Democratic War is on..

[Ya Vez]

This is too funny...

Obey berates woman over war funding, later apologizes
By Jeremy Jacobs and Susan Crabtree
March 09, 2007

House Appropriations Committee Chairman David Obey (D-Wis.) berated a woman who approached him in a Congressional corridor, claiming that “idiot liberals” don’t understand the war supplemental spending bill process.

The altercation was videotaped and posted on www.youtube.com .

“We’re trying to use the supplemental to end the war,” Obey said. “You can’t end the war if you’re going against the supplemental. It’s time these idiot liberals understood that.”

David Swanson, a liberal blogger with AfterDowningStreet.org, posted a YouTube video of the encounter on www.afterdowningstreet.org/node/19392 and sent the link to reporters Thursday night.

The unidentified woman told Obey she was the mother of a Marine who had been deployed to Iraq who was experiencing post-traumatic stress disorder and wasn’t receiving adequate treatment from military hospitals. She then asked why Obey was not cutting off funding for the war.

Obey responded that the Washington Post has been running numerous stories on the inadequacies of military hospitals and that Congress is holding hearings on the topic, adding that the supplemental spending bill includes extra money for military healthcare.

A few moments later he grew angry and began attacking liberal groups for failing to understand how the supplemental bill, of which he is a sponsor, would affect the war.

“The liberal groups are jumping around without knowing what the hell is in the bill,” he bellowed. “You don’t have to cut off funds for an activity that doesn’t exist.”


http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/obey-berates-woman-over-war-funding-later-apologizes-2007-03-09.html

[ChumpDumper]

I don't know why they are pretending to not know the identity of the woman. Her name is on the video along with her website and she was interviewed yesterday.

[Yonivore]

Ya gotta love that kind of compassion.

[George Gervin's Afro]

Ya gotta love that kind of compassion.


I thought the dems were beholden to the far left?

[Yonivore]

I thought the dems were beholden to the far left?
And the pressure is making them crack.

[Extra Stout]

Obey should know better. Calling somebody an "idiot liberal" is redundant.

[Yonivore]

repeal the War Powers Act.....and the Iraq War becomes illegal. That is all congress needs to do.


funny how all the liberals think they are so smart....and don't even bring this up.


STUPID, LAZY, MEDIA.


though, in the fine print of the war powers act, the congress can end hostilities if they agree that the war is bullshit or unneccessary.
Oh, they know this...

[George Gervin's Afro]

And the pressure is making them crack.


so since there is this 'friction' then by definition they aren't beholden to the far left. If they were then they would cut off the funding.. Thanks for clearing that up Yoni

[Yonivore]

so since there is this 'friction' then by definition they aren't beholden to the far left. If they were then they would cut off the funding.. Thanks for clearing that up Yoni
You betcha.

Watch the video again. He's basically saying, "we want to do what you want but we don't have the votes and we never will so long as you nutters keep acting insane."

[George Gervin's Afro]

You betcha.

Watch the video again. He's basically saying, "we want to do what you want but we don't have the votes and we never will so long as you nutters keep acting insane."


they don't have enough votes which means that the majority of the democratic party not being beholden to the far left. So I guess now you can't claim the democrats are beholden to the anti-war crowd. Maybe you should now say that a minority of the democratic party is beholden to the far left.

[Yonivore]

they don't have enough votes which means that the majority of the democratic party not being beholden to the far left. So I guess now you can't claim the democrats are beholden to the anti-war crowd. Maybe you should now say that a minority of the democratic party is beholden to the far left.
That'd be true if Congress were 100% Democrat. The majority of Democrats can still be nutters and not have the votes to pass their whacked out agenda.

Only 26 Congressional Seats switched aisles last election.

[George Gervin's Afro]

That'd be true if Congress were 100% Democrat. The majority of Democrats can still be nutters and not have the votes to pass their whacked out agenda.

Only 26 Congressional Seats switched aisles last election.


