...



Why not then when Romney can't do shit we can call him a Failure as well. 

Or we can give him two years to fix something as big as the economy then start blocking everything Just like Republicans did to Obama. Whats Fair for one is Fair for the other.


----------



## mamooth (Nov 3, 2012)

Dreamy said:


> What do you think about Reid's comments? Let me help you. Pretend he has an "R" after his name.



If it was a Republican, I'd congratulate him on his very surprising honesty.

For example, the current Republicans in Congress have been the most obstructionist group in the history of the USA, yet they all lie brazenly and pretend that the President refuses to work with them. It would be refreshing to have Republicans who are honest, like Harry Reid.


----------



## Dreamy (Nov 3, 2012)

So Reid supporters like the round and round petulance and stonewalling in government?


----------



## mamooth (Nov 3, 2012)

Dreamy said:


> So are you saying this is a petulant leader from the Democrat party just doing "neener neener neener"?



Nope. We're saying they all do it, but only the Republicans lie about it and pretend they don't. 

And you're plainly fine with that. You've admitted both sides do it, but you only get enraged at a Democrat for telling the truth, instead of calling out Republicans for lying. Why do you kiss the asses of liars?


----------



## Pasco08 (Nov 3, 2012)

Dreamy said:


> So Reid supporters like the round and round petulance and stonewalling in government?



Republicans started this what you don't like the game you guys play and don't like it when others play it? Lols Don't be such a flaming hypocrite.


----------



## California Girl (Nov 3, 2012)

Pasco08 said:


> Dreamy said:
> 
> 
> > So Reid supporters like the round and round petulance and stonewalling in government?
> ...



Grow up with the 'mom, he did it too'.

It's wrong when the GOP do it. It is wrong when the Dems do it. Two wrongs have never equaled a right. Not ever. 

Reid needs to act his age, instead of his shoe size. And so do you. '


----------



## mamooth (Nov 3, 2012)

Cal Girl, given your claimed opposition to partisanship, please put on record your unconditional condemnation of the entire current Republican House, which has made it a point of pride to oppose the president in every way.

Obviously, you don't have to, but you'd look like less of a rank hypocrite if you did.


----------



## Dreamy (Nov 3, 2012)

Pasco08 said:


> Dreamy said:
> 
> 
> > So Reid supporters like the round and round petulance and stonewalling in government?
> ...



I can't stand it when Repubs do it either. Must I say that every time or can you follow this simple concept. I hate government stonewalling and petulance. 

So once again, this time it is about Reid, what say you? Was he in the wrong or not? Is he making government better or worse with this attitude?


----------



## Dreamy (Nov 3, 2012)

mamooth said:


> Dreamy said:
> 
> 
> > So are you saying this is a petulant leader from the Democrat party just doing "neener neener neener"?
> ...



This thread is about Reid. I address each wrong within government as they come. Try it sometime.

Is Reid wrong in what he stated?


----------



## mamooth (Nov 3, 2012)

Dreamy said:


> So once again, this time it is about Reid, what say you? Was he in the wrong or not? Is he making government better or worse with this attitude?



Better, of course. He's representing his constituents and the majority of Americans, who by large majorities disagree with the extremist Republican policies of Mitt Romney.

The President is not a dictator. Remember the Constitution? The legislative branch is an equal partner. The president needs to compromise as well. The point is that in recent years, Republicans have made it an open point of pride that they will never, ever compromise on anything, ever. Democrats have never made such a statement. Yet oddly, you only get upset at Democrats.


----------



## Conservative (Nov 3, 2012)

mamooth said:


> Dreamy said:
> 
> 
> > So once again, this time it is about Reid, what say you? Was he in the wrong or not? Is he making government better or worse with this attitude?
> ...



you're certifiable.


----------



## Votto (Nov 3, 2012)

I think that the two party system is an antiquated broken pile of poo.

Vote libertarian anyone?


----------



## Dreamy (Nov 3, 2012)

mamooth said:


> Dreamy said:
> 
> 
> > So once again, this time it is about Reid, what say you? Was he in the wrong or not? Is he making government better or worse with this attitude?
> ...



