Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
Obama's Bipartisanship Scam
Author Message
SumOfAllFears Offline
Grim Reaper of Misguided Liberal Souls
*

Posts: 18,213
Joined: Nov 2008
Reputation: 58
I Root For: America
Location:
Post: #1
Obama's Bipartisanship Scam
When the Republican House leadership surprised its members with their invitation to President Obama to speak at the Republican retreat in Baltimore, many conservatives were dismayed. As the event played out on January 29th, their concerns appeared justified.

The reason for the invitation is that Republican leaders have read the polls, and are worried about the "party of no" label which the polls prove is damaging them. Their intent was to get the president to admit that they had ideas worth considering.

That led to the inevitable setup by White House political advisor David Axelrod who said in a Thursday interview that "It's time to put up or shut up. We will put the other party to the test and they will have to explain why they are standing in the way."

The president came to the Republican meeting weakened after a year of run amok liberalism, the most polarizing president ever. According to a new Rasmussen poll, only 21% of Americans believed his State of the Union claim that taxes have been cut for 95% of them.

He, more than the Republicans, needed the meeting. There was belligerence in Obama's opening remarks. Still campaigning against "Washington" politics, Obama chastised Republicans for party-line votes on the stimulus package, reiterated his State of the Union agenda and insisted on his form of "bipartisanship."

The televised event did accomplish the small Republican objective, but it was lost amidst the points Obama scored. Obama ducked and dodged a bit, admitting that Republicans had ideas worthy of consideration. But - seriatim - he derided the Republican legislative book he was handed as nothing more than talking points, demanding that they flesh them out into real proposals.

Flipping between CNN and Fox, I couldn't hear much of what Republican Conference Chairman Mike Pence (R-Ind.) said. Pence's microphone wasn't working. And when members asked the president questions -- tough ones from Jeb Hensarling (R-Texas), Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah) and Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.) -- the cameras never panned to show the congressmen.

They showed the president and only the president. Throughout, Obama pushed his bipartisanship scam. But he made it clear that it's a roach motel he's built for the Republicans willing to enter it: they'll go in and never come out without adopting his ideas wholesale.

He chastised Republicans for their characterizations of the health care bill, accusing them of painting it as "a Bolshevik plot." His smile wasn't charming, it was combative and uncertain, like Nancy Pelosi explaining her faux ignorance of CIA waterboarding.

Most House Republicans (such as Mike Pence, Tom Price, Blackburn, Hensarling and others who spoke) have taken responsible conservative positions against Obama's proposals. For that, they earned Obama's contempt. Obama added, "I mean, the fact of the matter is, is that many of you, if you voted with the administration on something, are politically vulnerable in your own base, in your own party. You've given yourselves very little room to work in a bipartisan fashion because what you've been telling your constituents is, this guy is doing all kinds of crazy stuff that's going to destroy America."

This is the central element of Obama's bipartisanship scam. He demands that Republicans let him set the terms of the debate and adopt his theory of government in order to be "bipartisan." To accept his terms, Obama demands that Republicans agree with his misstatements of fact. Case in point: Jeb Hensarling said, "You are soon to submit a new budget, Mr. President. Will that new budget, like your old budget, triple the national debt and continue to take us down the path of increasing the cost of government to almost 25 percent of our economy?"

In response, Obama accused Hensarling of asking a question formulated as a campaign talking point, and then said Hensarling lied: "So when you say that suddenly I've got a monthly budget that is higher than the -- a monthly deficit that's higher than the annual deficit left by the Republicans, that's factually just not true, and you know it's not true."

But of course, Hensarling didn't lie: Obama did.


According to a June 2009 report by the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office the federal deficit would rise from its 2008 level of $5.803 trillion to $17.126 trillion in 2019, which is 2.95 times larger than the 2008 level. (Even Obama's Office of Management and Budget admits the deficit would be multiplied by a factor of 2.76.).

Obama's bipartisanship scam is akin to the "legitimacy" scam that Kofi Annan ran when he was UN Secretary General. Annan insisted that international action -- especially military action -- couldn't be legitimate unless the UN blessed it. Under Obama's formulation, bipartisanship only exists when Republicans debate his ideas using his words and characterizations of the policies he prescribes. It's Obama's way of preparing the political battlefield so that only his statist ideas can be debated. "This guy" -- President Obama -- is doing a lot of crazy stuff that endangers our economy, our national security and our future. If Republicans fall for Obama's bipartisanship scam, they will have surrendered their ability to make big gains in November...

