If You Want Change, Win An Election

[rightwinger]

perfect. I have to book mark this....when the gop had the house and senate during the clinton years they got things done, oh but wait that was 'different' because...why again?

and you know, during the 2000's when the gop had the wh senate and house, you were all for that...right?


During the Reagan years he had the senate 6 years , never the house, if you think o'neill laid down you're out of your mind. But, again, they got things done.


Compromise isn't off the table, Obama is just a lousy leader and doesn't know nor care about legislative compromise.

That was a different breed of Republucans than we have now. Today's Republicans are afraid to compromise because it means the other side has to get something. Political suicide in the age of rightwing media

whatever..... translation- we aren't getting our way so we need total power....you had it, you LOST it, hello, elections...right?

What words does the Republican media have for those who dare to compromise with Democrats?

RINO
Surrender brigade
Traitors

 

[Crackerjaxon]

ignorant post of the year right here....

I have posted back to you several of them, like shallow, you don't read or digest anything that is at odds with your ignorance.

example- the dems shut down the gov. over.....Abortion language ala medicaid funding....yup, over ABORTION... imagine for a moment if the gop had used a social issue, abortion to do same?

We both know, You and the 'rest of you', would be here kb dripping with spittle and righteousness indignation that they would use such a thing or do such a thing.....

we are close in age from what I gather, what were doing in the 70 and 80's, sleeping

ummm..... its a 14th Amendment to the Constitution issue :

Roe v. Wade - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Court ruled 7–2 that a right to privacy under the due process clause of the 14th Amendment extended to a woman's decision to have an abortion

Yes, a wonderfully imaginative feat of wishful thinking.

See anything about a right to privacy in the 14th Amendment?

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Section 2.
Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice-President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age,* and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

Section 3.
No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

Section 4.
The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

Section 5.
The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

*Changed by section 1 of the 26th amendment.

 

[dblack]

RE: the OP "If You Want Change, Win an Election"

Here's another idea: if you want change, then change things.

If you want to help the poor, then help the poor.

If you want to promote your values, then persuade other people to adopt your point of view.

But please, don't assume that it's right and proper to force your idea of 'the good life' on everyone else. The coercive power of government should be used only for those problems that truly require it.

 

[EriktheRed]

We won the House twice. In 2010 and 2012.

How stupid is he to throw out such a meaningless line like that? He needs a better script writer.

Yes, you did win the House twice. So by all means, let the TP wing of the GOP - a MINORITY, it should be once again stated - do what they got bitch-slapped for last week.


Proceed, wingnuts.

 

[Intense]

Obama to GOP: 'Win an election' to change policies

President Barack Obama challenged the GOP to end political brinkmanship and said Republicans should "win an election" if they so badly wish to change his policies.

In his first extended remarks since the government reopened, Obama said that the public has grown "fed up" with its government and urged lawmakers to move past the conflict of the past few weeks.

"To all my friends in Congress, understand that how business is done in this town has to change," he said.

"You don't like a particular policy or a particular president? Then argue for your position. Go out there and win an election," The president said. "But don't break it.”

Obama to GOP: 'Win an election' to change policies - First Read

Good for the president!!! I guess he told them!!!

The Following 14 Users Say Thank You to Rinata For This Useful Post:
candycorn (10-18-2013), C_Clayton_Jones (10-18-2013), Dot Com (Today), hazlnut (10-18-2013), JakeStarkey (10-17-2013), JimH52 (10-18-2013), Liberal (Today), Matthew (10-18-2013), Old Rocks (10-18-2013), plant (10-18-2013), rightwinger (10-18-2013), Sallow (10-18-2013), Seawytch (10-18-2013), Synthaholic (Today)

Wow, I couldn't round them up faster with a butterfly net, or even offering free shit.

I think we first have to stop rigging Elections, then we might better rely on them. I have an original idea, too, how about we work on the concept of 3 independent branches of Government, each with it's own area of responsibility and checks and balances, to ensure compliance with their purpose for being. Let's start with the Court, who's job it is in part, to connect the dots that are already there, as opposed to pulling dictatorial mandates out of it's ass or thin air, manufacturing dots as they go, redefining intent, in defiance of the will of the people. Hint, anytime 75% or more of the people support something, the Court needs to be put in it's place. The Executive Branch should not be allowed to dictate in violation of the Bill Of Rights, at least not without justifiable cause and due process. Anyone in Congress voting on anything they have not read should be at the least censured. Except in State of Emergency, Each Bill should by law, remain open for discussion for a minimum period of Days or Weeks, before vote. Is it more important to get something right, or to compound the damage done for the convenience of the governing body? You tell me.