If you see this only coming from one side then you are either a partisan hack or not paying attention or your memory is shot to shit. I am leaning toward the first.


----------



## Dreamy (Nov 3, 2012)

Votto said:


> I think that the two party system is an antiquated broken pile of poo.
> 
> Vote libertarian anyone?



Gary Johnson. I will never vote for more of the same but I will never miss a chance to play with hypocrites.


----------



## Immanuel (Nov 3, 2012)

Moonglow said:


> fire 'em all and start all over.



It has been a while, but finally something we agree on.

Immie


----------



## Liability (Nov 3, 2012)

mamooth said:


> What's the point of all the last minute whining and demonization? Are you under the impression that there's some army of invisible lurking undecided voters here, all just waiting to be swayed by one of your long rants?
> 
> There are no undecideds, and nobody reads long posts anyways. You're wasting your time. At this point, it's all just smack-talking.



It motivated YOU to whine some more, you whining braying ninny.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Nov 3, 2012)

You Tea Party doofi have demonstrated that you nearly wrecked the country, much less the party.

Watch how much power you folks after the election, regardless if Romney is elected or not.

Watch what happens during the lame duck Congress and watch just how impotent the far right has become.



daveman said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Far left and Far right: listen and be quiet.
> ...


----------



## Stephanie (Nov 3, 2012)

JakeStarkey said:


> You Tea Party doofi have demonstrated that you nearly wrecked the country, much less the party.
> 
> Watch how much power you folks after the election, regardless if Romney is elected or not.
> 
> ...



yeah yeah, your hardon for the Tea Party is already noted you good little Republican...YAWN


----------



## Pasco08 (Nov 3, 2012)

I am sorry Republicans that believe  the horse shit they spew are almost certifiable


----------



## mamooth (Nov 3, 2012)

Reid never said he wouldn't work with Romney. Each one of the righties is just proudly parroting the lies about that, being that's what their masters commanded them to do. But then, if they could think independently, they'd be liberals.

Reid said he wouldn't work with a severly conservative agenda. He's open to compromise with a moderate agenda. Very unlike the Republicans in congress, who have sworn to never be open to compromise on anything. They've gotten thunderous applause from all the Republicans here for that.

So, Democrats are open to compromise, Republicans aren't, and yet every one of the righties here is screaming outrage only at the Democrats. Is there even a single Republican here who isn't a partisan hypocrite?


----------



## Sallow (Nov 3, 2012)

Greenbeard said:


> Charles_Main said:
> 
> 
> > Instead he and the Dems in Congress made it clear they wanted Republicans to sit down and shut the fuck up and it was their way or the fucking highway.
> ...



Ol' Charlie_Main lives in an alternate universe.

Despite a congressional record, video tape and numerous stories in the media of Republicans blocking their own fucking bill.

It's still Obama's fault.


----------



## Dreamy (Nov 3, 2012)

mamooth said:


> Reid never said he wouldn't work with Romney. Each one of the righties is just proudly parroting the lies about that, being that's what their masters commanded them to do. But then, if they could think independently, they'd be liberals.
> 
> Reid said he wouldn't work with a severly conservative agenda. He's open to compromise with a moderate agenda. Very unlike the Republicans in congress, who have sworn to never be open to compromise on anything. They've gotten thunderous applause from all the Republicans here for that.
> 
> So, Democrats are open to compromise, Republicans aren't, and yet every one of the righties here is screaming outrage only at the Democrats. Is there even a single Republican here who isn't a partisan hypocrite?



Congressional  Compromise? My favorite topic next to exposing hypocrisy.

Sen. Brown is a registered Republican. Check his voting record and then offer up some Democrats in Congress and their records who match his for bi-partisan voting.


----------



## Pasco08 (Nov 3, 2012)

Republicans = Raciest and Liars Oh and hypocrites.


----------



## EriktheRed (Nov 3, 2012)

konradv said:


> Of course they severely clip Reid's statement.  He just said Dems wouldn't be rubber stamping the TP platform and that Romney's going to have to prove he can work across the aisle.