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=35423

PRESIDENTIAL INTERVIEWS (First Year in Office)
OBAMA --161
BUSH -- 50
CLINTON -- 53

SHORT Q & A SESSIONS
OBAMA --46
BUSH --147
CLINTON --252
(This post was last modified: 02-07-2010 11:40 AM by SumOfAllFears.)
02-07-2010 11:38 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement


RobertN Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 35,485
Joined: Jan 2003
Reputation: 95
I Root For: THE NIU Huskies
Location: Wayne's World
Post: #2
RE: Obama's Bipartisanship Scam
(02-07-2010 11:38 AM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  When the Republican House leadership surprised its members with their invitation to President Obama to speak at the Republican retreat in Baltimore, many conservatives were dismayed. As the event played out on January 29th, their concerns appeared justified.

The reason for the invitation is that Republican leaders have read the polls, and are worried about the "party of no" label which the polls prove is damaging them. Their intent was to get the president to admit that they had ideas worth considering.

That led to the inevitable setup by White House political advisor David Axelrod who said in a Thursday interview that "It's time to put up or shut up. We will put the other party to the test and they will have to explain why they are standing in the way."

The president came to the Republican meeting weakened after a year of run amok liberalism, the most polarizing president ever. According to a new Rasmussen poll, only 21% of Americans believed his State of the Union claim that taxes have been cut for 95% of them.

He, more than the Republicans, needed the meeting. There was belligerence in Obama's opening remarks. Still campaigning against "Washington" politics, Obama chastised Republicans for party-line votes on the stimulus package, reiterated his State of the Union agenda and insisted on his form of "bipartisanship."

The televised event did accomplish the small Republican objective, but it was lost amidst the points Obama scored. Obama ducked and dodged a bit, admitting that Republicans had ideas worthy of consideration. But - seriatim - he derided the Republican legislative book he was handed as nothing more than talking points, demanding that they flesh them out into real proposals.

Flipping between CNN and Fox, I couldn't hear much of what Republican Conference Chairman Mike Pence (R-Ind.) said. Pence's microphone wasn't working. And when members asked the president questions -- tough ones from Jeb Hensarling (R-Texas), Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah) and Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.) -- the cameras never panned to show the congressmen.

They showed the president and only the president. Throughout, Obama pushed his bipartisanship scam. But he made it clear that it's a roach motel he's built for the Republicans willing to enter it: they'll go in and never come out without adopting his ideas wholesale.

He chastised Republicans for their characterizations of the health care bill, accusing them of painting it as "a Bolshevik plot." His smile wasn't charming, it was combative and uncertain, like Nancy Pelosi explaining her faux ignorance of CIA waterboarding.

Most House Republicans (such as Mike Pence, Tom Price, Blackburn, Hensarling and others who spoke) have taken responsible conservative positions against Obama's proposals. For that, they earned Obama's contempt. Obama added, "I mean, the fact of the matter is, is that many of you, if you voted with the administration on something, are politically vulnerable in your own base, in your own party. You've given yourselves very little room to work in a bipartisan fashion because what you've been telling your constituents is, this guy is doing all kinds of crazy stuff that's going to destroy America."

This is the central element of Obama's bipartisanship scam. He demands that Republicans let him set the terms of the debate and adopt his theory of government in order to be "bipartisan." To accept his terms, Obama demands that Republicans agree with his misstatements of fact. Case in point: Jeb Hensarling said, "You are soon to submit a new budget, Mr. President. Will that new budget, like your old budget, triple the national debt and continue to take us down the path of increasing the cost of government to almost 25 percent of our economy?"

In response, Obama accused Hensarling of asking a question formulated as a campaign talking point, and then said Hensarling lied: "So when you say that suddenly I've got a monthly budget that is higher than the -- a monthly deficit that's higher than the annual deficit left by the Republicans, that's factually just not true, and you know it's not true."

But of course, Hensarling didn't lie: Obama did.


