Republican Judgement

[Accountable]

I disagree. I do listen. You just don't like what I hear. I suggest you educate yourself in this matter. Once the war has started it's too late (in a timely fashion) to create a union. The process is not fast. It's a long drawn out process. And there is the matter of representation in "at will" States. It's absent without a contract.

You seem to be under the mistaken impression that unless there is a contract, charter, bureaucracy, staff of lobbyists, and paid professional president, then a union cannot exist. I won't try to pry you away your preconceptions. They're wedged too tightly.

 

[Minor Axis]

You seem to be under the mistaken impression that unless there is a contract, charter, bureaucracy, staff of lobbyists, and paid professional president, then a union cannot exist. I won't try to pry you away your preconceptions. They're wedged too tightly.

Uh-huh. And you're a fountain of wisdom.

 

[Minor Axis]

Holy Fuck Minor

I just noted that is 11 year old data

Now that is fucking hilarious

Oops, my mistake, (I over looked the date) but do you really think it's changed that much? I'll have to look some more.

 

[Accountable]

Uh-huh. And you're a fountain of wisdom.

I note that you don't disagree with me, only comment about me personally.

 

[Minor Axis]

I note that you don't disagree with me, only comment about me personally.

The breach is too wide to gap. I disagree with you completely. Yes a sarcastic statement when there is nothing more meaningful to say to you on this subject. A failure on my part.

 

[Minor Axis]

Boehner Tells Reid to Go "F" Himself.

...John Boehner and Harry Reid are constitutional officers of the United States—the Republican speaker of the House and the Democratic Senate majority leader, respectively—so their sulphurous, X-rated squabble last Friday, in the midst of fiscal-cliff negotiations at the White House, had no consequence beyond the further coarsening of political dialogue and a decreased likelihood of bipartisan cooperation in the nation’s capital.

“Go **** yourself,” Boehner advised Reid as they crossed paths just outside the Oval Office.

“What are you talking about?” Reid asked in surprise.

“Go **** yourself,” Boehner explained...

In this case, the speaker apparently was seething over the majority leader’s accusation, on the floor of the Senate Dec. 27, that he’s running a “dictatorship” in the House of Representatives, refusing to take up tax legislation that he knew would pass with Democratic votes but just not with a majority of House Republicans.

“John Boehner seems to care more about his speakership than about keeping the nation on firm financial footing,” Reid asserted in a more personal vein, adding that Boehner was simply trying to save his own skin and assure his reelection as speaker on Jan. 3. This, after the “Plan B” debacle—“and it was a debacle,” Reid gloated—demonstrated Boehner’s inability to keep his unruly Republicans in line.

Tough words, to be sure, but arguably family-friendly. Boehner’s scatological response seems out of character for a politician notable for his congeniality. But even more remarkable is how the public even knows about this confidential encounter. According to Politico,Boehner “bragged about” the dustup to Republican House members as they prepared to vote Tuesday night on Senate-approved legislation to allow taxes to rise on the wealthy—a measure all the more unpalatable to much of Boehner’s constituency because it was supported by President Obama. Addressing a roomful of professional media hounds, the speaker had to know that it would take precisely a nanosecond for the anecdote to become a headline...

Boehner’s conversation-ender with Reid—and his eagerness to brag about it—can be categorized, (Political scientist Kathleen Hall) Jamieson said, as “the masculine assertion of dominance: ‘I got the upper hand.’ It also expresses our collective frustration. ‘I really told him!’”

 

[Minor Axis]

Boehner Tells Reid to Go "F" Himself.

...John Boehner and Harry Reid are constitutional officers of the United States—the Republican speaker of the House and the Democratic Senate majority leader, respectively—so their sulphurous, X-rated squabble last Friday, in the midst of fiscal-cliff negotiations at the White House, had no consequence beyond the further coarsening of political dialogue and a decreased likelihood of bipartisan cooperation in the nation’s capital.

“Go **** yourself,” Boehner advised Reid as they crossed paths just outside the Oval Office.

“What are you talking about?” Reid asked in surprise.

“Go **** yourself,” Boehner explained...

In this case, the speaker apparently was seething over the majority leader’s accusation, on the floor of the Senate Dec. 27, that he’s running a “dictatorship” in the House of Representatives, refusing to take up tax legislation that he knew would pass with Democratic votes but just not with a majority of House Republicans.

“John Boehner seems to care more about his speakership than about keeping the nation on firm financial footing,” Reid asserted in a more personal vein, adding that Boehner was simply trying to save his own skin and assure his reelection as speaker on Jan. 3. This, after the “Plan B” debacle—“and it was a debacle,” Reid gloated—demonstrated Boehner’s inability to keep his unruly Republicans in line.

