T1B

Senate Dems: Go Fuck Yourself. Go Fuck Yourself Right Away!!

Senate Democrats forced to block Obama's jobs bill

Senate Republicans tried to make Democrats hold a quick vote on President Obama's jobs-stimulus bill Tuesday, but were blocked by Senate Majority Harry Reid, the Nevada Democrat who is sponsoring Mr. Obama's bill but who said other matters take priority.

Mr. Obama has traveled the country calling for Congress to pass his plan immediately — including most recently Tuesday afternoon in Texas — but the tax increases included in his bill are opposed by Republicans and even many Democrats.

With that in mind, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, Kentucky Republican, tried to force a vote, which presumably would have resulted in a humiliating defeat for the White House.

"I'd like to give him that vote," Mr. McConnell said.

....

Mr. Reid said "a majority of the Senate" supports Mr. Obama's bill, and said the president's repeated calls for immediate action were aimed at Republicans last month ( )

http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/ins ... jobs-bill/

Yes, of course. The bill has a majority in the Senate yet doesn't have a single cosponsor.

Oh and, needless to say, the Niggger immediately goes out and blatantly lies about it.

Obama knocks GOP leader, says GOP blocks jobs vote

MESQUITE, Texas (AP) — President Barack Obama is naming names.

First he singled out House Speaker John Boehner and Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell.

On Tuesday, Rep. Eric Cantor, R-Va., came in for a presidential scolding as Obama used an economic sales pitch in Texas to criticize the House majority leader for refusing to take up the president's jobs bill.

"Eric Cantor said that right now, he won't even let this jobs bill have a vote in the House of Representatives. That's what he said. Won't even let it be debated," Obama said in a speech at a community college in Mesquite, a Dallas suburb. "Think about that. What's the problem? Do they not have the time? They just had a week off. Is it inconvenient?"

"At least put this jobs bill up for a vote so that the entire country knows exactly where members of Congress stand," the president said. "Put your cards on the table."

Even as Obama spoke, McConnell was attempting to call his bluff by pushing for a quick Senate vote on the jobs bill, which Senate Democrats have acknowledged doesn't have the support to pass.

http://news.yahoo.com/obama-knocks-gop- ... 47956.html

Is the change you were hoping for? How's it workin out for ya? Any libtards want to defend this pathetic assclown?

Yeah, that's what I thought.

oh boy

:|

Everything will be ok. Breathe into a paper bag if necessary.

MgoBlue-LightSpecial wrote:Everything will be ok. Breathe into a paper bag if necessary.

What the hell are you talking about? Under the circumstances, I think I'm handling this quite well. In fact...




Oh...you meant...I...I...uhhhh...

This presidencey is such a complete FAIL that it's really become surreal.

Like watching a very bad 4 year SNL skit play out before our eyes.

Sad thing is, it's only going to get worse.

poptart wrote:Sad thing is, it's only going to get worse.

you don't act very Christian

Bizzarofelice wrote:

poptart wrote:Sad thing is, it's only going to get worse.

you don't act very Christian

Why do you hate dog eaters?

Bace wrote:you don't act very Christian

And here I was only expecting, "Yeah, but Bush..."

Nice job raising your game there.

poptart wrote: Sad thing is, it's only going to get worse.

Maybe not for too much longer, November 2012 isn't that far away. Regardless, his matches have all but been taken away so he can't burn up any more money.

His own party has basically bailed on him. I wouldn't be surprised if there's some backroom discussions going on right now to run Hilary in the primaries to unseat this asshat and give Dems a fighting chance next year. But the damage done has been great and she may not want to go down with the ship.

I've said for a very long time that there is NO way Barry wins re-election and that it's most likely that he won't even be the democratic nominee.


Wagon, it's going to get worse, not because Barry is still free to ram his "vision" up our ass, but because the legs have already been cut out from under the economy and it's caving in as we speak.

