What's new
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

The 2nd Term - Round 1 - Diving for Dollars

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: The 2nd Term - Round 1 - Diving for Dollars

You knew this was coming.... Did the GOP ever do this for Ike or Reagan?? http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c113:H.J.+Res.+15:



It will never see the light of day...

But I love the right-wing blogosphere freaking out about it. :)

President Obama could get 3 terms if H.J.Res 15 abolishes term limits

Americans around the nation were shocked (ed note: SHOCKED!) Friday as they heard about H.J.Res. 15. H.J.Res 15 proposes an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to repeal the Twenty-second Amendment. This would remove the limitation on the number of terms an individual may serve as President. Rep. José Serrano (D- NY15) introduced the controversial joint resolution on Friday, the second day of the 2013 legislative session.

After they've calmed down a bit, they point out that this isn't the first time someone has tried to revoke the 22nd, including an attempt in 2009 by the same Congressman. They don't point out that this same Congressman has proposed the same legislation every 2 years since taking office in 1997. Yes, even when Bush was in the White House. Strange that no one seemed to care then...
 
Rover, and others, I know it gives your life some weird sense of purpose to turn every story into "This is good if a Demcratic does it, but it's eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeevil if a Republican does it! Which major political party does the subject of the story subscribe to?" as your be-all and end-all of right and wrong. But I'd like to invite you to step out of that tiny little box for just a second.

Step back and look at the bigger picture once in a while. Think about this: what is the role of our federal government in rebuilding the homes of people who built on a beach and will build on a beach again with their insurance payout? What SHOULD that role be? Should taxpayer funds be involved in subsidizing these wasteful lifestyles in addition to their insurance payouts? Leaving political party affiliation aside, what is actually the right thing to do? Isn't it time we fired everyone involved with the failure that is Washington DC, regardless of which major political party they belong to, even if it's the "right" one according to our personal cult-like beliefs, and start from scratch with smarter leaders?

As you can tell, I'm slightly troubled by people's over-reliance on political party directives. I actually had someone tell me on this board the other week that if I didn't choose one party and do whatever they tell me to, it's a "cop-out" of my responsibility. Nonsense. Open your brains people.

Geezer, I appreciate your "I'm an independent but vote GOP 99% of the time" schtick, but I will put that aside an answer your question.

Hurricane aid is not being used to rebuild houses of people who have insurance. That would in essence be a double payment and people would therefore be wishing to have their house destroyed as they would be looking at at 100% profit.

Rather, the feds need to step in and help repair and/or replace roads, seawalls, schools, etc. A catastrophe in the New York area is going to be far more expensive as you're dealing with more people affected who will need shelter and the like and you're looking at repairs to subway stations for example that are expensive but necessary.

While we can debate the costs of all this and keep an eye on pork vs needed expenditures, the fact that New York and New Jersey residents send far, far more tax dollars to the feds than they get back whether they do so as registered Republicans or registered Democrats shouldn't be lost in the discussion. Simply put we're all in this together and while abandoning places where a natural disaster hit might give the Ron Paul crowd a hard on, in the end you're only screwing yourself as leaving FL, LA, NY, NJ, CT, etc, etc to fend for themselves would plunge who regions of the country into prolonged recessions as they struggled to recover from a calamity not of their own making.
 
Re: The 2nd Term - Round 1 - Diving for Dollars

Now can one of you explain to me why yet another conservative Republican who takes a stand against NY-NJ hurricane relief had his hand out to the feds when it was his district affected?

Perhaps because the bill for "Sandy relief" also contained hundreds of millions for other totally unrelated projects that had nothing whatsoever to do with Sandy?

I imagine it escaped your notice that the original was pulled to be replaced with a two-stage process that, one hopes, pulls most of the other pork out of it?
 
