1
Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

DHS Funding... problem. Follow

#27 Mar 09 2015 at 8:59 AM Rating: Good
*******
50,767 posts
Smasharoo wrote:
I wasn't being sarcastic.
In his defense, some people actually believe it's hard to understand sarcasm in text.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#28 Mar 09 2015 at 9:25 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
As long as Lolgaxe was kind enough to bump, I'll also point out that "fourteen Republicans" was a third of the GOP senate at the time. This wasn't some instance where one guy from the other side of the aisle votes for it and it's "bipartisan!" with 227 Democratic votes and one lonely Republican vote. This was a substantial portion of the senate Republicans working with Democrats on and signing onto the plan who then vocally supported it (including the mentioned Rubio radio ads which played during Limbaugh's show among others).

There's an obvious advantage to ignoring all this if you want to say it's all "Obama's fault" that immigration reform didn't happen but it requires a special kind of blindness to start saying "It wasn't bipartisan" and "They were forced to go along" (funny how the Waterloo 'Don't let Obama have any successes' caucus weren't forced to shed off 33% for any other issue, only for this one).
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#29 Mar 09 2015 at 10:20 AM Rating: Good
*******
50,767 posts
Oh sure, blame me for everything.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#30 Mar 09 2015 at 10:41 AM Rating: Good
***
1,159 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
Oh sure, blame me for everything.


Sorry, you're not Timelord.
____________________________
Timelordwho wrote:
I'm not quite sure that scheming is an emotion.
#31 Mar 10 2015 at 7:10 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
Smasharoo wrote:
I wasn't being sarcastic.
In his defense, some people actually believe it's hard to understand sarcasm in text.


His use of "Slowclap!" didn't exactly help clear things up, either.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#32 Mar 10 2015 at 7:25 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Jophiel wrote:
As long as Lolgaxe was kind enough to bump, I'll also point out that "fourteen Republicans" was a third of the GOP senate at the time. This wasn't some instance where one guy from the other side of the aisle votes for it and it's "bipartisan!" with 227 Democratic votes and one lonely Republican vote. This was a substantial portion of the senate Republicans working with Democrats on and signing onto the plan who then vocally supported it (including the mentioned Rubio radio ads which played during Limbaugh's show among others).

There's an obvious advantage to ignoring all this if you want to say it's all "Obama's fault" that immigration reform didn't happen but it requires a special kind of blindness to start saying "It wasn't bipartisan" and "They were forced to go along" (funny how the Waterloo 'Don't let Obama have any successes' caucus weren't forced to shed off 33% for any other issue, only for this one).


And if zero GOP members of the Senate had voted for it, you'd be using that as proof of the same "oppose anything Obama want's" position. So because some members of the GOP supported the idea initially but not enough for it to pass both houses, this is somehow worse? I'm not following your logic there.

It's politics. The House and Senate are not the same bodies. Sometimes, there's as much, or even more opposition between them within the same party as there is between the parties. Sometimes, the members of one house will pass something, while members in the other don't. Shocking I know. And sometimes, that split even occurs within the same party! OMGz!!! And you know what? Sometimes, the members of a party in one house will vote with a bill specifically because they know it wont pass in the other house and is thus a safe vote. They get to show support for the idea of an issue without the specific bill before them coming into law. Again, this is politics.

And in this particular case, the Dems still controlled the Senate, but the GOP controlled the house. The bill that the Senate proposed was not passing the House, no matter what happened in the Senate. The Senate Republicans were faced with two choices. Filibuster the Senate bill (and we all know how much you'd have been applauding that choice), or allow it to pass. If they want to avoid the bad press of filibustering the bill, and doing so results in a passed Senate bill either way, they may as well gain some political ground in the process. I know this is shocking, but that's how politics is done. It's not uncommon for someone to vote against their party on an issue they know is guaranteed to pass or fail regardless of their vote, purely because it gives them the opportunity to score some points back home or to show support for the idea behind the bill.