According to a June 2009 report by the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office the federal deficit would rise from its 2008 level of $5.803 trillion to $17.126 trillion in 2019, which is 2.95 times larger than the 2008 level. (Even Obama's Office of Management and Budget admits the deficit would be multiplied by a factor of 2.76.).

Obama's bipartisanship scam is akin to the "legitimacy" scam that Kofi Annan ran when he was UN Secretary General. Annan insisted that international action -- especially military action -- couldn't be legitimate unless the UN blessed it. Under Obama's formulation, bipartisanship only exists when Republicans debate his ideas using his words and characterizations of the policies he prescribes. It's Obama's way of preparing the political battlefield so that only his statist ideas can be debated. "This guy" -- President Obama -- is doing a lot of crazy stuff that endangers our economy, our national security and our future. If Republicans fall for Obama's bipartisanship scam, they will have surrendered their ability to make big gains in November...

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=35423

PRESIDENTIAL INTERVIEWS (First Year in Office)
OBAMA --161
BUSH -- 50
CLINTON -- 53

SHORT Q & A SESSIONS
OBAMA --46
BUSH --147
CLINTON --252
The Republicans NEVER wanted to be bipartisan. You even have an a-hole from Alabama holding up somewhere near 70 appointments for pork projects for his state(I thought you rightes were against pork? Guess it only matters if a "lefty" wants some, huh?). The Republican party is a joke.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mHV4nDS501Y
02-07-2010 05:11 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Smaug Offline
Happnin' Dude
*

Posts: 61,211
Joined: Mar 2005
Reputation: 842
I Root For: Dragons
Location: The Lonely Mountain

BlazerTalk AwardBlazerTalk AwardBlazerTalk AwardBlazerTalk Award
Post: #3
RE: Obama's Bipartisanship Scam
The democratic definition of bi-partisanship: "Agree with me" isn't a new phenomenon with Obama. It's been around a while.
02-07-2010 06:38 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
RobertN Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 35,485
Joined: Jan 2003
Reputation: 95
I Root For: THE NIU Huskies
Location: Wayne's World
Post: #4
RE: Obama's Bipartisanship Scam
(02-07-2010 06:38 PM)Smaug Wrote:  The democratic definition of bi-partisanship: "Agree with me" isn't a new phenomenon with Obama. It's been around a while.
Yeah, I remember the scare tactic of "Either you are with us or against us" Bush used to shepherding the sheep(including many Democrats).
02-07-2010 07:18 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Smaug Offline
Happnin' Dude
*

Posts: 61,211
Joined: Mar 2005
Reputation: 842
I Root For: Dragons
Location: The Lonely Mountain

BlazerTalk AwardBlazerTalk AwardBlazerTalk AwardBlazerTalk Award
Post: #5
RE: Obama's Bipartisanship Scam
I guess you missed fat Teddy Kennedy's "Republicans want starve children" welfare reform campaign from the 90s.
02-07-2010 07:21 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement


GilWinant Offline
Bench Warmer
*

Posts: 193
Joined: Feb 2010
Reputation: 0
I Root For: good games
Location:
Post: #6
RE: Obama's Bipartisanship Scam
Anyone who believes that the GOP is interested in anything remotely resembling bipartisanship is lying to themselves. The GOP leadership wants to regain some power in Congress. That can either occur by putting forth ideas and policies that the voting public agrees with or by tearing down the opposition. The GOP has sadly chosen the latter. I fear that is because they can't do the former.
02-07-2010 11:30 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Owl 69/70/75 Offline
Just an old rugby coach
*

Posts: 80,811
Joined: Sep 2005
Reputation: 3211
I Root For: RiceBathChelsea
Location: Montgomery, TX

DonatorsNew Orleans Bowl
Post: #7
RE: Obama's Bipartisanship Scam
(02-07-2010 11:30 PM)GilWinant Wrote:  Anyone who believes that the GOP is interested in anything remotely resembling bipartisanship is lying to themselves. The GOP leadership wants to regain some power in Congress. That can either occur by putting forth ideas and policies that the voting public agrees with or by tearing down the opposition. The GOP has sadly chosen the latter. I fear that is because they can't do the former.

Actually, the GOP has done the former and been rebuffed at every turn by the democrats. Following that, they really have no alternative but to attack the opposition.

