Are the angry Democrats going too far?

[mogrovejo]

According to Harry Reid opposing the partisan health care bill equates to being opposed to the end of slavery or women suffrage.

http://realclearpolitics.blogs.time.com/2009/12/07/harry-reid-is-burning-out/

Do you agree?

How do you see these statements on the light of Obama's campaign promises of bringing a more civil behaviour to Washington and being an unifier?

[LnGrrrR]

Eh just partisan rhetoric I'm sure. Both sides play their own version.

[LnGrrrR]

How do you see these statements on the light of Obama's campaign promises of bringing a more civil behaviour to Washington and being an unifier?

He also said he was going to bring more sunshine/transparency... That didn't happen either.

[MiamiHeat]

How do you see these statements on the light of Obama's campaign promises of bringing a more civil behaviour to Washington and being an unifier?

I view it just fine. If you want to get anything done, you must fight for it. especially in washington.

Obama was an incompetent idealist who thought the world would be just fine if we all just hug and talk about it.

He's dumb to think that, and I for one knew all along it wouldn't work. So no surprise here.

I don't care if Jesus himself came to earth, if he threatened the Republican party, they would oppose his policies too.

Politics always wins

[EmptyMan]

These cocks are bitching that the republicans are saying "let's slow down" even though this is fucking health care...kind of a BIG DEAL.

Dems do what dems do. They have to pull at heart strings because they lack real world logic when applying their legislation to reality. Because you don't want your politicians rushing on HEALTH CARE, you are now a bigot and sexist. LOL @ these old men still playing transparent childish pathetic games.

Their thinking must seriously go something like this:

"First we are going to push this hard. We will put in everything we have ever wanted. Yes yes we will tell the people this is entirely for them of course."

"Obama's momentum has not carried over on health care. Let's rename our shit and try to push it again."

"This is not working. Let's pretend to pull back and bargain with the opposition. Renaming our shit did not work, we must now concede but include "triggers" and other bullshit to sway the people."

"Fuuuuuuuuuuuuuuck, still not working. Our obvious agenda is too obvious. We need the people thinking we actually have the country's interest at heart (lol...*clears throat*). Let's resort to good ol' plan B. If you oppose us, the side who is FOR THE PEOPLE, you are obviously a bigot and for people dieing."

3 years later

"Obama has done all he can but Washington is truly broken. He needs another 4 years to continue chipping away at this broken system. blah blah blah"

Democrat Executive, Republican Congress..."Fuck it, we might as well actually get some shit done...for the country :bang"

[Stump]

Criticizing is fine and expected, but mud slinging like this is why so many Americans are burnt out on politics.

[Winehole23]

According to Harry Reid opposing the partisan health care bill equates to being opposed to the end of slavery or women suffrage.

http://realclearpolitics.blogs.time.com/2009/12/07/harry-reid-is-burning-out/

Do you agree? It's pretty funny that people take what he says seriously to begin with, but no.


How do you see these statements on the light of Obama's campaign promises of bringing a more civil behaviour to Washington and being an unifier?Not really. His predecessor also failed notably to sustain a similar conceit; comity did not obtain much that I could tell in the day of Clinton, or in that of his predecessor GHWBush; or indeed very much during Reagan's term. The rhetoric was pretty hysterical and absurd even then. So I can't say it surprises me much. The Nazi card is all played out, but slavery and women's suffrage aren't apparently.

[Winehole23]

Regarding the angry, lame-o democrats who make mogrovejo pretend to piss his pants over comity, I don't really know.


Just guessing, maybe somebody else is angry too.

[Winehole23]

I'm more mad about the health care bill as such than any loose talk surrounding it, personally.

Certainly not emanating from the pugnacious Mr. Reid. Stressing this is like pointing out that the grass is green and the sky is blue. It is almost gnomic in its effect.

[MannyIsGod]

:rolleyes @ this thread

[coyotes_geek]

Gotta love it whenever a politician tries to tell the public that disagreeing with them on something makes you a bad person.

[mogrovejo]

Regarding the angry, lame-o democrats who make mogrovejo pretend to piss his pants over comity, I don't really know. .

What? When did I "pretend to piss my pants"? Do you mind to sustain that affirmation?

We're all aware that you see nothing wrong with falsely accusing people of being racists for political purposes; however, as a conservative, I side with Oakeshott and Burk in regards to the central and essential place of civility and good-manners in the political conversation.

[ChumpDumper]

So you really pissed your pants?

[spursncowboys]

If peeing in your pants is cool, consider me Miles Davis.

[TheProfessor]

Eh. Cornyn called Medicaid a "health care gulag." Guess you can pick either side and act outraged at this point.

[MannyIsGod]

I agree with Reid that those issues were hotly contested when they were first enacted and that we now look upon them as no brainers. Neither of those issues were overwhelmingly passed and were painted in the same light as this debate has been. Anything further will have to be decided in the future.

[Winehole23]

What? When did I "pretend to piss my pants"? Do you mind to sustain that affirmation? Apparently you really did piss your pants. I regret insinuating that you were just being coy or pretentious. Your umbrage was real; I thought it was fake. My bad.


We're all aware that you see nothing wrong with falsely accusing people of being racists for political purposesArgumentative. If it doesn't make me piss my pants like it does you, that is no endorsement. I find it predictable and boring. That doesn't mean I agree with it.


however, as a conservative, I side with Oakeshott and Burk in regards to the central and essential place of civility and good-manners in the political conversation.The place of good manners has been neither central nor essential to American political discourse for some time.

Singling out either one of the two major parties for infractions against civility is either disingenuous or obtuse. In effect, it is a scurrilous reinstantiation of the bad manners you complain of. Neither party has the corner on dishonorable behavior or fake umbrage.