Re: The 2nd Term - Round 1 - Diving for Dollars

But I love the right-wing blogosphere freaking out about it. :)



After they've calmed down a bit, they point out that this isn't the first time someone has tried to revoke the 22nd, including an attempt in 2009 by the same Congressman. They don't point out that this same Congressman has proposed the same legislation every 2 years since taking office in 1997. Yes, even when Bush was in the White House. Strange that no one seemed to care then...

Of course, the left was so over-confident about Kerry winning, similar to the right's over-confidence about Romney.
 
But I love the right-wing blogosphere freaking out about it. :)



After they've calmed down a bit, they point out that this isn't the first time someone has tried to revoke the 22nd, including an attempt in 2009 by the same Congressman. They don't point out that this same Congressman has proposed the same legislation every 2 years since taking office in 1997. Yes, even when Bush was in the White House. Strange that no one seemed to care then...

Lets not make any anti-Obama people's heads explode with a logical retort Priceless. ;)

What's interesting is if we didn't have this amendment, we'd be finishing up Bill Clinton's 5th term right now! If you think about 2 terms Presidents post Truman (who the amendment excluded due to him already being in office when it took effect IIRC), you have Ike, Nixon, Reagan, Clinton, and Bush II.

Nixon and Bush II were widely unpopular at the end of their terms so no 3rd term for them. Eisenhower and Reagan were both ill, Ike with two heart attacks and he stated no one should serve after age 70 (his age when he left), Reagan was a lot more sick than we knew at the time and its doubtful he would have run again. That leaves Clinton, who was around 54 when he left office with sky high popularity. His opponents most likely would have been: Bush II in 2000, who he would have crushed. McCain in 2004: Same result. Mittens in 2008: Landslide. Fun to ponder when you think about it....
 
Re: The 2nd Term - Round 1 - Diving for Dollars

Also, I notice some USCHO knuckledraggers try to use the spin on nitwit radio that Obama is the most partisan President EVAH. Funny, because once again he's tapped Republican to serve in his administration with the nomination of Chuck Hagel as defense secretary. Previous nominees were McHugh for Army secretary and Gregg for Commerce although he didn't end up accepting the position.

So let have it knucks'. Why all the silence all of a sudden over this? :D
 
Re: The 2nd Term - Round 1 - Diving for Dollars

Of course, the left was so over-confident about Kerry winning, similar to the right's over-confidence about Romney.
You don't get it, do you? This is one Congressman who doesn't care who is in the White House - he hates the 22nd Amendment and wants it repealed. If it was about party politics, why on Earth would he have put the bill forward in 2005 and 2007? Especially in 2005. You had a Republican majority in both House and Senate, and state legislatures that were a lot friendlier to Republicans. Yet he proposed it anyway. It must be a plot by Obama...he told this guy way back in 1997 to keep introducing the legislation because he was going to be president one day and wanted the 22nd gone so he could take over the United States through dictatorship! And the moon landings were fake. And the sun sets in the East.
 
Re: The 2nd Term - Round 1 - Diving for Dollars

Lets not make any anti-Obama people's heads explode with a logical retort Priceless. ;)

What's interesting is if we didn't have this amendment, we'd be finishing up Bill Clinton's 5th term right now! If you think about 2 terms Presidents post Truman (who the amendment excluded due to him already being in office when it took effect IIRC), you have Ike, Nixon, Reagan, Clinton, and Bush II.

Nixon and Bush II were widely unpopular at the end of their terms so no 3rd term for them. Eisenhower and Reagan were both ill, Ike with two heart attacks and he stated no one should serve after age 70 (his age when he left), Reagan was a lot more sick than we knew at the time and its doubtful he would have run again. That leaves Clinton, who was around 54 when he left office with sky high popularity. His opponents most likely would have been: Bush II in 2000, who he would have crushed. McCain in 2004: Same result. Mittens in 2008: Landslide. Fun to ponder when you think about it....