It's going to get a lot worse before it gets better.

yeah 'tart, we get that you're a 'glass half full' guy.

poptart wrote: It's going to get a lot worse before it gets better.

WWJR?


* Who Would Jesus Run?


...and the answer is...he would run us all, for we are His sheep and He is our shepherd.

:|

poptart wrote:This presidencey is such a complete FAIL that it's really become surreal.

Like watching a very bad 4 year SNL skit play out before our eyes.

Sad thing is, it's only going to get worse.

For Odowngrade...

CBS Reporter: White House Official ‘Screamed’ & ‘Cussed’ at Me for Coverage of ‘Fast and Furious’

CBS reporter Sharyl Attkisson has been doggedly covering the ATF and DOJ scandal surrounding the gunwalking “Fast and Furious” case. And now she’s coming out with some juicy details about her attempts to get information from the DOJ and the White House regarding the case.

On Laura Ingraham’s radio show Tuesday, Attkisson said she was “screamed” and “cussed” at by the White House while trying to get information last Friday, and that a DOJ spokesperson “yelled” at her while she was trying to get clarification on the case. And she named names.

Ingraham: So they were literally screaming at you?

Attkisson: Yes. Well the DOJ woman was just yelling at me. The guy from the White House on Friday night literally screamed at me and cussed at me.

Ingraham: Who was the person? Who was the person at Justice screaming?

Attkisson: Eric Schultz Oh, the person screaming was [DOJ spokeswoman] Tracy Schmaler, she was yelling not screaming. And the person who screamed at me was Eric Schultz at the White House.

Why such the reaction from the spokespeople?

“They will tell you that I’m the only reporter–as they told me–that is not reasonable,” she told Ingraham. “They say the Washington Post is reasonable, the LA Times is reasonable, the New York Times is reasonable, I’m the only one who thinks this is a story, and they think I’m unfair and biased by pursuing it.”

This all comes House RepublicanS are calling for a special investigation of Attorney General Eric Holder over his handling of the scandal and after it was revealed this week that Holder was sent briefings on the program as early as June 2010. That contradicts his statement under oath in May 2011 that he first heard about the operation “over the last few weeks.” Holder’s camp has tried to explain the contradiction by saying he was referring to the details of the case and not the case itself.

Sen. Charles Grassley (R-IA) addressed the issue on Fox today and said he personally handed a letter to Holder on the issue in January of this year, which would also seem to contradict Holder’s defense:

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/cbs-rep ... d-furious/

The wheels are off the cart and all the dumb motherfucking sacks of shit in this pathetic administration can do is scream, yell and lie out their asses.

poptart wrote:I've said for a very long time that there is NO way Barry wins re-election and that it's most likely that he won't even be the democratic nominee

obama is going to be the democratic nominee....

exactly who do you see from the democratic side supplanting him?

Felix wrote:exactly who do you see from the democratic side supplanting him?

Knock, knock, hello?

I think we've already covered that.

I'm a conservative right wing wacko, and I'd vote for Hillary if I was Dem. Bitch has bigger balls than Obama, that's for sure. She's the American version of Angela Merkel.

Felix wrote:obama is going to be the democratic nominee....

exactly who do you see from the democratic side supplanting him?

Perhaps Hitlery is a possibility.

But it doesn't matter "who I see" getting the nomination, because when the dems realize (maybe they already have) that Barry CAN NOT win, they will nominate somebody who at least has a chance.

Or when Barry says, "I'm not running again," they will need to put someone else out there.

Can a piece of shit actually pull the handle and flush "itself" down the toilet?

Hope and change.

War Wagon wrote:

Felix wrote:exactly who do you see from the democratic side supplanting him?

Knock, knock, hello?

I think we've already covered that.

I'm a conservative right wing wacko, and I'd vote for Hillary if I was Dem. Bitch has bigger balls than Obama, that's for sure. She's the American version of Angela Merkel.

Hillary's unelectable. Period. The Republicans have been gunning for her for close to 20 years now.