Tough words, to be sure, but arguably family-friendly. Boehner’s scatological response seems out of character for a politician notable for his congeniality. But even more remarkable is how the public even knows about this confidential encounter. According to Politico,Boehner “bragged about” the dustup to Republican House members as they prepared to vote Tuesday night on Senate-approved legislation to allow taxes to rise on the wealthy—a measure all the more unpalatable to much of Boehner’s constituency because it was supported by President Obama. Addressing a roomful of professional media hounds, the speaker had to know that it would take precisely a nanosecond for the anecdote to become a headline...

Boehner’s conversation-ender with Reid—and his eagerness to brag about it—can be categorized, (Political scientist Kathleen Hall) Jamieson said, as “the masculine assertion of dominance: ‘I got the upper hand.’ It also expresses our collective frustration. ‘I really told him!’”

 

[Alien Allen]

is that supposed to be big news?

one thing for sure is that is old news. I think as in 2 weeks old give or take.

Run out of places to find info Minor

anyway you can bet the F bomb is thrown lots behind closed doors

This time is was just one overly tanned sleezeball giving it to an overly smug sleezeball is all

nothing new there

 

[Minor Axis]

I don't know how it got posted twice. I'd erase it if I could.

 

[Accountable]

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/01/18/us-usa-fiscal-debt-idUSBRE90H12C20130118

[h=1]House Republicans back off from fiscal clash with Obama[/h]

Republican leaders, including House Speaker John Boehner and Majority Leader Eric Cantor, made the announcement after an annual retreat at a resort in Williamsburg

No comment on the action really. I just thought the setting for the announcement was, um ... appropriate.

 

[Minor Axis]

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/01/18/us-usa-fiscal-debt-idUSBRE90H12C20130118

House Republicans back off from fiscal clash with Obama


No comment on the action really. I just thought the setting for the announcement was, um ... appropriate.

With all the talk of amendments, I would like to see an amendment that lays out a binding framework for responsible budgets. I just doubt our leadership has the will. They are all too afraid they will be voted out of office.

The GOP idea of passing new debt ceiling limits every 3 months is a joke. I understand that the Debt Ceiling increases are to pay for Federal spending that is all ready approved. However, I think the U.S. needs to take substantial steps so we don't have to keep raising the debt ceiling. Easier said than done? We can't allow our debt to keep spiraling upward.

Why is this so hard? I would cut our military spending in the range of 25-50%. That could be a good first start. And I do believe that entitlements will have to be adjusted to face the realities of our budgetary problems.


Demorcrats Are More Fiscally Responsible than Republicans

Although this article is about 7 months old, it puts forth a very interesting proposition: Democrats are More Fiscally Responsible than Republicans. Based on the author's premise, I agree.

But I think there’s something deeper going on here, too, and that you can glean most it from the public record. For years and years now, the Democrats have been a much more fiscally responsible party than the Republicans. (Here, fiscally responsible means that they try to pay for the federal programs they support, not fiscally responsible in the way Republicans define it, where social spending programs are “fiscally irresponsible” even if they’re paid for.)

Republicans, by contrast, have intentionally drawn up big deficits with massive tax cuts, so that popular programs they don’t really like will eventually have to be cut. This is more or less the central organizing principle of the conservative movement, and the main way the conservative movement exerts control over the GOP. It’s no coincidence that when Republicans came back to power in 2011, they made deficits a huge legislative priority, and insisted on reducing them by cutting social programs alone.

The GOP is heinous, dishonest, anti-social, class oriented as in only my class, and not fit to lead the country...

 

[Alien Allen]

only a fool would say the democrats are more fiscally responsible when the democrat president has allowed the debt to climb at 1 trillion a year under his watch and a democrat senate has refused to present a budget to vote on

both parties are irresponsible but to claim the democrats are better is laughable.

of course you have liberal idiots like Krugman who state that spending an additonal 300 billion really would only end up costing 200 billion and that would not add to the debt. sheer genius I guess eh

 

[Accountable]

With all the talk of amendments, I would like to see an amendment that lays out a binding framework for responsible budgets. I just doubt our leadership has the will. They are all too afraid they will be voted out of office.

I agree.

The GOP idea of passing new debt ceiling limits every 3 months is a joke. I understand that the Debt Ceiling increases are to pay for Federal spending that is all ready approved. However, I think the U.S. needs to take substantial steps so we don't have to keep raising the debt ceiling. Easier said than done? We can't allow our debt to keep spiraling upward.

Did you know that we didn't always have a debt ceiling? Ever wonder why we have one in place? In the past, every increase in the debt had to be voted on. It was cumbersome and inconvenient. The spendmongers suggested pre-approving debt, up to a ceiling. Since all Washington assholes are spendmongers, it passed like gangbusters. I say we do away with the debt ceiling altogether and make them justify every increase.