 

[Trajan]

That was a different breed of Republucans than we have now. Today's Republicans are afraid to compromise because it means the other side has to get something. Political suicide in the age of rightwing media

whatever..... translation- we aren't getting our way so we need total power....you had it, you LOST it, hello, elections...right?

What words does the Republican media have for those who dare to compromise with Democrats?

RINO
Surrender brigade
Traitors

so what?


the difference is theres parts of the gop that are pissed at their own and make noise, the dems appear to be a bunch of sheep, at least here at usmb, the message is- we conform, we stfu and just babble the party line no matter how incomprehensible and/or hypocritical that may be....you must be proud.


remember this?

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6h3G-lMZxjo]Vote Different - YouTube[/ame]





I guess its somehow different when the other party decides to do it..... but alas, the obama sheep have supplanted the supposed Hillary sheep this obama ad speaks to..

 

[Contumacious]

Obama to GOP: 'Win an election' to change policies

President Barack Obama challenged the GOP to end political brinkmanship and said Republicans should "win an election" if they so badly wish to change his policies.

In his first extended remarks since the government reopened, Obama said that the public has grown "fed up" with its government and urged lawmakers to move past the conflict of the past few weeks.

"To all my friends in Congress, understand that how business is done in this town has to change," he said.

"You don't like a particular policy or a particular president? Then argue for your position. Go out there and win an election," The president said. "But don't break it.”

Obama to GOP: 'Win an election' to change policies - First Read

Good for the president!!! I guess he told them!!!

The Following 14 Users Say Thank You to Rinata For This Useful Post:
candycorn (10-18-2013), C_Clayton_Jones (10-18-2013), Dot Com (Today), hazlnut (10-18-2013), JakeStarkey (10-17-2013), JimH52 (10-18-2013), Liberal (Today), Matthew (10-18-2013), Old Rocks (10-18-2013), plant (10-18-2013), rightwinger (10-18-2013), Sallow (10-18-2013), Seawytch (10-18-2013), Synthaholic (Today)

Wow, I couldn't round them up faster with a butterfly net, or even offering free shit.

I think we first have to stop rigging Elections, then we might better rely on them. I have an original idea, too, how about we work on the concept of 3 independent branches of Government, each with it's own area of responsibility and checks and balances, to ensure compliance with their purpose for being. Let's start with the Court, who's job it is in part, to connect the dots that are already there, as opposed to pulling dictatorial mandates out of it's ass or thin air, manufacturing dots as they go, redefining intent, in defiance of the will of the people. Hint, anytime 75% or more of the people support something, the Court needs to be put in it's place. The Executive Branch should not be allowed to dictate in violation of the Bill Of Rights, at least not without justifiable cause and due process. Anyone in Congress voting on anything they have not read should be at the least censured. Except in State of Emergency, Each Bill should by law, remain open for discussion for a minimum period of Days or Weeks, before vote. Is it more important to get something right, or to compound the damage done for the convenience of the governing body? You tell me.

Not gonna happen. Wouldn't be prudent.

The welfare state controls close to 50% of the voters. many corrupt businesses in Wall street love the bail outs and hate the tea partyers.

So the ONLY way to win an election is to emulate the democrats and offer freebies galore.

.

 

[Oldstyle]

Hint to Republicans

You cannot repeal Obamacare.....you don't have the votes

Don't like it? make it better. Push for Tort Reform. Push for interstate insurance sales. Open up competition for doctors, hospitals and drugs. Advertise rates.

But Republicans can't do that. They are only capable of blocking legislation, not passing it

This is the ultimate in stupid! Anything that the GOP has "pushed" for since the 2010 mid-terms, Harry Reid has tabled in the Senate! Make it better? Well, gee, Winger...for THAT to happen the President and the Democratically controlled Senate would need to negotiate on bills...but that didn't happen following 2010. Harry Reid and Barack Obama have refused to negotiate. Why? Because they have the backing of the main stream media and know that in any dispute with the GOP that THEIR viewpoint will always be given priority. Obama and Reid don't negotiate because they don't think they have to. They simply blame the GOP for "holding the country hostage" and the main stream media dutifully puts that message out. In the meantime the economy stagnates and millions of Americans languish in extended unemployment.