Again, I'm unclear what you think this means other than that the GOP and the Dems disagree on what form immigration reform should take.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#33 Mar 10 2015 at 8:11 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
And if zero GOP members of the Senate had voted for it, you'd be using that as proof of the same "oppose anything Obama want's" position. So because some members of the GOP supported the idea initially but not enough for it to pass both houses, this is somehow worse? I'm not following your logic there.

Well, there almost certainly would have been enough GOP support to pass it in the House (albeit carried largely on Democratic votes), which is why Boehner refused to let it come to the floor. Try and keep up.
Quote:
The Senate Republicans were faced with two choices. Filibuster the Senate bill (and we all know how much you'd have been applauding that choice), or allow it to pass.

Faced with two choices? The Senate Republicans in question helped write the bill. Christ, I know you don't get your news from anywhere but you don't need to repeatedly embarrass yourself by demonstrating it.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#34 Mar 11 2015 at 4:04 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
****
6,543 posts
gbaji wrote:
lolgaxe wrote:
Smasharoo wrote:
I wasn't being sarcastic.
In his defense, some people actually believe it's hard to understand sarcasm in text.


His use of "Slowclap!" didn't exactly help clear things up, either.


That means he likes you.
____________________________
Galkaman wrote:
Kuwoobie will die crushed under the burden of his mediocrity.

#35 Mar 11 2015 at 7:26 AM Rating: Good
*******
50,767 posts
gbaji wrote:
I'm not following your logic there.
You could stop trying to use hypotheticals as facts. That might clear up some confusion.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#36 Mar 11 2015 at 8:06 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Again, I'm unclear what you think this means other than that the GOP and the Dems disagree on what form immigration reform should take.

Your understanding of what happened and your insistence that it's "Obama's fault" or that "The Democrats would have voted for it but Obama stopped them" is laughably, incredibly, mind-bogglingly wrong. Your weird attempts to retrospectively paint this as intentional GOP maneuvering in the Senate is cute but sort of beside the main point.

Rubio blew a ton of credibility with his base by helping to write and promote the immigration bill. Now he's blowing his credibility with Latinos ahead of his presidential run by backtracking and disavowing the bill he helped write. Masterful politics! Smiley: laugh
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#37 Mar 11 2015 at 4:23 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Faced with two choices? The Senate Republicans in question helped write the bill.


Uh huh. Voted for the bill before I voted against it, right? You do understand the process that can cause that, right?

"helped write". Lol!
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#38 Mar 11 2015 at 4:48 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Again, I'm unclear what you think this means other than that the GOP and the Dems disagree on what form immigration reform should take.

Your understanding of what happened and your insistence that it's "Obama's fault" or that "The Democrats would have voted for it but Obama stopped them" is laughably, incredibly, mind-bogglingly wrong.


Sigh. And yet, there was support for an actual bipartisan immigration bill in both the House and Senate right up until Obama got involved and started holding meetings with key Senate committee members (specifically in his own party). I get that you avoid watching or listening to any news sources that might be mistaken for allowing conservative views to be expressed, but this poisoning of the process was broadly discussed and followed, as it happened, with quite a bit of disgust at the result. For conservatives, this wasn't something we were told about after the fact, but something we watched happen in front of us.

Claiming a couple years later that what I saw happen didn't actually happen isn't going to have much effect Joph.

Quote:
Rubio blew a ton of credibility with his base by helping to write and promote the immigration bill. Now he's blowing his credibility with Latinos ahead of his presidential run by backtracking and disavowing the bill he helped write. Masterful politics! Smiley: laugh


Yeah. He made the mistake of actually trying to work with Democrats on immigration reform and got burned by a President who seems hell bent on creating as much conflict within our political landscape as possible. There's a reason he's often referred to as the "divider in chief" among conservatives. His pattern of swopping in whenever it looks like the Dems and the GOP might actually agree on something and making sure it doesn't happen is pretty well established.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#39 Mar 11 2015 at 4:57 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Sigh. And yet, there was support for an actual bipartisan immigration bill in both the House and Senate right up until Obama got involved and started holding meetings with key Senate committee members (specifically in his own party).