Why is this so hard? I would cut our military spending in the range of 25-50%.

YES!!

That could be a good first start. And I do believe that entitlements will have to be adjusted to face the realities of our budgetary problems.

I don't believe you, but it sounds real good.

** one-eyed partisan paranoia deleted **

 

[Minor Axis]

only a fool would say the democrats are more fiscally responsible when the democrat president has allowed the debt to climb at 1 trillion a year under his watch and a democrat senate has refused to present a budget to vote on

both parties are irresponsible but to claim the democrats are better is laughable.

of course you have liberal idiots like Krugman who state that spending an additonal 300 billion really would only end up costing 200 billion and that would not add to the debt. sheer genius I guess eh

You ignore the point. The approaches are completely different. The Democrats are honest, the Republicans are devious. Democrats try to fund what they believe in. Republicans rip out income to cause a crisis so they eradicate the programs they don't like. You may not like it, may not like what Democrats like to fund, but it's the truth.

 

[Alien Allen]

You ignore the point. The approaches are completely different. The Democrats are honest, the Republicans are devious. Democrats try to fund what they believe in. Republicans rip out income to cause a crisis so they eradicate the programs they don't like. You may not like it, may not like what Democrats like to fund, but it's the truth.

:24::24::24::24:

 

[Minor Axis]

NBC: Changing the Rules Not the Party to win!

*** Changing the rules, not the party: As the Republican National Committee concludes its three-day meeting in Charlotte, N.C., you’ve by now heard all the different ways Republicans are looking to improve their standing in time for the next presidential election. They want to do a better job reaching out to Latinos (see Jeb Bush’s WSJ op-ed), they want to soften their tone when it comes to social issues, and they want to narrow their technological and get-out-the-vote operation gap with Democrats. But here’s another way you might not have heard: Some Republicans are looking to change the Electoral College system in battleground states that Democrats have won in the last two cycles. As the Washington Post reports, Republicans in Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Virginia -- all controlled at the state level (in some form or fashion) by the GOP -- have proposed awarding their Electoral College votes by congressional district instead of the winner-take-all approach used by every state except for two (Maine and Nebraska). “No state is moving quicker than Virginia, where state senators are likely to vote on the plan as soon as next week,” the Post says.

*** That would give the GOP a HUGE advantage: The Republicans advocating these changes say they would give smaller communities more of a voice in presidential battleground states. But there’s a bigger story here: The moves would give the GOP a significant advantage due to the fact that redistricting has concentrated the Democratic vote to just a handful of congressional districts in these states. Take Virginia, for example: Obama won the state in 2012 by four percentage points and by about 150,000 votes -- and he took all of the state’s 13 electoral votes. But under the proposed changes, Mitt Romney would have won nine of the state’s electoral votes to Obama’s four. Put another way, if every electoral vote in the country was awarded by congressional district (plus two votes to the statewide winner), Romney would have defeated Obama, 276 to 262 in electoral votes (instead of Obama winning 332 to 206), according to Emory University’s Alan Abramowitz. And if only the states of Florida, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and Wisconsin were changed to this system, Obama would have BARELY won, 271-267, Abramowitz adds.

A lot of people don't know it, but I read in the recent election, Democrats overall won a majority of votes for the House of Representatives...yet Republicans still control it, all due to this same redistricting. As long as the majority party controls the district lines, they can game the system to their advantage. This must be stopped. Raise hell with your Representatives! My suggestion is to go to the popular vote.

The face of gerrymandering, Pennsylvania District 172. Of course if you want these shit heads to win, this is a great tactic, but is it philosophically right? Hell yes, if right= Conservative :

 

[Alien Allen]

Do you think this gerrymandering is something new and only the republicans have done it?

 

[Minor Axis]

Do you think this gerrymandering is something new and only the republicans have done it?

The answers is "no" in both cases.

I was all anticipating this reply from you. Is this your way of minimizing the problem? Do you support gerrymandering? Regardless, it should be illegal. An independent commission should be responsible to divide up a State into logical geographical areas like they used to do, like the example PA district looked decades ago.

 

[Accountable]

My suggestion is to go to the popular vote.

What do you mean?

 

[Alien Allen]

The answers is "no" in both cases.

I was all anticipating this reply from you. Is this your way of minimizing the problem? Do you support gerrymandering? Regardless, it should be illegal. An independent commission should be responsible to divide up a State into logical geographical areas like they used to do, like the example PA district looked decades ago.

you were the one making it partisan

not me

don't worry... it will be corrected eventually when the democrats get control.

same tree.... different monkeys is all