Watching two Dallas Reps speaking in House

paso, doesn't seem like you have much except bluster and name calling. Maybe try a different approach for once.
 
There should be a name for an ad hominem that accuses someone else of ad hominem. Maybe addis hominemes?

laugh.gif
 
Paso knows all of the dem talking points and has even remembered the names to call anyone who opposes their views. The new "terrorists" trend would be amusing if not for the thousands of people murdered by true terrorists.
 
When Tip O'Neill engineered government shutdowns when he was in the same context at the Republicans are in today, it wasn't described the end of the world. Why now is it such a HUGE ISSUE?

One big difference between then and now is that the Republicans in control of the Senate and Presidency were willing to negotiate and compromise EVEN WITH ONE HALF OF ONE THIRD OF THE GOVERNMENT! We have seen over the last 5 years that Obama and Reid haven't been willing to negotiate on anything. They are the ones acting in historically different ways not their counterparts in the House.
 
I can always count on cartoon-like understanding of issues and politics on this forum. It never disappoints.
 
SH, that's hilarious. It was okay when the Democrats did it because we liked them then and now we don't. Such great, great logic.
 
So your idea of compromise is that the House should plan to fully fund the ACA as the Senate and President seem to desire? My understanding is that the House is asking that some portion of the funding be delayed. That doesn't sound like the extreme situation you seem to be describing.
 
You guys just make **** up and then suddenly it is a compromise?

A compromise would have been reducing the medical device tax for a year or something (proposed months ago) not this continuation of stop Obamacare at all costs nonsense.

An ever better compromise would be to allow a vote in the House on a clean CR to fund the entire government. Then we could really see where everyone stands.
 
So, Imagine that the company you work for held a poll, and asked everyone if they thought it would be a good idea to put a soda machine in the break room. The poll came back, and the majority of your colleagues said “Yes”, indicating that they would like a soda machine. Some said no, but the majority said yes. So, a week later, there’s a soda machine.

Now imagine that Bill in accounting voted against the soda machine. He has a strong hatred for caffeinated soft drinks, thinks they are bad you you, whatever. He campaigns throughout the office to get the machine removed. Well, management decides “OK, we’ll ask again” and again, the majority of people say “Yes, lets keep the soda machine.”

Bill continues to campaign, and management continues to ask the employees, and every time, the answer is in favor of the soda machine. This happens, lets say… 35 times. Eventually, Bill says “OK, I’M NOT PROCESSING PAYROLL ANYMORE UNTIL THE SODA MACHINE IS REMOVED”, so nobody will get paid unless management removes the machine. What should we do???

Answer: Fire Bill and get someone who will do the ******* job.

Bonus: Bill tells everyone that he was willing to “Negotiate”, to come to a solution where everyone got their payroll checks, but only so long as that negotiation capitulated to his demand to remove the soda machine.

Bill is a ******* jackass.
 
What if Bill's hatred is not hatred of caffeinated drinks,but a realization that it will hurt, and potentially bankrupt, the company?

That is a more appropriate analogy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Weekly Prediction Contest

* Predict HORNS-AGGIES *
Sat, Nov 30 • 6:30 PM on ABC

Recent Threads

Prediction Results Threads

2024 Schedules

Back
Top