Yoni this proves that the majority of Democrats aren't 'nutters'. If the majority of Dems were 'nutters' they would have the votes to pass anything they wanted.

[Ya Vez]

there are what 42 - 43 blue dog conservative democrats who also have been battling pelosi on going too far to the left.... we will see who wins eventually...

[George Gervin's Afro]

there are what 42 - 43 blue dog conservative democrats who also have been battling pelosi on going too far to the left.... we will see who wins eventually...


I hope they keep our party closer to the middle.

[Yonivore]

Yoni this proves that the majority of Democrats aren't 'nutters'. If the majority of Dems were 'nutters' they would have the votes to pass anything they wanted.
Not very good at math, eh?

[George Gervin's Afro]

Not very good at math, eh?


Well the last time I chceked a majority mean't greater than 50%..so where does my math fail me? Or are you ducking the fact that I proved to you that your claim that the dems are beholden to the far left is bogus? You know Yoni your talk show arguments play well with the backslappers but when they are challenged they crumble..


If the Dems can't agree amongst themselves to pass legislation cutting off the funding for the war doesn't that mean the party as a whole is not beholden to anyone?

[Yonivore]

Okay, let's see if I can help.

435 Members of the U. S. House of Representatives.

218 is 50.01% -- enough to pass a bill.

There are 233 Democrats, 202 Republicans, and 1 Independent.

as many as 217 of the 233 Democrats, or 93.13% (a vast majority), could be nutters and still not get their fruitcake agenda passed.

Frankly, I think they're pretty close to that 93.13% but, thankfully, not close enough and it's driving guys like Obey crazier than they already are. Plus, since much of the nutters agenda depends on deception, they get pretty peeved at the outside nutters who keep acting like themselves and looking like the crazies they are.

[George Gervin's Afro]

Okay, let's see if I can help.

435 Members of the U. S. House of Representatives.

218 is 50.01% -- enough to pass a bill.

There are 233 Democrats, 202 Republicans, and 1 Independent.

as many as 217 of the 233 Democrats, or 93.13% (a vast majority), could be nutters and still not get their fruitcake agenda passed.

Frankly, I think they're pretty close to that 93.13% but, thankfully, not close enough and it's driving guys like Obey crazier than they already are. Plus, since much of the nutters agenda depends on deception, they get pretty peeved at the outside nutters who keep acting like themselves and looking like the crazies they are.

So your now admitting you don't know and your just making baseless claims.


Let me help you with this. Aren't there 43 blue dog dems? We can assume that they aren't beholden to the far left. So that kind of makes that 93% claim you made a bit silly off the top don't you think?

[Yonivore]

So your now admitting you don't know and your just making baseless claims.
You said if a majority of democrats were nutters they'd get their agenda passed. I merely pointed out that as many as 93.13% -- a vast majority -- could be nutters and still not have the votes.

Don't try to distract from your inability to perform simple computations by telling me I'm admitting something.

I think more than 50% of the Democrats -- including the leadership -- are nutters and it is pissing them off that the outside nutters are making it impossible to bring any moderates over by showing just how freakin' crazy is their agenda.

[Yonivore]

So your now admitting you don't know and your just making baseless claims.


Let me help you with this. Aren't there 43 blue dog dems? We can assume that they aren't beholden to the far left. So that kind of makes that 93% claim you made a bit silly off the top don't you think?
So, you're down to 81%. Still a pretty significant majority of Democrats.

Let me know when you get to 49% and I'll concede. Of course, when I throw in Ron Paul and a couple of nutter RINOs, it bumps you back up.

[George Gervin's Afro]

You said if a majority of democrats were nutters they'd get their agenda passed. I merely pointed out that as many as 93.13% -- a vast majority -- could be nutters and still not have the votes.

Don't try to distract from your inability to perform simple computations by telling me I'm admitting something.

I think more than 50% of the Democrats -- including the leadership -- are nutters and it is pissing them off that the outside nutters are making it impossible to bring any moderates over by showing just how freakin' crazy is their agenda.


