# Clothahump, and others... **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [November 2, 2016, 6:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/clothahump-and-others/770465 "2016-11-02T18:35:26Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 19
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2016, 1:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/clothahump-and-others/770465/361 "2016-11-11T01:57:42Z")
[quote=“HeweyLogan, post:352, topic:770465”] They did exactly as I claimed. Democrats ignored and rebuffed Republican ideas and propositions from the onset (or winning of the election). And not just in the backroom, negotiating rooms, right out and in the open [/quote] So, over a year after Obama's election and months after ACA was drafted, Obama shut down some of McCain's whining. That does nothing to support your erroneous belief that the Democratic leadership told the Republicans to go away from the very beginning. It simply means that when the Republicans continued their obstructionist policies for over a year after the inauguration, Obama finally told them to pull up their big boy pants and stop whining. If your little video had been shot in february 2009, you would have had a point. It was not and you do not. > [@HeweyLogan](#): > > They were told we don’t need you. This is our deal. Go away. Only after months of refusing to work with the Democrats. > [@HeweyLogan](#): > > I’ll never understand why your side accepts and assumes that Limbaugh et al create the policy rather than respond and comment on it. It was not the chairman of the DNC that was forced by his members to [make a public apology to Limbaugh for claiming that Limbaugh was not the head of the Republican Party](http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/03/02/rnc-chairman-apologizes-to-limbaugh-in-flap-over-his-role/). Limbaugh does not set policy, but his nonsense has had a frequent effect on causing Republican politicians (who do set policy) to fall in line behind his idiotic rhetoric. > [@HeweyLogan](#): > > The Baucus bill? No. the other amendments that came out of Dodd’s committee and the other portions of the ACA mentioned in the link provided by Fear Itself. I remembered “more than 150,” but there were 161. > [@HeweyLogan](#): > > I’m not re-writing shit. No, you are writing shit to re-write history. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2016, 1:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/clothahump-and-others/770465/362 "2016-11-11T01:59:44Z")
> [@HeweyLogan](#): > > I used that as an example of what I was talking about in terms of Democrat disinterest in Republican input on ACA/Obamacare at the time. I was told it didn’t exist, or was minimal. It did. **It came later in the process than that quote or snippet I found** directly confirms, but as a representative of the attitude at the time, I don’t think it’s that far off. So, you simply enjoy moving the goalposts out of the endzone, past the bleachers, and across the parking lot. So noted. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2016, 2:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/clothahump-and-others/770465/363 "2016-11-11T02:02:14Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > I don’t know if there’s a single sentence of this whole quote which is true. Your ignorance is also noted. ---
**Author:** ![HeweyLogan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/heweylogan/32/547_2.png) [@HeweyLogan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HeweyLogan)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2016, 3:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/clothahump-and-others/770465/364 "2016-11-11T03:20:30Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > So, over a year after Obama’s election and months after ACA was > drafted, Obama shut down some of McCain’s whining. I thought after it got drafted it was made into law the next day. I had no idea there were steps after that. Did you? Since you must not have, I was commenting on the steps after. And Obama shutting down McCain is an example of what I meant. I stand by it. It was representative of the Democrat attitude. Here - [http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052748704117304575138071192342664](http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052748704117304575138071192342664) > [@](#): > > The truth is that Democrats never had any intention of working with Republicans, except to pick off two or three Senators and calling it “bipartisanship.” This worked for Democrats on the stimulus, and they had hoped to do it again on health care. In the House, Republicans were frozen out from the start. Three Chairmen—Charlie Rangel, Henry Waxman and George Miller—holed up last spring to write the most liberal bill they could get through the House. Republicans were told that unless they embraced the “public option,” there was nothing to discuss. > > As for the White House, House GOP leaders John Boehner and Eric Cantor in May sent a letter to President Obama “respectfully” requesting a meeting to discuss ideas. The White House didn’t respond. Mr. Obama’s first deadline for House passage was July, and only after public opinion turned against the bill did he begin to engage Republican ideas. Yet in his September address to Congress attempting to revive