Wingnuts taking a Dem's comments outta context?

Wow, Whodathunk??


----------



## Big Black Dog (Nov 3, 2012)

If the Republicans take control of the Senate on Tuesday, Harry Reid can go fuck himself because he won't be the leader of the Senate any longer.  As a matter of fact, Harry Reid can go fuck himself now and start getting used to it.


----------



## longknife (Nov 3, 2012)

The Looney Left's going nuts over this!

Anybody surprised?


----------



## Stephanie (Nov 3, 2012)

mamooth said:


> Reid never said he wouldn't work with Romney. Each one of the righties is just proudly parroting the lies about that, being that's what their masters commanded them to do. But then, if they could think independently, they'd be liberals.
> 
> Reid said he wouldn't work with a severly conservative agenda. He's open to compromise with a moderate agenda. Very unlike the Republicans in congress, who have sworn to never be open to compromise on anything. They've gotten thunderous applause from all the Republicans here for that.
> 
> So, Democrats are open to compromise, Republicans aren't, and yet every one of the righties here is screaming outrage only at the Democrats. Is there even a single Republican here who isn't a partisan hypocrite?



oh he said he WOULDN'T WORK with a severely conservative agenda...you all see the DIFFERENCE FOLKS...

man what a load of shit


----------



## Dreamy (Nov 3, 2012)

Stephanie said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > Reid never said he wouldn't work with Romney. Each one of the righties is just proudly parroting the lies about that, being that's what their masters commanded them to do. But then, if they could think independently, they'd be liberals.
> ...



Yeah I would like old Harry to define and specifically elaborate on his words: "Severely conservative agenda"

Keeping more of my own money often falls under that liberal description.


----------



## Votto (Nov 3, 2012)

uscitizen said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> > Reid says he can't work with Romney - Washington Times
> ...



You assume "we" put them there.  Harry Reid only had a 9% approval rating in Nevada before being elected again.  I question the democratic process.

First of all, we are only given party selections to vote for, of which, are suspect in and of themselves.  Basically, it is providing only two selections as a guise of freedom of choice.  Secondly, policitians have a myriad of ways to secure power and become entrinched.  They do so by such things as redrawing districts, corporate sponsership, and even tampering with voting.  In fact, if I recall one of the voting districts had voting booths made by powerful unions in Nevada.  When you went in to vote, every vote wound up being cast for Dirty Harry.  How wide spread was this?  No one will ever know.


----------



## Immanuel (Nov 3, 2012)

Stephanie said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > Reid never said he wouldn't work with Romney. Each one of the righties is just proudly parroting the lies about that, being that's what their masters commanded them to do. But then, if they could think independently, they'd be liberals.
> ...



What he really said is that he will do everything Romney asks, because Romney is no conservative and there is not going to be a damned bit of difference between Obama's presidency and Romney's.  The American people of just plain screwed.

Immie


----------



## JakeStarkey (Nov 3, 2012)

Yup, Steph, the Far Right has finally convinced the rest of the country just how much it hates everyone not like it.  Letting the Senate stay dem is one result, and costing Romney the election may be the other.

You had your chance, you failed it, and now you get inherit the whirlwind.



Stephanie said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > You Tea Party doofi have demonstrated that you nearly wrecked the country, much less the party.
> ...


----------



## Dreamy (Nov 3, 2012)

Immanuel said:


> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> > mamooth said:
> ...



I will differ with you here. There will be a difference between a Romney Presidency and an Obama one. 

My issue is with Congress more than who occupies the WH at least on the domestic front.

Obama simply does not deserve another term.


----------



## Immanuel (Nov 3, 2012)

Dreamy said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> > Stephanie said:
> ...



Granted, Obama does not deserve a second term, but where do we differ?  

Do you really believe Romney is a conservative?  Hell, do you believe he is a moderate!?

What, if anything, is going to change should Romney win?