I believe that the policies which the democrats are putting forth are devastatingly bad, and if enacted would harm the USA irreparably, and there are good reasons to support that belief. Exactly what is it that you believe someone who agrees with me SHOULD do?
02-07-2010 11:40 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
GilWinant Offline
Bench Warmer
*

Posts: 193
Joined: Feb 2010
Reputation: 0
I Root For: good games
Location:
Post: #8
RE: Obama's Bipartisanship Scam
(02-07-2010 11:40 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  
(02-07-2010 11:30 PM)GilWinant Wrote:  Anyone who believes that the GOP is interested in anything remotely resembling bipartisanship is lying to themselves. The GOP leadership wants to regain some power in Congress. That can either occur by putting forth ideas and policies that the voting public agrees with or by tearing down the opposition. The GOP has sadly chosen the latter. I fear that is because they can't do the former.

Actually, the GOP has done the former and been rebuffed at every turn by the democrats. Following that, they really have no alternative but to attack the opposition.

I believe that the policies which the democrats are putting forth are devastatingly bad, and if enacted would harm the USA irreparably, and there are good reasons to support that belief. Exactly what is it that you believe someone who agrees with me SHOULD do?

I don't think the GOP has put forth anything meaningful in recent congressional terms. Maybe my memory is just bad. Current GOP leadership is woeful with little prospect of improvement.
02-07-2010 11:51 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Owl 69/70/75 Offline
Just an old rugby coach
*

Posts: 80,811
Joined: Sep 2005
Reputation: 3211
I Root For: RiceBathChelsea
Location: Montgomery, TX

DonatorsNew Orleans Bowl
Post: #9
RE: Obama's Bipartisanship Scam
(02-07-2010 11:51 PM)GilWinant Wrote:  
(02-07-2010 11:40 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  
(02-07-2010 11:30 PM)GilWinant Wrote:  Anyone who believes that the GOP is interested in anything remotely resembling bipartisanship is lying to themselves. The GOP leadership wants to regain some power in Congress. That can either occur by putting forth ideas and policies that the voting public agrees with or by tearing down the opposition. The GOP has sadly chosen the latter. I fear that is because they can't do the former.
Actually, the GOP has done the former and been rebuffed at every turn by the democrats. Following that, they really have no alternative but to attack the opposition.
I believe that the policies which the democrats are putting forth are devastatingly bad, and if enacted would harm the USA irreparably, and there are good reasons to support that belief. Exactly what is it that you believe someone who agrees with me SHOULD do?
I don't think the GOP has put forth anything meaningful in recent congressional terms. Maybe my memory is just bad. Current GOP leadership is woeful with little prospect of improvement.

I am certainly not happy with the republican leadership nor with what they have put forth. I would much prefer comprehensive alternatives coming from more competent leaders. Unfortunately, we're not getting that from either party right now?

But to say they have not put forth anything meaningful is grossly to ignore the facts. Several alternative health care bills were filed by republicans but not allowed to move forward. Any number of republican amendments to the health care bill to address issues like malpractice reform and interstate availability of health insurance were put forth and rejected summarily. A significant number of house republicans sponsored an alternative to TARP--and a better one than what was passed. Maybe your memory is woeful, or maybe you never bothered to pay attention in the first place.

But I repeat my question that went unanswered. If you believe that what the democrats propose is truly awful, and if they use their supermajority muscle to prevent your ideas from even being considered, exactly what is it that you are supposed to do?
02-08-2010 12:03 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement


RobertN Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 35,485
Joined: Jan 2003
Reputation: 95
I Root For: THE NIU Huskies
Location: Wayne's World
Post: #10
RE: Obama's Bipartisanship Scam
(02-08-2010 12:03 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  
(02-07-2010 11:51 PM)GilWinant Wrote:  
(02-07-2010 11:40 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  
(02-07-2010 11:30 PM)GilWinant Wrote:  Anyone who believes that the GOP is interested in anything remotely resembling bipartisanship is lying to themselves. The GOP leadership wants to regain some power in Congress. That can either occur by putting forth ideas and policies that the voting public agrees with or by tearing down the opposition. The GOP has sadly chosen the latter. I fear that is because they can't do the former.
Actually, the GOP has done the former and been rebuffed at every turn by the democrats. Following that, they really have no alternative but to attack the opposition.
I believe that the policies which the democrats are putting forth are devastatingly bad, and if enacted would harm the USA irreparably, and there are good reasons to support that belief. Exactly what is it that you believe someone who agrees with me SHOULD do?
I don't think the GOP has put forth anything meaningful in recent congressional terms. Maybe my memory is just bad. Current GOP leadership is woeful with little prospect of improvement.