Nixon didn't even make it to the end of the second term. Don't you remember Forrest being bothered by flashlights? ;)
 
Re: The 2nd Term - Round 1 - Diving for Dollars

Also, I notice some USCHO knuckledraggers try to use the spin on nitwit radio that Obama is the most partisan President EVAH. Funny, because once again he's tapped Republican to serve in his administration with the nomination of Chuck Hagel as defense secretary. Previous nominees were McHugh for Army secretary and Gregg for Commerce although he didn't end up accepting the position.

So let have it knucks'. Why all the silence all of a sudden over this? :D

The only reason you're excited is because Obummer is poaching from Congress in order to get a libstain majority.
 
Re: The 2nd Term - Round 1 - Diving for Dollars

The only reason you're excited is because Obummer is poaching from Congress in order to get a libstain majority.

I wasn't sure before, but now I'm sure you're just being sarcastic. No way you're stupid enough not to know 1) The Democrats already have a majority in the Senate and 2) Chuck Hagel is no longer a senator....
 
Re: The 2nd Term - Round 1 - Diving for Dollars

I wasn't sure before, but now I'm sure you're just being sarcastic. No way you're stupid enough not to know 1) The Democrats already have a majority in the Senate and 2) Chuck Hagel is no longer a senator....

Someone didn't consider the other part... ;)
 
Re: The 2nd Term - Round 1 - Diving for Dollars

End term limits?

My money's on Slick Willy getting a 3rd term before Obama. :eek:
 
Re: The 2nd Term - Round 1 - Diving for Dollars

Perhaps because the bill for "Sandy relief" also contained hundreds of millions for other totally unrelated projects that had nothing whatsoever to do with Sandy?

I imagine it escaped your notice that the original was pulled to be replaced with a two-stage process that, one hopes, pulls most of the other pork out of it?

and, if this is true, herein lies the problem...people trying to get one over by tying BS to a bill to aid hurricane victims and a bunch of sycophants trying to make political hay from someone(s) actually saying they won't go along with the scam. "He hates hurricane victims!!!". It isn't just people wanting their tax break etc that demonstrates the american public deserves what it gets...it is people willing to condone the blatant corruption of something like helping victims as long as it is their political party running the scam.

The political parties require a donation of your character and integrity, it is depressing so many people who view themselves as smart would succumb to a cult...might as well be Scientologists
 
Re: The 2nd Term - Round 1 - Diving for Dollars

I'm never a big fan of the pundidiotocricy, but this article is absolutely brilliant. Not only for the comments about the GOP, but its spot on about the lamestream media and even some of my fellow USCHO libs who always think those dastardly Republicans have some secret plan to win elections.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Incompetent Party
by Michael Tomasky Jan 8, 2013 4:45 AM EST
For years, everyone assumed Republicans were politically savvy and Democrats weren’t. But Michael Tomasky thinks that stereotype is outdated. What if today’s GOP just isn’t very good at politics?

Over the weekend, I wrote about how Barack Obama can win the upcoming debt-ceiling fight. I left out one important element of a winning strategy, which I’ll get to further down. But the main point of the piece, which I want to reinforce today, is to flip the current conventional wisdom on its head. The c.w. says the Republicans hold the cards here. But they don’t. And some of them are throwing whatever cards they do have on the bonfire with a lot of loose talk that weakens what I think is their already weak position. What all this adds up to is the following revolutionary proposition, which I invite you to consider: it may be that the Republicans just aren’t very good at politics anymore.

In the years of my adulthood—the years, that is, since the Reagan ascendance—it has generally been assumed by the elite media and other arms of the country-running establishment that the Republicans knew what they were doing. Yeah, they may have been extreme or obstreperous or this or that, but they were good. Newt Gingrich was whip smart. Karl Rove was an out-and-out genius. Tom DeLay, you didn’t mess with. Why I even remember when Bill Frist was limned as some kind of great sage. And so on. On the Democratic side, meanwhile, Bill Clinton often won such plaudits, but for a long, long time, he was about the only one.