Immie


----------



## Immanuel (Nov 3, 2012)

Immanuel said:


> Dreamy said:
> 
> 
> > Immanuel said:
> ...



Dreamy,

I'll tell you what is going to change. Democrats are going to start attacking the office of the President and Republicans are going to start defending it.  Anything more than that?  

Immie


----------



## Dreamy (Nov 3, 2012)

Immanuel said:


> Dreamy said:
> 
> 
> > Immanuel said:
> ...



You know I am not sure it is straight up conservatism(as it looks today) I even want. Speaking for myself I just want more moderates. More people who are not like the extremes in either party. Romney is not getting my vote but not because he is not conservative enough. I still think Obama should be fired. His performance did not earn him the trust of the people or a second term. I am definitely of the mindset of anyone but Obama. Who people choose for their "anyone" is up to them. I have chosen mine.


----------



## Dreamy (Nov 3, 2012)

Immanuel said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> > Dreamy said:
> ...



Sigh, that I know. That is why I am more a delusioned voter than one with lots of optimism for the near future.


----------



## jillian (Nov 3, 2012)

Rat in the Hat said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > Rat in the Hat said:
> ...



no. both parties were not.

raising the debt ceiling is a pro forma action.

it should never have been held hostage.

and it was the lack of cooperation that caused our credit rating to be downgraded.

there was nothing in the least the responsibility of BOTH parties.

In fact, i'll remind you that boehner thought they'd made a deal with the whitehouse. then he went back to his wackos' who wouldn't sign on the dotted line...


----------



## mamooth (Nov 3, 2012)

> Democrats are going to start attacking the office of the President and Republicans are going to start defending it.



Don't be absurd. The Republicans will still be totally deranged with Obama-hatred, and they'll still be opposing everything Obama proposes, even if it's the same thing the Republicans proposed last year.

And all of the "moderates" on this thread will be cheering for the Republicans in the House when they act like that, and spitting hate at Obama for not doing exactly what the no-compromise House demands of him.

What, you actually think we haven't seen the "extremist Republicans pretending to be moderates" act a thousand times before?


----------



## Samson (Nov 3, 2012)

jillian said:


> they probably should have thought of that when* they said "i hope he fails" and obstructed everything for four years...*to the point where they forced our credit rating down.
> 
> why does the right get bi-partisan the minute they think they're going to be in power?
> 
> i know...i know...bi-partisan means we do what the right wants. i heard that.





Nothing obstructed Obama from the time he took office until after the 2010 elections when Dems were destroyed for giving him what he wanted during the previous two years.


----------



## mamooth (Nov 3, 2012)

Samson said:


> Nothing obstructed Obama from the time he took office until after the 2010 elections when Dems were destroyed for giving him what he wanted during the previous two years.



Obama had a senate that could override a Republican filibuster for one month, the point when Ted Kennedy became too sick to vote. He never had a House that could beat a combination of Republicans and conservadems.

So, aside from the reality of Congress, nothing obstructed him at all.


----------



## daveman (Nov 3, 2012)

mamooth said:


> Dreamy said:
> 
> 
> > So once again, this time it is about Reid, what say you? Was he in the wrong or not? Is he making government better or worse with this attitude?
> ...


INDIANAPOLIS
Serving Marion County

Mental Health Association of Marion County

Crisis & Suicide Hotline
Suicide Prevention, Crisis Intervention, Information & Referral
24 hours / 7 days
 (317) 251-7575

*Teen Link
A confidential peer support and crisis line
for youth ages 11 to 19
(317) 255-TEEN (8336)
Monday - Friday - 5:00 - 9:00pm*​
You might need the bolded Tuesday night.


----------



## daveman (Nov 3, 2012)

JakeStarkey said:


> You Tea Party doofi have demonstrated that you nearly wrecked the country, much less the party.
> 
> Watch how much power you folks after the election, regardless if Romney is elected or not.
> 
> Watch what happens during the lame duck Congress and watch just how impotent the far right has become.


Spoken like a true Obamabot.