[mogrovejo]

Apparently you really did piss your pants. I regret insinuating that you were just being coy or pretentious. Your umbrage was real; I thought it was fake. My bad.

I think you may have a problem with logic reasoning. Let me frame this issue in a way that you may be able to understand:

A accuses B of pretending to do X.

B denies pretending to do X.

Therefore A concludes B is doing X.

If you're not literate enough in logical rules to understand the flaw on this chain let me know as I can recommend you some books and articles on the subject.


I find it predictable and boring. That doesn't mean I agree with it.
As I've said you don't have a problem with it. Apparently you have more of a problem with people that don't like calumnious claims.


The place of good manners has been neither central nor essential to American political discourse for some time. As I said, as a conservative I side with Oakeshott and Burke in sustaining that good-manners are essential to a productive political discussion and, even more, to the survival of any free society. Like you there are many people that disagree.


Singling out either one of the two major parties for infractions against civility is either disingenuous or obtuse. In effect, it is a scurrilous reinstantiation of the bad manners you complain of. Neither party has the corner on dishonorable behavior or fake umbrage.Ah, just as a side note, I was getting my hopes up that you would succeed in writing a post in a thread criticizing Obama and the Democrats without saying that Bush and the republicans did it too. I'd strongly advise you to insert this kind of statement in your sig (something simple like "Yeah, but Bush/GOP did it too"), it would be very economical. In any case I'll start paying attention to your replies to any post or thread that points out dishonourable behaviour from a single party.

[Winehole23]

I think you may have a problem with logic reasoning. Let me frame this issue in a way that you may be able to understand:

A accuses B of pretending to do X.

B denies pretending to do X.

Therefore A concludes B is doing X.

If you're not literate enough in logical rules to understand the flaw on this chain let me know as I can recommend you some books and articles on the subject.Clearly, the stick up your ass has a stick up its ass. You may want to check your humor detector. It might not be plugged in.


As I've said you don't have a problem with it. Apparently you have more of a problem with people that don't like calumnious claims. I'm a complaint-complainer. I don't deny it. All the pecksniffian pissing and moaning over sudden outbreaks of churlish calumny got old a long time ago. I'll continue to single it out for ridicule, you can count on that.


As I said, as a conservative I side with Oakeshott and Burke in sustaining that good-manners are essential to a productive political discussion and, even more, to the survival of any free society.No need to keep repeating this. It's in your sig, hoss.


Ah, just as a side note, I was getting my hopes up that you would succeed in writing a post in a thread criticizing Obama and the Democrats without saying that Bush and the republicans did it too. I'd strongly advise you to insert this kind of statement in your sig (something simple like "Yeah, but Bush/GOP did it too"), it would be very economical. In any case I'll start paying attention to your replies to any post or thread that points out dishonourable behaviour from a single party.A pox on both their houses and on anyone, really, who by word or deed sustains the satanic fecal duality in which American politics is trapped. In my lifetime I hope to see both camps deserted by the people they continue to betray. Between fake leftism and ersatz conservatism I choose neither.

[mogrovejo]

Clearly, the stick up your ass has a stick up its ass. You may want to check your humor detector. It might not be plugged in.

I still don't understand if you've surpassed your troubles with logical reasoning or not. Maybe you're just trying to avoid answering my original question?


I'm a complaint-complainer. I don't deny it. All the pecksniffian pissing and moaning over sudden outbreaks of churlish calumny got old a long time ago. I'll continue to single it out for ridicule, you can count on that.

I hope you understand that your reasoning is the most powerful enhancer of the use of the victimization as a political weapon.


No need to keep repeating this. It's in your sig, hoss.

I only repeated because you didn't seem to understand what I said the first time. Otherwise one has to admit you were using a strawman argument.

[/quote]A pox on both their houses and on anyone, really, who by word or deed sustains the satanic fecal duality in which American politics is trapped. In my lifetime I hope to see both camps deserted by the people they continue to betray. Between fake leftism and ersatz conservatism I choose neither.[/quote]

I came to understand that to you anything short of Stalinism is "fake leftism". I respectfully disagree: I think that hardcore leftism has been taking over American federal government for the last 2 decades and is now more rampant than ever.

The fake conservatism - which is basically sincere leftism - has his own adherents. However there's still a fair share of principled conservatives in American politics, in spite of your strenuous persistence in that false generalization.

[Winehole23]

I still don't understand if you've surpassed your troubles with logical reasoning or not. Maybe you're just trying to avoid answering my original question?You omit a answer here and there. Mayn't I?


I hope you understand that your reasoning is the most powerful enhancer of the use of the victimization as a political weapon. Ok. I'll bite. What do you mean?



I only repeated because you didn't seem to understand what I said the first time. Otherwise one has to admit you were using a strawman argument. My inference was joking, your complaint is philosophical. The inference itself is plausible and reasonable, though I will admit it ultimately falls short of necessity.

if Mogro denies he pretended to piss his pants, he leaves himself exposed to a humorous riposte.


I came to understand that to you anything short of Stalinism is "fake leftism". You have a penchant for overstatement. You exaggerate.


I respectfully disagree: I think that hardcore leftism has been taking over American federal government for the last 2 decades and is now more rampant than ever. We might differ on that. I think the socialist revolution in the USA took place over 70 years ago.

What do you mean by hardcore leftism? Is that like Euro-zone social democracy?


The fake conservatism - which is basically sincere leftism As exemplified by the GOP, for example. The Dems are very slightly further to the left. Two center left parties, IMO.


However there's still a fair share of principled conservatives in American politics, in spite of your strenuous persistence in that false generalizationI never said there were not.

Perhaps you are too eager to score the point mogrovejo. I'm not at all sure we disagree on this.