Hahahahaha Smiley: laugh

No, there wasn't. The only thing the House wanted to touch was building border fences. With some "Well, once Obama builds enough fences, we'll talk about the rest" talk which was blatant enough to put Admiral Ackbar into coughing fits.

Quote:
I get that you avoid watching or listening to any news sources that might be mistaken for allowing conservative views to be expressed

Yeah, no. I didn't hear about Rubio's ad campaign by NOT listening to conservative sources. Now, I suppose it's possible (hell, likely) that whatever things you listen to or read to get these ideas fed you a line of bullshit you happily consumed. so that could answer for your confusion.

Quote:
There's a reason he's often referred to as the "divider in chief" among conservatives.

Because conservatives love a bumper sticker catch phrase more than facts or nuance? Yup.

Edited, Mar 11th 2015 6:00pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#40 Mar 11 2015 at 6:10 PM Rating: Good
GBATE!! Never saw it coming
Avatar
****
9,957 posts
gbaji wrote:
Obama got involved and started holding meetings with key Senate committee members (specifically in his own party). I get that you avoid watching or listening to any news sources that might be mistaken for allowing conservative views to be expressed, but this poisoning of the process...
So, wait. The act of talking to people in his own party "poisoned the process? Did he threaten to kill their children, or something?
____________________________
remorajunbao wrote:
One day I'm going to fly to Canada and open the curtains in your office.

#41 Mar 11 2015 at 6:21 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Hilariously, Gbaji claimed that Obama talked the Democrats out of supporting immigration reform but the Senate bill passed with 67 votes. But Obama supposedly killed it by talking to Democratic Senate leaders and telling them to block reform proposals.

You get a headache just trying to imagine Gbaji's world.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#42 Mar 12 2015 at 7:58 AM Rating: Good
*******
50,767 posts
gbaji wrote:
There's a reason he's often referred to as the "divider in chief" among conservatives.
So what's the reason for all the other little nicknames?

Edited, Mar 12th 2015 12:24pm by lolgaxe
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#44 Mar 12 2015 at 8:11 AM Rating: Good
***
1,159 posts
Wittersnake Wordslime wrote:
There's a reason he's often referred to as the "divider in chief" among conservatives.


So what's the reason for all the other little nicknames?
____________________________
Timelordwho wrote:
I'm not quite sure that scheming is an emotion.
#45 Mar 12 2015 at 8:25 AM Rating: Good
Gave Up The D
Avatar
*****
12,281 posts
Kavekkk wrote:
Wittersnake Wordslime wrote:
There's a reason he's often referred to as the "divider in chief" among conservatives.


So what's the reason for all the other little nicknames?


They obviously have nothing better to do.
____________________________
Shaowstrike (Retired - FFXI)
91PUP/BLM 86SMN/BST 76DRK
Cooking/Fishing 100


"We don't just borrow words; on occasion, English has pursued other languages down alleyways to beat them unconscious and rifle their pockets for new vocabulary."
— James D. Nicoll
#46 Mar 12 2015 at 12:13 PM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
30,086 posts
So what's the reason for all the other little nicknames?

Racism.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#47 Mar 12 2015 at 1:16 PM Rating: Good
*******
50,767 posts
Lack of rationalization makes the answer boring, though.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#48 Mar 12 2015 at 8:26 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Hilariously, Gbaji claimed that Obama talked the Democrats out of supporting immigration reform...


Incorrect. He talked them into inserting amendments during the committee process that made it impossible for it to pass the House.

Quote:
...but the Senate bill passed with 67 votes.


Yeah. Because, as I thought I'd already explained a couple times already, the changes that the Dems introduced into the Senate bill were designed specifically to violate the conditions that House Republicans had stated at the very beginning of the process were required. Both parties in both houses started out by listing things that were deal breakers for them, and the plan was to go forward with a set of low hanging fruit solutions that didn't violate any of those deal breakers. Everyone was on board with this, right until Obama decided to get involved.