----------



## daveman (Nov 3, 2012)

Pasco08 said:


> I am sorry Republicans that believe  the horse shit they spew are almost certifiable



Perhaps they should be rounded up and put in camps..."for their own protection". 

That's one of the left's go-to solutions for political dissent.


----------



## daveman (Nov 3, 2012)

mamooth said:


> Reid never said he wouldn't work with Romney. Each one of the righties is just proudly parroting the lies about that, being that's what their masters commanded them to do. But then, if they could think independently, they'd be liberals.
> 
> Reid said he wouldn't work with a severly conservative agenda. He's open to compromise with a moderate agenda. Very unlike the Republicans in congress, who have sworn to never be open to compromise on anything. They've gotten thunderous applause from all the Republicans here for that.
> 
> So, Democrats are open to compromise, Republicans aren't, and yet every one of the righties here is screaming outrage only at the Democrats. Is there even a single Republican here who isn't a partisan hypocrite?


Why do you bother lying when the reality is right there?

"*Mitt Romney's fantasy that Senate Democrats will work with him* to pass his 'severely conservative' agenda is laughable," Mr. Reid said in a statement on Friday, trying to puncture Mr. Romney's closing election argument that he'll be able to deliver on the bipartisanship President Obama promised in 2008 but has struggled to live up to.​


----------



## Stephanie (Nov 3, 2012)

lol, 


> Better, of course. He's representing his constituents and the majority of Americans, who by large majorities disagree with the extremist Republican policies of Mitt Romney.



that's why the people put the Republicans in the house in 2010, because they disagreed with them and wanted to let Obama continue to run over us against our will like they did with ObamaCare..So the Republicans were doing the what their constituents put them in for...too bad for Obama and his comrades in arms they didn't get to pass any more shit on us..waaa

And here we go again with the word "extreme"..Harry Reid says it and it is parroted back..

damn sheep


----------



## Luddly Neddite (Nov 3, 2012)

AceRothstein said:


> The Infidel said:
> 
> 
> > The Senate is going GOP
> ...



I think I read that Mourdoch is out.

And, Akin - crap, that asshole should be thrown off the planet.


----------



## Luddly Neddite (Nov 3, 2012)

... And, I can't imagine the Ds doing the obstructing the R has done.


----------



## Immanuel (Nov 3, 2012)

mamooth said:


> > Democrats are going to start attacking the office of the President and Republicans are going to start defending it.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Well, you have just proven you are incapable of understanding plain English, not that I doubted it before.

Here let me point out something...



> What, if anything, is going to change should Romney win?



That means Obama would be out on his ass where he belongs.

Were you out smoking dope when you should have been in your English class?

Obviously, if Romney wins, Obama won't be proposing any more of his socialism.  Romney will be doing that for him.

Immie


----------



## mamooth (Nov 3, 2012)

Oh, you're delusional. You should have stated that up front. Being liberal, I'm used to hanging around sane people, so I didn't catch that.


----------



## Synthaholic (Nov 3, 2012)

Liability said:


> Dainty and lots of lib idiots like him tell us that Morris is a joke.  That's not entirely untrue, either.
> 
> But when Dick Morris says ANYTHING that Dainty likes for his lib hack partisan bullshit present purpose, suddenly, the qualifiers about Morris go by the way.
> 
> ...


At the last minute, Rasmussen will flip to try to save what little reputation he has left.

You watch.


----------



## Synthaholic (Nov 3, 2012)

Wiseacre said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> > Wiseacre said:
> ...



Examples?


----------



## Synthaholic (Nov 3, 2012)

Caroljo said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> > Charles_Main said:
> ...


When a President is elected in a landslide, like Obama was, isn't it up to the opposition to compromise with HIM???

The people spoke, and said they wanted to go with Obama's agenda.  Not McCain's agenda.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Nov 3, 2012)

Spoken like a true Republican and supporter of Romney.

You far right bots are going to get the shock of your lives.



daveman said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > You Tea Party doofi have demonstrated that you nearly wrecked the country, much less the party.
> ...