Speaking of simple computations what about the 43 blue dog dems? So that leaves 190 dems who are possibly beholden to the left. Let's assume that 60%of these are 'nutters' as you proclaim. That leaves us with 114 'nutters'. Of course that means that the other 119 aren't. Please explain to me about my inability to compute? Now we can play with the percentage of the 190 but I think 60% is fair

[Yonivore]

Speaking of simple computations what about the 43 blue dog dems? So that leaves 190 dems who are possibly beholden to the left. Let's assume that 60%of these are 'nutters' as you proclaim. That leaves 114 'nutters' which means that the other 119 aren't. Please explain to me about my inability to compute?
Very Good!

So, let's assume 70%...oooo, back in the majority nutters column.

[George Gervin's Afro]

Very Good!

So, let's assume 70%...oooo, back in the majority nutters column.


So YOU DON'T KNOW!. Please refrain from making baseless claims.

[Yonivore]

Yoni this proves that the majority of Democrats aren't 'nutters'. If the majority of Dems were 'nutters' they would have the votes to pass anything they wanted.
We're back to this statement. All the computational math we've been doing is to show you didn't know what you were talking about in this statement.

I simply proved that as much as 93.13% of Democrats could be nutters and still not have the votes.

Admit it and quit embarrassing yourself.

[Yonivore]

So YOU DON'T KNOW!. Please refrain from making baseless claims.
No, I don't. But given the Democratic leadership are all nutters, I think it's a safe bet much of the rank and file -- probably a majority -- are too.

Sue me for believing that. I'm just grateful it ain't enough and that the nutters are starting to show their true color over the frustration.

[George Gervin's Afro]

We're back to this statement. All the computational math we've been doing is to show you didn't know what you were talking about in this statement.

I simply proved that as much as 93.13% of Democrats could be nutters and still not have the votes.

Admit it and quit embarrassing yourself.


Well I simply proved that less than 50% are nutters. So your baseless claims hae been exposed yet again...

[George Gervin's Afro]

No, I don't. But given the Democratic leadership are all nutters, I think it's a safe bet much of the rank and file -- probably a majority -- are too.

Sue me for believing that. I'm just grateful it ain't enough and that the nutters are starting to show their true color over the frustration.


So now you have admitted you don't really know if 93% or 49% are nutters but you choose to continue stating that the majority of dems are beholden to the far left. And you have asked me to admit I was wrong and should be embarassed?

[Yonivore]

Well I simply proved that less than 50% are nutters. So your baseless claims hae been exposed yet again...
You didn't prove anything. If anything, I proved you're stupid...and, I proved as much as 93.13% of Democrats could be nutters and still not be able to pass their agenda thus refuting your stupid statement that if a majority were nutters they'd pass whatever legislation they wanted.

How'd you prove it was less than 50%?

And, I wasn't making a claim, I was making a characterization of the confrontation between Obey and the nutter he was arguing with. I'd be interested to know just how many votes Pelosi and Murtha have for their nutty surrender plan.

There would be the proof of how many nutters there are. Less than 117 and you're right, more and I'm right. Do we know where the 233 Democrats stand on this issue?

[George Gervin's Afro]

You didn't prove anything. If anything, I proved you're stupid...and, I proved as much as 93.13% of Democrats could be nutters and still not be able to pass their agenda thus refuting your stupid statement that if a majority were nutters they'd pass whatever legislation they wanted.

How'd you prove it was less than 50%?

And, I wasn't making a claim, I was making a characterization of the confrontation between Obey and the nutter he was arguing with. I'd be interested to know just how many votes Pelosi and Murtha have for their nutty surrender plan.

There would be the proof of how many nutters there are. Less than 117 and you're right, more and I'm right. Do we know where the 233 Democrats stand on this issue?


So now your going to admit that the Democratic party as a whole isn't beholden to the far left? I'll remind you every time you do.