I am certainly not happy with the republican leadership nor with what they have put forth. I would much prefer comprehensive alternatives coming from more competent leaders. Unfortunately, we're not getting that from either party right now?

But to say they have not put forth anything meaningful is grossly to ignore the facts. Several alternative health care bills were filed by republicans but not allowed to move forward. Any number of republican amendments to the health care bill to address issues like malpractice reform and interstate availability of health insurance were put forth and rejected summarily. A significant number of house republicans sponsored an alternative to TARP--and a better one than what was passed. Maybe your memory is woeful, or maybe you never bothered to pay attention in the first place.

But I repeat my question that went unanswered. If you believe that what the democrats propose is truly awful, and if they use their supermajority muscle to prevent your ideas from even being considered, exactly what is it that you are supposed to do?
Malpractice reform. Yeah, a doctor screws up. Sorry, you can't sue. It might save money but it will destroy many families. Crossing state lines sounds good on the surface but what good will it do if there is an anti-trust law? The alternative to TARP is what? Let the banks fail and completely crash the world economy? Have the FDIC pay out how much in money?
02-08-2010 12:37 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
GilWinant Offline
Bench Warmer
*

Posts: 193
Joined: Feb 2010
Reputation: 0
I Root For: good games
Location:
Post: #11
RE: Obama's Bipartisanship Scam
(02-08-2010 12:03 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  
(02-07-2010 11:51 PM)GilWinant Wrote:  
(02-07-2010 11:40 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  
(02-07-2010 11:30 PM)GilWinant Wrote:  Anyone who believes that the GOP is interested in anything remotely resembling bipartisanship is lying to themselves. The GOP leadership wants to regain some power in Congress. That can either occur by putting forth ideas and policies that the voting public agrees with or by tearing down the opposition. The GOP has sadly chosen the latter. I fear that is because they can't do the former.
Actually, the GOP has done the former and been rebuffed at every turn by the democrats. Following that, they really have no alternative but to attack the opposition.
I believe that the policies which the democrats are putting forth are devastatingly bad, and if enacted would harm the USA irreparably, and there are good reasons to support that belief. Exactly what is it that you believe someone who agrees with me SHOULD do?
I don't think the GOP has put forth anything meaningful in recent congressional terms. Maybe my memory is just bad. Current GOP leadership is woeful with little prospect of improvement.

I am certainly not happy with the republican leadership nor with what they have put forth. I would much prefer comprehensive alternatives coming from more competent leaders. Unfortunately, we're not getting that from either party right now?

But to say they have not put forth anything meaningful is grossly to ignore the facts. Several alternative health care bills were filed by republicans but not allowed to move forward. Any number of republican amendments to the health care bill to address issues like malpractice reform and interstate availability of health insurance were put forth and rejected summarily. A significant number of house republicans sponsored an alternative to TARP--and a better one than what was passed. Maybe your memory is woeful, or maybe you never bothered to pay attention in the first place.

But I repeat my question that went unanswered. If you believe that what the democrats propose is truly awful, and if they use their supermajority muscle to prevent your ideas from even being considered, exactly what is it that you are supposed to do?

I didn't say the GOP hadn't offered any alternatives or plans, just that they hadn't offered anything meaningful. The examples you list are consistent with my proposition. Malpractice reform does little to change the health care cost trajectory and nothing to increase access for the uninsured or under-insured. Interstate availability would probably lead to a health care system that works much like our current credit card system - concentrations of companies in states with lax regulation and requirements selling into other states. I don't think people are looking for low-quality, lower priced insurance. It definitely doesn't represent an improvement to the current system. And as I recall, the GOP alternative to TARP was universally panned by economists because is relied on the government to back insurance on assets that had already soured. That simply doesn't make sense. Do you think these represent meaningful proposals? I hope not.