Hillary as the Democratic nominee is a right-wing wet dream because that's the only way they'll be able to motivate their base to come out, particularly if "Who Let the Dogs Out" is the Republican nominee.

If it comes down to a contest between Oblahblah and Romney, which I don't think it will, Romney will ROLL to victory.

In 2008, J. McLame (a very BAD rep. candidate) failed to get the base to come out for him and he still got 179 electoral votes.

The base won't want to come out for Romney, either, but what they will come out for - is to throw the current piece of shit out of office.


Barry has lost his base.

Hell, if even the young idiots no longer believe his bullshit, how can he expect to influence older independents to come out and vote for him?

Oh that's right, he can't, and the polls are showing this.

His support among independents has SERIOUSLY eroded.

They no longer buy his bullshit, either and Barry is just flat out ---> OVER.

If the dems are dumb enough to try to run him in '12, they'll absord an overwhelming defeat.

I would agree that Obama won't gain reelection IF the Republicans can march out an electable candidate, but Romney is the ONLY Republican out of the frontrunners who would beat him.....unless they nominate some other moderate. None of the right wing teabaggers have a prayer, so all of you right wingers will still be bitching a year after the election, and undoubtedly still blaming Obama.

Mace, where the hell have you been?

Good to see you back, bro'.

Martyred wrote:Mace, where the hell have you been?

Good to see you back, bro'.

I've been working lots of hours, Marty, and haven't had much time for this place.

Mace wrote:I would agree that Obama won't gain reelection IF the Republicans can march out an electable candidate, but Romney is the ONLY Republican out of the frontrunners who would beat him.....unless they nominate some other moderate. None of the right wing teabaggers have a prayer, so all of you right wingers will still be bitching a year after the election, and undoubtedly still blaming Obama.

Spot on.

The only other question in that situation is that if Obama wins reelection will corporations continue to hold their huge cash reserves to try to sway voters at the midterms to bring in a republican/tea bagger super-majority.

Diego in Seattle wrote:...will corporations continue to hold their huge cash reserves to try to sway voters at the midterms to bring in a republican/tea bagger super-majority.

Why would corporations withhold contributions to the Dems?

Hasn't Obama splayed his asshole wide enough for Big Business?

Diego in Seattle wrote:...republican/tea bagger super-majority.

Wall St. doesn't want a tea-bagger anything.

poptart wrote:If it comes down to a contest between Oblahblah and Romney, which I don't think it will, Romney will ROLL to victory.

if the rep nominee gets on the tea party bandwagon and espouses the idea of cutting social security and medicare services, you're going to find out just how many people there are in this country that aren't down with that political philosophy....

of course, if it's Romney he'll be for it before he's against it (or vice-a-versa)

Mace wrote:I would agree that Obama won't gain reelection IF the Republicans can march out an electable candidate, but Romney is the ONLY Republican out of the frontrunners who would beat him.....unless they nominate some other moderate. None of the right wing teabaggers have a prayer, so all of you right wingers will still be bitching a year after the election, and undoubtedly still blaming Obama.

Pretty much how I see it.

How bad have things become when an empty suit like Barack Obama and a flip-flopping fistful of Just For Men are the only two electable options to 'lead' our country.

People, we truly suck.

Van wrote:
People, we truly suck.

Pretty much.......

There is a jobs bill on the table, and a darn good one, at that.

WASHINGTON -- The Senate on Monday weighed whether to punish China for undervaluing its currency and taking away American jobs. At issue is whether legislation would boost the American economy, as its supporters argue, or initiate a damaging trade war with a major partner.

The bill has bipartisan backing and on Monday evening is expected to garner the 60 votes needed to move it to the 100-member Senate floor. But the legislation faces considerable hurdles before it becomes law. The Obama White House, while agreeing that China's yuan is undervalued, has been wary of bilateral sanctions against the Beijing government. Major U.S. business groups share that concern and House Republican leaders have shown no interest in bringing it to a vote.