----------



## Synthaholic (Nov 3, 2012)

JakeStarkey said:


> *If Obama wins, the Dem senate will kill the rules on the filibuster.*  If Romney wins, the Dem senate will keep the rules on the filibuster.  Let's stay in reality, folks.




I don't think so.  For some reason Senate rules are sacrosanct.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Nov 3, 2012)

Perhaps but we will see.


----------



## daveman (Nov 3, 2012)

Synthaholic said:


> Caroljo said:
> 
> 
> > Sallow said:
> ...


The people spoke again in 2010, and said they weren't all that keen on Obama's agenda after all.

And in 2012, they will flat-out reject it.


----------



## daveman (Nov 3, 2012)

JakeStarkey said:


> Spoken like a true Republican and supporter of Romney.
> 
> You far right bots are going to get the shock of your lives.


Why?  We prefer Romney over Obama, moron.


----------



## Synthaholic (Nov 3, 2012)

daveman said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> > Caroljo said:
> ...




Not really.  Data shows that the level of GOP voting in 2010 was the same as usual.  Democratic voting was way down.

Democrats just weren't motivated to go to the polls.  That was mostly Obama's fault for not campaigning, not any Democratic rejection of Democratic policies.


----------



## daveman (Nov 3, 2012)

Synthaholic said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > Synthaholic said:
> ...


Spin it any way you like...voters had their say.

And it wasn't an endorsement of the Obama agenda.


----------



## mudwhistle (Nov 3, 2012)

Synthaholic said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > Dainty and lots of lib idiots like him tell us that Morris is a joke.  That's not entirely untrue, either.
> ...



You mean the one or two polls showing Obama leading.


----------



## Pasco08 (Nov 3, 2012)

Samson said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > they probably should have thought of that when* they said "i hope he fails" and obstructed everything for four years...*to the point where they forced our credit rating down.
> ...



So lets give Romney that same time line What is good for one is good for all.


----------



## jasonnfree (Nov 3, 2012)

Katzndogz said:


> Reid says he can't work with Romney - Washington Times
> 
> It sounds like a reason to get democrats out of the senate like they were gotten out of Congress.



Did you read your own link?  It doesn't say "Harry Reid threatens obstruction if Romney wins"
In the article Reid says "Mitt Romney's fantasy that Senate Democrats will work with him to pass his 'severely conservative' agenda is laughable".   A little different.  This is  not as obstructionist as what tea baggers ryan and company planned on the eve of Obamas inauguration. To make sure Obama's not successful.  Link below.Or  Senator McConnel saying the republicans number one agenda is to ensure Obama being a one term president.

Daily Kos: Eric Cantor, Paul Ryan & Kevin McCarthy: Plot To Sabotage US Economy with Frank Luntz


----------



## freedombecki (Nov 5, 2012)

Rottweiler said:


> Harry Reid made news yesterday when he publicly refused to work with Mitt Romney if he's elected president. Reid said, "Mitt Romney's fantasy that Senate Democrats will work with him to pass his 'severely conservative' agenda is laughable."
> 
> He doesn't even know what Mitt Romney will propose and he's already promising to handcuff the government and paralyze government in the name of his radical and insane agenda.


It sounds to me like Harry Reid needs to take early retirement. Hopefully, the American people will elect enough conservatives in the Senate to take power away from the children and put it into the hands of the adults.

If Harry Reid starts off with that attitude, he has hardening of the gray matter and probably really does need to consider a different residence than Washington DC. He's acting like a prison inmate.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Nov 5, 2012)

Because Romney despises the far right extremists far more than middle of the road and centrist democrats, with whom he will work.

Those in the party who cross him on his policies, he will politically destroy.



daveman said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Spoken like a true Republican and supporter of Romney.
> ...


----------



## bripat9643 (Nov 5, 2012)

JakeStarkey said:


> Spoken like a true Republican and supporter of Romney.
> 
> You far right bots are going to get the shock of your lives.
> 
> ...



I thought you were a Romney supporter, dick wad.  Now you are showing your cloven hoof.  You never fooled anyone, Fakey.


----------