It's no mystery what you should do if you don't like the policies being advocated the current Congressional leadership - work to elect leaders that mirror your preferences.
02-08-2010 12:37 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Owl 69/70/75 Offline
Just an old rugby coach
*

Posts: 80,811
Joined: Sep 2005
Reputation: 3211
I Root For: RiceBathChelsea
Location: Montgomery, TX

DonatorsNew Orleans Bowl
Post: #12
RE: Obama's Bipartisanship Scam
(02-08-2010 12:37 AM)GilWinant Wrote:  I didn't say the GOP hadn't offered any alternatives or plans, just that they hadn't offered anything meaningful. The examples you list are consistent with my proposition. Malpractice reform does little to change the health care cost trajectory and nothing to increase access for the uninsured or under-insured. Interstate availability would probably lead to a health care system that works much like our current credit card system - concentrations of companies in states with lax regulation and requirements selling into other states. I don't think people are looking for low-quality, lower priced insurance. It definitely doesn't represent an improvement to the current system. And as I recall, the GOP alternative to TARP was universally panned by economists because is relied on the government to back insurance on assets that had already soured. That simply doesn't make sense. Do you think these represent meaningful proposals? I hope not.
It's no mystery what you should do if you don't like the policies being advocated the current Congressional leadership - work to elect leaders that mirror your preferences.

Meaningfulness, particularly the way you are employing it, is a subjective concept. I think Obamacare would be a much better product if those republican points had been considered. The bottom line is that you do not know what the trajectory of health care cost would be if malpractice were reformed; we do know that countries with a different approach to malpractice have substantially lower medical costs than we do. How much is due to malpractice and defensive medicine and how much is due to other factors has not been authoritatively established. I've seen estimates ranging from 1% of total medical costs to roughly half the difference between us and cheaper countries, each analysis flawed by assumptions favorable to the particular mantra of its proponent(s). The errors in the high-end studies are less absurd than those in the low-end studies, so I would expect an actual result closer to the high end of the range, but that's not certain. For that matter, exactly how do you see the democrats' proposals altering the health care cost trajectory without a material adverse effect on quality?

What we can do is look at what works and doesn't work in other countries. The two systems most often mentioned favorably by proponents of Obamacare--Canada and UK--tend to do pretty poorly when compared to truly world-class systems.

If people aren't looking for low-quality, lower priced insurance, then they aren't going to like Obamacare very much. The direction that the democrats are pointing us is toward low-cost, universal crap. The idea that if we like our insurance, we will be able to keep it, is simply a lie. Our insurance today won't exist, so there's no way we'll be able to keep it (and that applies without regard to whether there is a public option, just worse if there is one). If we retain some option to procure private insurance (like UK), that will be my choice; if we don't (like Canada) I will plan to get my health care in France so long as I can afford to go there every time I get sick or have an injury. Granted, the health care reform bills passed by the senate and house don't get us all the way to that disaster. But they are major first steps on the way. We don't need a Council on Comparative Outcomes (from "stimulus" rather than this bill, to be clear) or a Health Choices Commission unless we are going to single-payer/single-provider health care. And that will be crap.

My own approach would be a French/German/Swiss style Bismarck model that provides universal care with less government involvement than we have here now. Republicans haven't proposed that as an alternative, and to that extent I agree with your disappointment. So they didn't do all that I would have wanted them to do, but claiming that they have not proposed anything meaningful is simply a lie. I guess my question to you would be, exactly what would the republicans have to do in order for you to give them credit for something meaningful?

The problem with your proposed solution to my dilemma is that there are no prospective leaders who mirror my preferences. Republicans seem not to do enough about problems, and democrats do things that will make them worse rather than better. Neither appeals to me.
(This post was last modified: 02-08-2010 01:13 PM by Owl 69/70/75.)
02-08-2010 10:40 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Smaug Offline
Happnin' Dude
*

Posts: 61,211
Joined: Mar 2005
Reputation: 842
I Root For: Dragons
Location: The Lonely Mountain

BlazerTalk AwardBlazerTalk AwardBlazerTalk AwardBlazerTalk Award
Post: #13
RE: Obama's Bipartisanship Scam
Malpractice reform. Yeah, a doctor screws up. Sorry, you can't sue. It might save money but it will destroy many families. [/quote]

Way to read something nobody wrote.