The currency bill does give congressional Democrats an opportunity to show they remain tough on unfair trade practices as the White House prepares to send to Congress free trade agreements with South Korea, Colombia and Panama that some Democrats see as threats to U.S. jobs.

The Senate bill, which does not specifically mention China, sets in motion a process for imposing punitive tariffs on a country with misaligned currencies. The bill also makes it easier for specific industries to seek higher tariffs on foreign competitors when undervalued currencies become a means to subsidize exports.

Supporters of the bill say that, despite some incremental adjustments by Beijing over the past year, the value of the yuan is still as much as 40 percent below what it should be, keeping the prices of Chinese goods artificially low and U.S. products excessively high. They say that's a major factor in a trade deficit with China that hit $273 billion last year.

It's time, said Sen. Bob Casey, a Democrat, to "let the officials in China know that there are consequences to cheating."

Said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, a Democrat, on Monday: "This legislation will even the playing field and help American goods compete in a global market -- and keep American jobs here at home."

The Fair Currency Coalition, a group that supports the bill, gives the example of how a Chinese customer wanting to buy a $20,000 U.S. car would have to pay almost 140,000 yuan at the current exchange rate. But if the rate reflected market values, that car would cost only about 80,000 yuan, making it much more affordable.

Robert Scott of the left-leaning Economic Policy Institute said that with a 28.5 percent revaluation the price of a Boeing 737, about $57 million in dollars, would fall from the current 363.7 million yuan to 259.3 million yuan. "This would greatly increase the competitiveness of U.S. aircraft both in China and in world export markets."

But the consequences of imposing higher tariffs on Chinese goods are hard to predict. Bill supporters say it would make American goods more competitive and point to a study by Scott that appreciating the yuan by 28.5 percent would create up to 2.25 million jobs and cut the U.S. annual trade deficit by $190.5 billion.

But Doug Guthrie, dean of the George Washington University School of Business, argues that the legislation would do little to put Americans back to work and could saddle consumers with higher-priced Chinese goods.

He said it was difficult to see how any currency adjustment would close the wage gap between Chinese and American workers and that most economists predict that American importers would simply switch from China to other low-wage countries such as Vietnam or Indonesia. Moreover, big sellers of Chinese goods such as Wal-Mart are heavily investing in the Chinese market, and are not likely to stop buying from Chinese factories.

"Wal-Mart is so deeply embedded in China that there is no way" they will leave, and the end result will be higher prices for American consumers, he said.

Another concern is that China would retaliate by boosting tariffs on U.S. products. China's official Xinhua News Agency, in a commentary, said the Senate bill was "a publicity attempt to attract voters and distract attention from the real problems facing the U.S. economy." It added that "trade conflict always leads to bilateral damage."

The Obama administration, like the Bush administration before it, agrees that China needs to appreciate its currency, but has cautioned against bilateral action that could generate a trade war.

The Senate vote coincides with a trip to Beijing by Treasury Undersecretary Lael Brainard. Treasury said in a statement that Brainard would tell the Chinese that while the yuan "has appreciated 10 percent adjusted for inflation since June 2010, the currency remains substantially undervalued, and more progress is needed."

The House in September 2010, voted 348-79 for a more narrow China currency bill, but the top two Republicans, current Speaker John Boehner and Majority Leader Eric Cantor, were against it and do not appear inclined to bring up the issue if it passes the Senate.

Dinsdale wrote:...to punish China for undervaluing its currency and taking away American jobs.

Nice one!

Oh man...I just love these Onion stories! Got any more?

It's from The Onion, right?

Martyred wrote:

Dinsdale wrote:...to punish China for undervaluing its currency and taking away American jobs.

:lol:

Nice one!

Oh man...I just love these Onion stories! Got any more?

Let's see...

The US has about $10 trillion in public debt.

14 years ago, before Bubba and Co. sold us down the river, China held about $0.00 in US public debt. Now, they own about $3.5 trillion.

Nah, that doesn't æffect American employment in the slightest, right?