 

[Dot Com]

2014 can't get here soon enough after the President w/ a titanium spine, along w/ Reid, won this last battle.

 

[EriktheRed]

2014 can't get here soon enough after the President w/ a titanium spine, along w/ Reid, won his last battle.

Well, it's a damn good thing for them the major elections aren't being held this November.

Thing is, though, you can never underestimate how short the US public's attention span will turn out to be.

 

[R.C. Christian]

Pffft, titanium spine, LOL. That piece of shit hides behind an army of thugs every day. He has nothing to lose and doesn't require a spine to win anything because he's a puppet following orders. I doubt he even gives you the courtesy of a reach around.

 

[Oldstyle]

Yeah, we get to see another year of political stalemate as Barry and Harry "win" their battles.

Barack Obama is on track to go down in history as one of the most ineffective Chief Executives the United States has EVER had.

2016 can't get here soon enough...and at this point I don't care who wins! ANYONE would be an improvement on what we have pretending to be a President now!

 

[Trajan]

2014 can't get here soon enough after the President w/ a titanium spine, along w/ Reid, won his last battle.

Well, it's a damn good thing for them the major elections aren't being held this November.

Thing is, though, you can never underestimate how short the US public's attention span will turn out to be.

if you think the dems even at this moment would perform some kind of sweep, I beg to differ.

and I agree totally, in that both parties gain via the short memory and attention span of the general public.

 

[rightwinger]

Hint to Republicans

You cannot repeal Obamacare.....you don't have the votes

Don't like it? make it better. Push for Tort Reform. Push for interstate insurance sales. Open up competition for doctors, hospitals and drugs. Advertise rates.

But Republicans can't do that. They are only capable of blocking legislation, not passing it

This is the ultimate in stupid! Anything that the GOP has "pushed" for since the 2010 mid-terms, Harry Reid has tabled in the Senate! Make it better? Well, gee, Winger...for THAT to happen the President and the Democratically controlled Senate would need to negotiate on bills...but that didn't happen following 2010. Harry Reid and Barack Obama have refused to negotiate. Why? Because they have the backing of the main stream media and know that in any dispute with the GOP that THEIR viewpoint will always be given priority. Obama and Reid don't negotiate because they don't think they have to. They simply blame the GOP for "holding the country hostage" and the main stream media dutifully puts that message out. In the meantime the economy stagnates and millions of Americans languish in extended unemployment.

Hint to Republicans

When your bills begin with...Kill Obamacare

They wll go nowhere in the Senate

 

[Rinata]

[Oduma is the worst President in our proud nations history, he and his fellow democratic congressman have run up a tab that my grandchildren will be paying. EVEN WORSE THAN GW!!!! Heres the proof!!

ATTACH]28019[/ATTACH]
Chart 4.12: Government Debt as Percent of GDP

April 5, 2008

History News Network’s poll of 109 historians found that 61 percent of them rank Bush as “worst ever” among U.S. presidents. Bush’s key competition comes from Buchanan, apparently, and a further 2 percent of the sample puts Bush right behind Buchanan as runner-up for “worst ever.” 96 percent of the respondents place the Bush presidency in the bottom tier of American presidencies. And was his presidency (it’s a bit wishful to speak of his presidency in the past tense–after all there are several more months left to go) a success or failure? On that score the numbers are still more resounding: 98 percent label it a “failure.”

Here are some of the comments that the historians furnished:

“It would be difficult to identify a President who, facing major international and domestic crises, has failed in both as clearly as President Bush,” concluded one respondent. “His domestic policies,” another noted, “have had the cumulative effect of shoring up a semi-permanent aristocracy of capital that dwarfs the aristocracy of land against which the founding fathers rebelled; of encouraging a mindless retreat from science and rationalism; and of crippling the nation’s economic base.”

“No individual president can compare to the second Bush,” wrote one. “Glib, contemptuous, ignorant, incurious, a dupe of anyone who humors his deluded belief in his heroic self, he has bankrupted the country with his disastrous war and his tax breaks for the rich, trampled on the Bill of Rights, appointed foxes in every henhouse, compounded the terrorist threat, turned a blind eye to torture and corruption and a looming ecological disaster, and squandered the rest of the world’s goodwill. In short, no other president’s faults have had so deleterious an effect on not only the country but the world at large.”