How about setting reasonable caps for what people can sue for?
02-08-2010 10:42 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement


Owl 69/70/75 Offline
Just an old rugby coach
*

Posts: 80,811
Joined: Sep 2005
Reputation: 3211
I Root For: RiceBathChelsea
Location: Montgomery, TX

DonatorsNew Orleans Bowl
Post: #14
RE: Obama's Bipartisanship Scam
Sweden has no-fault malpractice. And that works. That's what we should be doing.
02-08-2010 10:44 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Owl 69/70/75 Offline
Just an old rugby coach
*

Posts: 80,811
Joined: Sep 2005
Reputation: 3211
I Root For: RiceBathChelsea
Location: Montgomery, TX

DonatorsNew Orleans Bowl
Post: #15
RE: Obama's Bipartisanship Scam
The following article seems relevant here.

Why are Liberals so Condescending?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/con...03698.html

By Gerard Alexander, The Washington Post
Sunday, February 7, 2010

Every political community includes some members who insist that their side has all the answers and that their adversaries are idiots. But American liberals, to a degree far surpassing conservatives, appear committed to the proposition that their views are correct, self-evident, and based on fact and reason, while conservative positions are not just wrong but illegitimate, ideological and unworthy of serious consideration. Indeed, all the appeals to bipartisanship notwithstanding, President Obama and other leading liberal voices have joined in a chorus of intellectual condescension.

It's an odd time for liberals to feel smug. But even with Democratic fortunes on the wane, leading liberals insist that they have almost nothing to learn from conservatives. Many Democrats describe their troubles simply as a PR challenge, a combination of conservative misinformation ...

This sense of liberal intellectual superiority dropped off during the economic woes of the 1970s and the Reagan boom of the 1980s. (Jimmy Carter's presidency, buffeted by economic and national security challenges, generated perhaps the clearest episode of liberal self-doubt.) But these days, liberal confidence and its companion disdain for conservative thinking are back with a vengeance, finding energetic expression in politicians' speeches, top-selling books, historical works and the blogosphere. This attitude comes in the form of four major narratives about who conservatives are and how they think and function.

The rest is well worth the read.
(This post was last modified: 02-08-2010 12:49 PM by Owl 69/70/75.)
02-08-2010 12:35 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Smaug Offline
Happnin' Dude
*

Posts: 61,211
Joined: Mar 2005
Reputation: 842
I Root For: Dragons
Location: The Lonely Mountain

BlazerTalk AwardBlazerTalk AwardBlazerTalk AwardBlazerTalk Award
Post: #16
RE: Obama's Bipartisanship Scam
"Error: We could not locate the page you requested."
02-08-2010 12:45 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Owl 69/70/75 Offline
Just an old rugby coach
*

Posts: 80,811
Joined: Sep 2005
Reputation: 3211
I Root For: RiceBathChelsea
Location: Montgomery, TX

DonatorsNew Orleans Bowl
Post: #17
RE: Obama's Bipartisanship Scam
(02-08-2010 12:45 PM)Smaug Wrote:  "Error: We could not locate the page you requested."

I get the same error now.

Try http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/con...03698.html

Will fix main post
(This post was last modified: 02-08-2010 12:49 PM by Owl 69/70/75.)
02-08-2010 12:47 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement


SumOfAllFears Offline
Grim Reaper of Misguided Liberal Souls
*

Posts: 18,213
Joined: Nov 2008
Reputation: 58
I Root For: America
Location:
Post: #18
RE: Obama's Bipartisanship Scam
"intellectual condescension", Who would have thought. And all this from the smartest president to ever sit on the Whitehouse porch.
02-08-2010 12:49 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Smaug Offline
Happnin' Dude
*

Posts: 61,211
Joined: Mar 2005
Reputation: 842
I Root For: Dragons
Location: The Lonely Mountain

BlazerTalk AwardBlazerTalk AwardBlazerTalk AwardBlazerTalk Award
Post: #19
RE: Obama's Bipartisanship Scam
(02-08-2010 12:47 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  
(02-08-2010 12:45 PM)Smaug Wrote:  "Error: We could not locate the page you requested."

I get the same error now.

Try http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/con...03698.html

Will fix main post

Thanks. Interesting read. Guess the Post is a right-wing mouthpiece now, too, huh?
02-09-2010 08:58 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2024 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2024 MyBB Group.