his bill, he made no concession save pilot projects for tort reform. > [@tomndebb](#): > > If your little video had been shot in february 2009, you would have had a point. It was not and you do not. “My little video”? I was using that as an example, a cite, in case you didn’t notice. A reflection of the vibe or esprit of the time. > [@tomndebb](#): > > Only after months of refusing to work with the Democrats. > It was not the chairman of the DNC that was forced by his members to [make a public apology to Limbaugh for claiming that Limbaugh was not the head of the Republican Party](http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/03/02/rnc-chairman-apologizes-to-limbaugh-in-flap-over-his-role/) Good thing that doorknob isn’t around anymore. He doesn’t speak for anyone I know or anything I believe. > [@tomndebb](#): > > I remembered “more than 150,” but there were 161. You deserve a cookie you were so close. Which of those are part or incorporated into the law now? > [@tomndebb](#): > > No, you are writing shit to re-write history. I’m writing things as I remember them. It may not be with crystal clear clarity and unbending facts, looking back that far, but I think I get the gist of it right. At least on this. ---
**Author:** ![HeweyLogan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/heweylogan/32/547_2.png) [@HeweyLogan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HeweyLogan)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2016, 3:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/clothahump-and-others/770465/365 "2016-11-11T03:31:47Z")
By the way tomndebb, is the ACA/Obamacare a success or a disaster? ---
**Author:** ![snfaulkner](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/snfaulkner/32/433_2.png) [@snfaulkner](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/snfaulkner)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2016, 3:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/clothahump-and-others/770465/366 "2016-11-11T03:32:47Z")
> [@HeweyLogan](#): > > By the way tomndebb, is the ACA/Obamacare a success or a disaster? Why does have to be either/or? Just because it is not the success it was intended to be does not make it a disaster. ---
**Author:** ![Omg\_a\_Black\_Conservative](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/7ba0ec/32.png) [@Omg\_a\_Black\_Conservative](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Omg_a_Black_Conservative)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2016, 3:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/clothahump-and-others/770465/367 "2016-11-11T03:53:31Z")
Obamacare is a fucking disaster. It’s amazing how no one seems to remember “If you like your plan, you can keep your plan” or how “Obamacare would bend the cost curve downwards and save the average American family $2,500 a year”-- both of which were outright lies and acknowledged as lies. You pay more for less, and many (most?) exchanges are failing if they haven’t already. At this point, you have to be extremely partisan to even bother defending it. ---
**Author:** ![Fear\_Itself](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_itself/32/19637_2.png) [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2016, 8:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/clothahump-and-others/770465/368 "2016-11-11T08:38:29Z")
> [@HeweyLogan](#): > > Which of those are part or incorporated into the law now? All of them. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2016, 11:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/clothahump-and-others/770465/369 "2016-11-11T11:55:00Z")
> [@HeweyLogan](#): > > I thought after it got drafted it was made into law the next day. I had no idea there were steps after that. Did you? If you are unaware the the act took many moths to craft, then your ignorance of the topic is demonstrable. > [@HeweyLogan](#): > > Since you must not have, I was commenting on the steps after. So, again, you are simply moving the goalposts. Look at your comment that initiated this exchange: > [@HeweyLogan](#): > > Revisit the days after Obama’s inauguration. Dems to Republicans - fuck off. Now, you keep dodging and weaving and changing the dates in order to change your claim. From January 2009 through May 2009, the Republicans repeatedly refused to meet with Obama or the Democratic leadership to discuss the topic, (or met with Obama, grudgingly, and came out of the meeting saying they wanted no part of the discussion). Those are the “days after Obama’s inauguration.” It was only after multiple months of determined opposition and a refusal to negotiate anything that Obama began to say, if you refuse to help, we’ll do it ourselves. > [@HeweyLogan](#): > > And Obama shutting down McCain is an example of what I meant. I stand by it. It was representative of the Democrat attitude. > > Here - [http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052748704117304575138071192342664](http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052748704117304575138071192342664) Sorry, a WSJ op ed piece (behind a pay wall) is not evidence for what you want to have happened. Boehner’s letter was not sent until May, after he and his associates had stonewalled the initial attempts for four months and his “offer” was not to work with Obama, but to substitute their own. Obama did not reject the discussion, but the demand. ---