“With his unprovoked and disastrous war of aggression in Iraq and his monstrous deficits, Bush has set this country on a course that will take decades to correct,” said another historian. “When future historians look back to identify the moment at which the United States began to lose its position of world leadership, they will point—rightly—to the Bush presidency. Thanks to his policies, it is now easy to see America losing out to its competitors in any number of areas: China is rapidly becoming the manufacturing powerhouse of the next century, India the high tech and services leader, and Europe the region with the best quality of life.”

Worst. President. Ever. | Harper's Magazine

I sincerely doubt that Barack Obama will ever be considered to be in the same class as George W. Bush. Dream about it because it will never happen.

 

[Dot Com]

If you are a democrat and you want change, kill your opponent.

Authorities probe threat against Cruz - The Hill - covering Congress, Politics, Political Campaigns and Capitol Hill | TheHill.com

USMB's leading rw hyperbole queen never fails to deliver

Hint to Republicans

You cannot repeal Obamacare.....you don't have the votes

Don't like it? make it better. Push for Tort Reform. Push for interstate insurance sales. Open up competition for doctors, hospitals and drugs. Advertise rates.

But Republicans can't do that. They are only capable of blocking legislation, not passing it

This is the ultimate in stupid! Anything that the GOP has "pushed" for since the 2010 mid-terms, Harry Reid has tabled in the Senate! Make it better? Well, gee, Winger...for THAT to happen the President and the Democratically controlled Senate would need to negotiate on bills...but that didn't happen following 2010. Harry Reid and Barack Obama have refused to negotiate. Why? Because they have the backing of the main stream media and know that in any dispute with the GOP that THEIR viewpoint will always be given priority. Obama and Reid don't negotiate because they don't think they have to. They simply blame the GOP for "holding the country hostage" and the main stream media dutifully puts that message out. In the meantime the economy stagnates and millions of Americans languish in extended unemployment.

Hint to Republicans

When your bills begin with...Kill Obamacare

They wll go nowhere in the Senate

yep, they say "well we passed x amount of bills & sent them to the senate" but they fail to mention that each starts w/ a repeal or de-funding of the ACA.

 

[Seawytch]

The only decrease in government jobs that we have seen since 2009 have taken place at the State and local level, Carbineer...the number of Federal Government employees has always been higher under Obama than under George W. Bush.

State and local governments have lost jobs because unlike the Feds...they can't simply print money to pay for their employees. Once the Obama stimulus propping up local government jobs went away so did the jobs because the private sector was getting crushed and not producing the revenues at the State and local levels to support State and local government. It's what happens when your "stimulus" primarily helps keep government workers employed and does little to help private sector workers...which is EXACTLY what the Obama stimulus did. The following article from the NY Times sums it up rather nicely.

http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/01/06/under-obama-a-record-decline-in-government-jobs/?_r=0

Overall government employment is at a historic low. NYC was talking about how overall government employment has effected the unemployment levels. Unemployment could be a full percentage lower if local governments were at the same levels they were in 2008.

Federal employment has increased about 6% under President Obama...now, would you like to take a guess in what areas the increases occurred?

I'm amused by the progressive claim that Obama deserves "credit" for shrinking the size of government employees, Seawytch. The number of Federal employees has gone up. Why? Because unlike the States and local governments, the Federal government doesn't have the constraint of having to achieve a balanced budget. State and local government employee numbers have gone down because our economy is stagnant and isn't producing enough revenue to fund State and local employment. THAT is a direct consequence of the poorly planned and managed stimulus.

The truth of the matter is that the Obama Stimulus propped up State and local governments at the expense of the private sector. Obama and the Democrats took care of "their own" with the stimulus...pumping billions into keeping public sector workers employed while ignoring the plight of those in the private sector other than extending unemployment compensation to placate the masses. The problem with that strategy is that if the private sector is contracting then there IS no revenue to keep those State and local public sector workers employed. That's why Barry came back looking for MORE stimulus money.

The proper use of stimulus would have been to let a bloated government downsize...which it desperately needed to do anyways...while stimulating the private sector with something that would have immediately gone to Main Street to be spent. A tax rebate delivered directly to the American people would have accomplished that but then Barry, Harry and Nancy wouldn't have been able to play "Santa Claus" with our money if we'd gone that route.