Marty, just keep handing your paycheque over to your government, and leave the economic discussions to the folks with a clue, OK?

poptart wrote:If it comes down to a contest between Oblahblah and Romney, which I don't think it will, Romney will ROLL to victory.

In 2008, J. McLame (a very BAD rep. candidate) failed to get the base to come out for him and he still got 179 electoral votes.

McSame got 173 electoral votes. The states he won picked up a net total of six additional electoral votes as a result of the intervening census.

179 electoral votes doesn't get you remotely close to winning the Presidency. Both Gore and Kerry -- considered among the weakest major-party nominees in U.S. history by no less an expert than Whitey Wagon -- got considerably more than that.

And if you look at the particulars of the electoral map, Obama won a total of nine states and one Congressional District that W won in '04:

Florida (27)
Ohio (18)
North Carolina (15)
Virginia (13)
Indiana (11)
Colorado (9)
Iowa (6)
Nevada (6)
New Mexico (5)
NE-2 (1)

If we assume that Obama wins every state Kerry won in '04, and that the Republican nominee wins every state McSame won in '08, that leaves us, at random, with 1,024 possibilities.

If Obama wins Florida, game over. 512 possibilities for Obama.

If Obama loses Florida but wins Ohio, he can win the election by winning either North Carolina, Virginia, Indiana, Colorado, Iowa, or Nevada, or by winning both New Mexico and NE-2. That's 253 of 256 possibilities for Obama.

If Obama loses Florida and Ohio but wins North Carolina, he wins the election by winning either Virginia, Indiana, or Colorado, or any two from among Iowa, Nevada and New Mexico. That's 120 of 128 possibilities for Obama.

If Obama loses Florida, Ohio, and North Carolina, but wins Virginia, he can win the election by also winning Indiana, or by winning any two from among Colorado, Iowa, Nevada or New Mexico. That's 54 of 64 possibilities for Obama.

If Obama loses Florida, Ohio, North Carolina and Virginia, but wins Indiana, he can win the election by also winning Colorado and any one state from among Iowa, Nevada or New Mexico, or by winning Iowa and Nevada plus either New Mexico or NE-2. That's 17 of 32 possibilities for Obama.

If Obama loses Florida, Ohio, North Carolina, Virginia and Indiana, he can still win the election by winning Colorado, Iowa, Nevada and New Mexico. That's 2 of 32 possibilities for Obama.

So if my math is correct, out of 1,024 random possibilities involving those jurisdictions, Obama wins 958 of them, and the Republican nominee wins 66. Not good odds for the Republican nominee.

But let's delve a little deeper, shall we?

Of the states in question, it's not exactly like they all were Republican strongholds, historically speaking, in Presidential elections. Only five -- North Carolina, Virginia, Indiana, Colorado and NE-2 -- are. That's a total of 49 electoral votes. The others -- Florida, Ohio, Iowa, Nevada and New Mexico -- are typically battleground states, and they have a combined total of 65 electoral votes.

Moreover, among those battleground states, Bush won three of them in '04 -- Iowa, Nevada and New Mexico -- by an extremely narrow margin (20,000 votes combined). Obama won them by a considerably more comfortable margin. If Obama can hold those three states, he then would only have to win one -- any one -- of the larger five states to win the election. And among the states that are traditionally Republican strongholds, there has been a significant demographic shift in three of those states -- North Carolina, Virginia and Colorado -- to the benefit of the Democratic Party.

On top of that, general consensus in '08 was that Arizona would have been in play had the Republican nominee been anyone but McSame. Given the heavy concentration of both seniors and Latinos in that state, I don't see anything that has changed that.

Not saying Obama can't lose, but it'll be an uphill battle for the Republican nominee to win. Of course, general consensus on this board was that Obama was going to lose in '08, even the day before the election.

The base won't want to come out for Romney, either, but what they will come out for - is to throw the current piece of shit out of office.


Barry has lost his base.

