(November 7, 2014 at 11:45 am)Esquilax Wrote: Yeah, except that unlike you, I remember what the republicans' idea of a compromise was before they controlled both houses. I remember their unwavering demands to be completely catered to at every turn, and that if they didn't get that they'd work to burn down as much of the dems' work as they could, heedless to the cost to the people, all the while couching their refusal to come to a compromise as a... you know, compromise in accusations that Obama just isn't being "reasonable" to their side by not giving them everything they want immediately. I remember the republican side who would rather have the government shut down than do their jobs, and I'm wondering why you think compromise- true compromise and not just your little right wing heart getting everything it wants- will be remotely possible now that those same people have even more power.

The Republican's idea of "bipartisanship" and "compromise" in an image:

(November 7, 2014 at 12:01 pm)Heywood Wrote: Obama threatened to shut down government too.....but you conveniently forget that.

Do you... seriously not see any difference between a threat and actually doing it?

Oh, of course. You're pretending not to because you can never backtrack on anything, ever.

Quote: He made his threats and ultimatums just like everyone else.

You mean he argued his position, which was based on informed reasons and not just on "can't let Obama win!"

Quote: Reid shut down the republicans in the Senate by not letting their amendments be voted on. Whats worse is the douchebag started to shut down the amendments of the democrats too. Typically 2% of amendments come the majority leader....but towards the end...30% of the amendments were coming from Reid. The asshole began to monopolize power in the senate. Good riddance to him.

So you can hardly accuse it of being the same kind of thoughtless partisan move that we're used to from the republicans, can you?

(November 7, 2014 at 12:24 pm)Esquilax Wrote:

(November 7, 2014 at 12:01 pm)Heywood Wrote: Obama threatened to shut down government too.....but you conveniently forget that.

Do you... seriously not see any difference between a threat and actually doing it?

If Obama had no intention of carrying thru with his threat as you suggest....then he was lying to congress and the American people.......

(November 7, 2014 at 12:01 pm)Heywood Wrote: Kudos for adding content to this threat(I'm being sarcastic if your too dumb to figure that out).

I'll give you substance when you merit it. As matters stand, you're not reading posts that run counter to your views, so why should anyone bother?

You've relegated yourself to irrelevance. Why are you now complaining about not being taken seriously? When you're able to take differing views aboard with a modicum of maturity and a little insight, you'll deserve something more than the occasional mockery and laughter.

You're so purblind you don't even realize this about yourself.

Also, anyone casting aspersions about someone else's intelligence ought to know the difference between "your" and "you're". Dipshit.

(November 5, 2014 at 5:34 pm)A Theist Wrote: We don't oppose Barack because he's black, we oppose Barack because he sucks at his job.

And the rest of the world see a man doing a good job with very difficult intractable opposition.

When he was elected the view of America in the world went up.

Seriously, you've only just stopped being a comedy nation.

(November 5, 2014 at 5:34 pm)A Theist Wrote: We don't oppose Barack because he's black, we oppose Barack because he sucks at his job.

No doubt that's true for some but not others. The proof is in the pudding:

No president before this one has ever been forced to produce his birth certificate to prove he's "one of us".

No president before this one has ever been heckled in a State of the Union address by a sitting member of Congress, a Congress representative who was then celebrated as a hero for doing so.

No president before this one has ever been faced with a record low number of bills passed by the House and a record high number of filibusters, all done deliberately to sabotage the country and make him look bad. They even nearly defaulted on our debts deliberately as a political stunt, a move which would have demolished our economy.

Coincidence?

(November 7, 2014 at 12:35 pm)Heywood Wrote:

(November 7, 2014 at 12:24 pm)Esquilax Wrote: Do you... seriously not see any difference between a threat and actually doing it?

If Obama had no intention of carrying thru with his threat as you suggest....then he was lying to congress and the American people.......

Or... or, and follow me on this, he realized how fucking petty and detrimental to the American people doing that would be, and changed his position, rather than barreling over the cliff's edge to win rhetorical points via selling that self flagellation as some kind of irreparable inability to compromise.

Quote:No doubt that's true for some but not others. The proof is in the pudding:

No president before this one has ever been forced to produce his birth certificate to prove he's "one of us".

No president before this one has ever been heckled in a State of the Union address by a sitting member of Congress, a Congress representative who was then celebrated as a hero for doing so.

No president before this one has ever been faced with a record low number of bills passed by the House and a record high number of filibusters, all done deliberately to sabotage the country and make him look bad. They even nearly defaulted on our debts deliberately as a political stunt, a move which would have demolished our economy.

Coincidence?

Or liberals tried to use white guilt to implement socialism in America. Didn't work lol

(November 7, 2014 at 2:47 pm)dimaniac Wrote: Or liberals tried to use white guilt to implement socialism in America. Didn't work lol

You know, back in my Reagan Republican days, "socialism" had a specific meaning. You didn't call anyone a "socialist" as an empty pejorative.

Obama is not even a liberal, never mind a socialist.

Let a real liberal like me run the country. Your head would explode.

(November 7, 2014 at 1:58 pm)Parkers Tan Wrote:

(November 7, 2014 at 12:01 pm)Heywood Wrote: Kudos for adding content to this threat(I'm being sarcastic if your too dumb to figure that out).

I'll give you substance when you merit it. As matters stand, you're not reading posts that run counter to your views, so why should anyone bother?

The introduction of his post was an argument of authority.....he isn't an authority. Its his fault he lost his audience by starting out with a fallacy on sentence one. Would you read a wall of text if the first sentence was a fallacy? Say "Listen Sonnyboy, The bible is the word of God because it says so in the bible".....would you really waste your time reading the rest of the post or would you just dismiss the rest of the post as dribble?

If DP wants his post read in their entirety...he needs to stop introducing by saying "Listen Sonny...I'm an authority on the subject"....at least until he establishes himself as such.