You didn't answer the question. Where do you think the increase in federal employees occurred? (Leaving out the temporary census workers)

 

[Seawytch]

government jobs don't grow the economy idiot!!!!!!!!!!!! Government job growth grows government debt!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Government job growth increases beuracratic bullshit paperwork!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! We need to keep reducing governement jobs!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! At all levels!!!!!!!!!!!!!

yes, actually you can.....the 'growth' isn't via free market wealth creation, its a transfer from the private sector to the gov. sector, if you pay 400 to satt a dmv office where 30 would be fine, then try that in a private sector firm, the waste would run the company down, see?

That's illogical on its face. Jobs grow the economy period. Unemployment would be a full percentage point LOWER if local governments had maintained their 2008 levels. What part of that don't you understand? That's over 500,000 people not consuming in our consumer driven economy.

The government doesn't have to make a profit. Can't compare the two.

 

[LTCArmyRet]

overall government employment is at a historic low. Nyc was talking about how overall government employment has effected the unemployment levels. Unemployment could be a full percentage lower if local governments were at the same levels they were in 2008.

Federal employment has increased about 6% under president obama...now, would you like to take a guess in what areas the increases occurred?

government jobs don't grow the economy idiot!!!!!!!!!!!! Government job growth grows government debt!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Government job growth increases beuracratic bullshit paperwork!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! We need to keep reducing governement jobs!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! At all levels!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Defense spending is one of the major cornerstones of our economy.

Thanks Government

Okay dumbass, I'll entertain you, in order to expose your stupidity. Our defense budget is barely 3% of our GDP, all-time historical lows for our country. There are 10 other countries that spend a greater % of their GDP on defense than we do. So it IS NOT a cornerstone of our economy, Manufactoring and Agriculture, largest worldwide (as a % of GDP) in both categories are the cornerstone of our economy!!!!

 

[LTCArmyRet]

[Oduma is the worst President in our proud nations history, he and his fellow democratic congressman have run up a tab that my grandchildren will be paying. EVEN WORSE THAN GW!!!! Heres the proof!!

ATTACH]28019[/ATTACH]
Chart 4.12: Government Debt as Percent of GDP

April 5, 2008

History News Network’s poll of 109 historians found that 61 percent of them rank Bush as “worst ever” among U.S. presidents. Bush’s key competition comes from Buchanan, apparently, and a further 2 percent of the sample puts Bush right behind Buchanan as runner-up for “worst ever.” 96 percent of the respondents place the Bush presidency in the bottom tier of American presidencies. And was his presidency (it’s a bit wishful to speak of his presidency in the past tense–after all there are several more months left to go) a success or failure? On that score the numbers are still more resounding: 98 percent label it a “failure.”

Here are some of the comments that the historians furnished:

“It would be difficult to identify a President who, facing major international and domestic crises, has failed in both as clearly as President Bush,” concluded one respondent. “His domestic policies,” another noted, “have had the cumulative effect of shoring up a semi-permanent aristocracy of capital that dwarfs the aristocracy of land against which the founding fathers rebelled; of encouraging a mindless retreat from science and rationalism; and of crippling the nation’s economic base.”

“No individual president can compare to the second Bush,” wrote one. “Glib, contemptuous, ignorant, incurious, a dupe of anyone who humors his deluded belief in his heroic self, he has bankrupted the country with his disastrous war and his tax breaks for the rich, trampled on the Bill of Rights, appointed foxes in every henhouse, compounded the terrorist threat, turned a blind eye to torture and corruption and a looming ecological disaster, and squandered the rest of the world’s goodwill. In short, no other president’s faults have had so deleterious an effect on not only the country but the world at large.”

“With his unprovoked and disastrous war of aggression in Iraq and his monstrous deficits, Bush has set this country on a course that will take decades to correct,” said another historian. “When future historians look back to identify the moment at which the United States began to lose its position of world leadership, they will point—rightly—to the Bush presidency. Thanks to his policies, it is now easy to see America losing out to its competitors in any number of areas: China is rapidly becoming the manufacturing powerhouse of the next century, India the high tech and services leader, and Europe the region with the best quality of life.”

Worst. President. Ever. | Harper's Magazine

I sincerely doubt that Barack Obama will ever be considered to be in the same class as George W. Bush. Dream about it because it will never happen.

Oduma not done fucking up yet, when his time is done, I'm sure he'll rank lower.