I have some highfalutin theories about why this is so, but let’s dispense with those and just seek an Occam’s Razor kind of explanation. Quite simply, for a long time, Republicans won. And even when they didn’t win, they certainly dominated the discourse. So they just looked like the team that knew how to play the game.

That was true for a generation anyway, and during that time, the media learned the habit of assuming that, whatever the issue, the Republicans were going to win; they were surely in possession of some secret, devious master plan of genius that they were just waiting for the exact right moment (because needless to say, under this theory, even their timing was above reproach) to spring on the unsuspecting Democrats, who would melt like cheese at the sight of it.

I dramatize a bit, but it’s basically true. That default view of Republican prowess became deeply lodged in the collective mind of the elite, and things once lodged are awfully difficult to dislodge. Which means that these days, the Republicans are still benefiting from some residual and vestigial positive assumptions about their acumen that they really don’t deserve.

They botched the fiscal-cliff talks in any number of ways. Obviously, John Boehner’s Plan B fiasco was the most visible manifestation, but there were more. New Year’s Day—Eric Cantor splitting from Boehner; first there’s no vote; then there is a vote—was absolute mayhem. And, this is crucial, Boehner broke the Hastert Rule and permitted the cliff deal to pass with a minority of Republicans. It is true that Mitch McConnell pushed Obama’s supposedly firm $250,000 amount on taxes up to $450,000, and that was a point in his favor. But the bottom line is that the Republicans emerged from New Year’s Day angry and divided—and defeated.

And now—because old habits are hard to dislodge—there appears to be an assumption afoot that they will channel this anger into a crushing win over Obama come round two in March. But I see them making mistakes again. McConnell insists that revenues are off the table. But that’s a position that only the GOP base supports, and the more he says it, the more unreasonable Republicans are going to look. Jon Cornyn says a partial government shutdown may be necessary. Other Republicans will follow him down that road, surely, while administration officials will say, no, we don’t want a shutdown of any kind. So if one happens, the side that’s been talking it up is pretty obviously the side that’s going to get the ketchup on its face. The Tea Party people are making noises about primaries against the senators and House members who voted for the cliff deal. Let that drumbeat continue; to your average American, it will sound insane, and it will push them into Obama’s corner even more than they are now.

Republicans emerged from New Year’s Day angry and divided—and defeated.

So where others see Republicans talking tough and drawing lines in the sand, I see them emitting a bunch of gas that’s going to come back and choke them later on. And remember, they folded on Jan. 1 under the “pressure” of taking the country over the fiscal cliff, a mostly fictional and chimerical precipice where the real-world consequences of missing the deadline, after a couple of bad days on Wall Street, wouldn’t have been that terrible. If they folded under those conditions, what makes us think they wouldn’t fold when they really and truly are on the cusp of destroying the world’s economy and absorbing the blame for it?

Now, the one thing Obama has to do here is put forward—soon—a credible cuts-and-revenue plan. He should propose defense cuts, but he will also have to offer some domestic cuts his base won’t like. On entitlements, he should not go very far, I don’t think, in his opening bid—after all, majorities don’t want deep entitlement cuts, and it’s important he retain popular support. On revenues, he lowers the corporate rate but closes some large corporate loopholes to engage in some Bowles-Simpson–esque “base broadening.” The people will support his plan. They’ll oppose the GOP plan. It’s about that simple.

And at the end of the day, the Republicans won’t take the country into default. A number of them will be willing to, maybe even a majority. But they won’t have either the numbers or the stones, or both, to do it. If Boehner was willing to break the Hastert Rule once, he’ll break it again, especially when the stakes for the country are much higher.

Media fondness for “Dems in disarray” stories has been a running joke among liberals for 15 years, and more recently the phrase has become an ironic hashtag. But the Dems these days are pretty arrayed. It’s the other party that’s a mess. Perception will catch up to reality, and perhaps soon
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top