Hell, if even the young idiots no longer believe his bullshit, how can he expect to influence older independents to come out and vote for him?

Oh that's right, he can't, and the polls are showing this.

His support among independents has SERIOUSLY eroded.

They no longer buy his bullshit, either and Barry is just flat out ---> OVER.

If the dems are dumb enough to try to run him in '12, they'll absord an overwhelming defeat.

I don't see Romney beating Obama, based on the following reasons:

1. His base will be far from enthusiastic over voting for a Mormon.

2. Given that repeal of "Obamacare" is a sine qua non for any Republican nominee, and that "Obamacare" is based on the Massachusetts program passed while Romney was governor, Obama will eat his lunch in the debates. Romney will come across looking like the empty suit he is.

3. Romney has no chance even of carrying his home state. That is, if his "home state" is the only state where he's held, or for that matter, run for, elected office. If, on the other hand, he now claims Utah as his home state, that's different.

4. I think Romney has at least one more "Who Let the Dogs Out" moment left in him.

5. I bring this up only because of the Republican penchant for making fun of Obama's name, but being named after something you wear on your hand to play baseball, or to protect your hand from heat while cooking, isn't exactly Presidential. Granted, his parents didn't exactly do him any favors in that regard, but when your name is Willard Mitt Romney and you want to be President, you ought to call yourself Will Romney, at least imho.

And fwiw, Obama has lost his base, not because he's gone off the far left deep end, but because he's bent over backward to appease the teabaggers. When push comes to shove, though, I think his base will turn out for him, only because they know the alternative is far worse.

Felix wrote:if the rep nominee gets on the tea party bandwagon and espouses the idea of cutting social security

Name one candidate who espouses "cutting" social security. Just one, you fucking idiot. Oh, wait...the only one who is talking about cutting medicare and social security is Bambi Odowngrade.

Terry in Crapchester wrote: And fwiw, Obama has lost his base, not because he's gone off the far left deep end, but because he's bent over backward to appease the teabaggers. When push comes to shove, though, I think his base will turn out for him, only because they know the alternative is far worse.

fwiw = jackshit.

Bent over backwards to appease the Tea party is why he lost his base?

He's lost his base due to chronic unemployment and the $14 trillion in debt he wants to run up even further.

STFU you mouthbreathing idiot. You are his base, dumbfuck.

War Wagon wrote: STFU you mouthbreathing idiot. You are his base, dumbfuck.

Wags, you are awesome!

Martyred wrote:

Diego in Seattle wrote:...will corporations continue to hold their huge cash reserves to try to sway voters at the midterms to bring in a republican/tea bagger super-majority.

Why would corporations withhold contributions to the Dems?

Do you work really hard at being that stupid, or does it just come naturally?

Most corporations favor the repugnantcans because the repugs are the party of not paying their own way for government services & not holding businesses responsible for their actions.

So let's take this real slow. Which party would be hurt due to the economy tanking? Dems. And if people aren't working, they aren't spending...thus tanking the economy. So by not hiring people, which party would benefit in 2012? Repugs.

Class dismissed. You can now return to clubbing pinnipeds & drinking yourself to death with that piss-water Molson beer.

Barry has lost his base for a few reasons.

1) As a candidate, he sold himself as the anti-war guy. But we're still in Iraq, he upped the ante in Afghanistan, he started an unconstitutional war in Libya, he's increased drone-bombing the shit out of everybody, he kept Gitmo open, he continued with the Patriot Act...

How'd all that taste, lefties?

I think Ron Paul is the guy you were looking for, idiots.


2. He hasn't done enough for the fairies.


3. He ruined the economy. 90% of the young dipshits gathered in NY to scream at the walls VOTED FOR THIS.


Scream at yourselves, m0rons.

Diego in Seattle wrote: Do you work really hard at being that stupid, or does it just come naturally?

And then:

Most corporations favor the repugnantcans because the repugs are the party of not paying their own way for government services & not holding businesses responsible for their actions.

What?