[Yonivore]

So now your going to admit that the Democratic party as a whole isn't beholden to the far left? I'll remind you every time you do.
When did I ever claim the Democratic party as a whole is beholden to the far left? I merely hypothesized it was somewhere between 50.01% and 93.13%. And, until we have the numbers on which Democrats support the surrender strategy of Murtha and Pelosi and which ones don't, there's no way to know exactly how many are true nutters.

But, it is clear to me that the Democratic leadership are beholden to the nutters.

Why can't you just admit your math sucked or that when you said...


Yoni this proves that the majority of Democrats aren't 'nutters'. If the majority of Dems were 'nutters' they would have the votes to pass anything they wanted.
...you just flat weren't thinking about the other side of the aisle.

You and Master Baiter suffer from the same disease.

[George Gervin's Afro]

When did I ever claim the Democratic party as a whole is beholden to the far left? I merely hypothesized it was somewhere between 50.01% and 93.13%. And, until we have the numbers on which Democrats support the surrender strategy of Murtha and Pelosi and which ones don't, there's no way to know exactly how many are true nutters.

But, it is clear to me that the Democratic leadership are beholden to the nutters.

Why can't you just admit your math sucked or that when you said...


...you just flat weren't thinking about the other side of the aisle.

You and Master Baiter suffer from the same disease.


When I made that comment I was under the influence of my avatar.. Once I woke up I realized that I was actually intending something else. So yes my math did suck during that post. Better?

[Yonivore]

When I made that comment I was under the influence of my avatar.. Once I woke up I realized that I was actually intending something else. So yes my math did suck during that post. Better?
Sure.

So, the obvious question, would you agree -- even though we disagree on what the exact percentage may be -- that as much as 93.13% of the Democrats in the House of Representatives could be what I call "nutters" and still be unable to pass their agenda?

Because it is from my belief that a good majority -- not all and no, not 93.13% -- are nutters that is being manifested in this "frustration" being displayed by Congressman Obey.

After all, that was the entire gist of my post before you stubbornly took us off on the math tangent.

[George Gervin's Afro]

Sure.

So, the obvious question, would you agree -- even though we disagree on what the exact percentage may be -- that as much as 93.13% of the Democrats in the House of Representatives could be what I call "nutters" and still be unable to pass their agenda?

Because it is from my belief that a good majority -- not all and no, not 93.13% -- are nutters that is being manifested in this "frustration" being displayed by Congressman Obey.

After all, that was the entire gist of my post before you stubbornly took us off on the math tangent.


Yes Yoni it is possible but I think there far fewer nutters than you think there are.

[Yonivore]

Yes Yoni it is possible but I think there far fewer nutters than you think there are.
And that's a reasonable position.

So, are there fewer than 117 in the House? Neither of us know for sure. But, if Obey is that frustrated about not having the votes, it would suggest the requisite number is a lot closer to my presumption than yours.

Other than for the belief the Democrats are close to having enough votes to enact their nutter agenda to "end the war," why would Obey become so frustrated and start yelling at a nutter about them being the fly in the ointment that's keeping them from doing what the nutters want?

[Don Quixote]

No, political parties are by their nature moderate. While you can argue that the Dem leadership is liberal, that probably is not true of the rank-and-file Democratic congressman, who is probably only slightly liberal. I'd be willing to bet that alot of these newly-elected Democratic lawmakers want decreased spending, are socially conservative, pro-life, somewhat pro-war (at least not angry and completely against it), etc. They probably wouldn't go along with some of the more nutty proposals from Pelosi, et al. That's my hunch, anyway.

And I don't take the 06 elections as any real vindication of the liberal "agenda" anyway. The reason the GOP lost was (1) they didn't control spending, (2) they didn't do anything about illegal immigration, and (3) didn't manage the after-war in Iraq very well, although the picture there is brighter than the media would have us believe. In short, the GOP failed to govern conservatively. The Democrats won because they weren't Republicans. But don't look for them to turn into Michael Moore all of a sudden.