You honestly don't remember the whole bit about the White House being initially upset that they weren't invited into the process from day one? The GOP initially met semi-secretly with their Dem counterparts specifically out of a fear that political pressure from the White House would poison the process. Then they had this big press release where they announced that they'd been working on a bi-partisan, bi-house immigration reform. Then it was like Obama's head exploded, his press secretary said nasty things about how congress shouldn't keep the White House out of things if they want them to pass, then the Dems in the Judiciary Committee suddenly got invited to meetings at the White House that the GOP members were not invited to, and then, like by magic, amendments appeared in the bill that violated the House "deal breakers" from the start.

Quote:
But Obama supposedly killed it by talking to Democratic Senate leaders and telling them to block reform proposals.


Sigh. Again. For the really really slow. They didn't "block" reform proposals. They added to the proposed bill things that they knew the House GOP would never pass, effectively ensuring that the bill would never become law.

Quote:
You get a headache just trying to imagine Gbaji's world.


Um... It's not my world. It's the world of politics. The concept of introducing a poison pill to a piece of legislation is not new, and certainly not something I made up just now. That's exactly what the Dems did. But what's interesting is that initially they were willing to work with the GOP on a stripped down bill that contained only the things everyone could agree on. It was only after Obama became aware of what was going on that suddenly things changed. We can speculate as to how willing the Dems were at any point in going along with the GOP plan, but to suggest that the GOP didn't want to pass any immigration reform at all is completely wrong.

The issue, as I've said from the start, was that the Right and Left tend to have different ideas of what immigration reform should entail. To paint one side as "for immigration reform" and the other as "against immigration reform" is incredibly unfair.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#49 Mar 12 2015 at 9:01 PM Rating: Good
GBATE!! Never saw it coming
Avatar
****
9,957 posts
gbaji wrote:
The concept of introducing a poison pill to a piece of legislation is not new, and certainly not something I made up just now.
Wouldn't it be nice if all bills were voted on separately, all the time? No stupid riders attached? Because, as you alluded without actually saying it; both parties do this stupid shit all the time.
____________________________
remorajunbao wrote:
One day I'm going to fly to Canada and open the curtains in your office.

#50 Mar 12 2015 at 9:31 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Incorrect. He talked them into inserting amendments during the committee process that made it impossible for it to pass the House.

Which committee? In the Senate? As I mentioned, the senate bill was written by the "Gang of Eight" -- four Democrats and four Republicans. It passed the Senate with overwhelming support by a veto-proof margin. That was the last committee it ever saw since the House refused to pick it up for a vote (since they knew it would easily pass the House as well and the conservative anti-reform voters would have conniptions) so it never went to a reconciliation committee.

Quote:
Yeah. Because, as I thought I'd already explained a couple times already, the changes that the Dems introduced into the Senate bill were designed specifically to violate the conditions that House Republicans had stated at the very beginning of the process were required.

Well, I'm glad we finally agree that it was the GOP led House that killed the bipartisan comprehensive immigration bill that passed the senate with both Democratic and Republican votes. Because even though the bill had proved itself to be very popular and a product of both parties, it didn't pass their "conditions" to be worthy of a House vote. Hilarious that you keep desperately trying to pin this on Obama though.

"Sure, that bill sailed through the Senate with support from both parties but... but... the House didn't like it so it's all OBAMA'S fault that immigration reform didn't happen!!!!"

Smiley: laughSmiley: laughSmiley: laugh
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#51 Mar 13 2015 at 7:39 AM Rating: Excellent
*******
50,767 posts
Bijou wrote:
Because, as you alluded without actually saying it; both parties do this stupid shit all the time.
Oh come on, can't you tell how the only way to open up a few more VA hospitals in this country is through sanctions on Iran?
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 259 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (259)