**Author:** ![Fotheringay-Phipps](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/d9b06d/32.png) [@Fotheringay-Phipps](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fotheringay-Phipps)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2016, 2:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/clothahump-and-others/770465/370 "2016-11-11T14:34:06Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > Your ignorance is also noted. Unfortunately, in your case I don’t know if it’s even ignorance. You have a penchant, demonstrated here and elsewhere, of simply declaring a set of facts to be true, with no basis whatsoever, and when confronted about it, making little or no attempt to back it up, either just reiterating your initial assertions or just ignoring the responses altogether. On rare occasions when you bother to back up your assertions with some sort of cite, it’s generally distorted beyond recognition, e.g. your Rush Limbaugh link above, but if it’s on one of your petty tangents (as in that case) it’s not worth bothering with. Not much that anyone can do about it. But there it is. ---
**Author:** ![Chisquirrel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6bbea6/32.png) [@Chisquirrel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chisquirrel)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2016, 2:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/clothahump-and-others/770465/371 "2016-11-11T14:52:32Z")
> [@HeweyLogan](#): > > I thought after it got drafted it was made into law the next day. I had no idea there were steps after that. Did you? > > Since you must not have, I was commenting on the steps after. > > And Obama shutting down McCain is an example of what I meant. I stand by it. It was representative of the Democrat attitude. You repeatedly ignore the timeline, and it does you no favors. At the beginning, Democrats asked Republicans for help with the PPACA, as it was founded on consistent conservative principles (initially proposed by Reagan, made law in Massachusetts by Romney). Republicans responded with “You can go fly a kite,” “one term President,” etc. Democrats say “Well F U then” and compose the PPACA. After everything is done and over with, after Republicans have tried every trick in the book to obstruct PPACA, they tried to come back to the table, with “Let’s throw it out and start again,” knowing the Democratic supermajority had just been broken and they could filibuster the PPACA to death. THEN Obama told McCain to sit down and shut the fuck up. You’re trying to imply that the mood after years of bullshit from the Republican trashing everything they could as petulant as a 7-year-old that didn’t get his toy at Wal-Mart was the same as when the Democrats came in to power and extended an olive branch. You’ve repeated this bullshit after being shown the error in that representation more than once. Are smaller words required, or do you just refuse to use facts to form your opinion? ---
**Author:** ![Chisquirrel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6bbea6/32.png) [@Chisquirrel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chisquirrel)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2016, 3:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/clothahump-and-others/770465/372 "2016-11-11T15:03:23Z")
> [@HeweyLogan](#): > > In all seriousness what was the olive branch that was offered? Because I sure don’t remember one. I remember it as a take a seat in the back, we’re doing this now. Input not needed. > > I was alive and an adult then. I may not have been the most observant on its passing, but I don’t recall being completely clueless on it either. I remember my take. > > Point me to an article, something. I’ll read it. It’s Salon, but it raises some good points. It also brings up the Gang of Six, which I had completely forgotten about. What part of “We’ll give you 50% of the committee to develop this” isn’t an olive branch? ---
**Author:** ![Fotheringay-Phipps](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/d9b06d/32.png) [@Fotheringay-Phipps](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fotheringay-Phipps)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2016, 3:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/clothahump-and-others/770465/373 "2016-11-11T15:11:22Z")
> [@Chisquirrel](#): > > At the beginning, Democrats asked Republicans for help with the PPACA, as it was founded on consistent conservative principles (initially proposed by Reagan, made law in Massachusetts by Romney). > > Republicans responded with “You can go fly a kite,” “one term President,” etc. > > Democrats say “Well F U then” and compose the PPACA. That just ain’t so. It’s true that some of the core parts of ACA were at some point supported by some Republicans. But they never had the support of the majority of the Republicans, and even whatever support it had had faded long before the 2008 election. At the time of the 2008 campaign, the health care reform was a sharp dividing point between the Republicans and Democrats. But the Democrats’ attitude was along the lines of yours. It was “hey we’re going to do it anyway, and if you support it we’ll give you a crumb or two around the edges”. That was not enough crumbs to get the Republicans to actually support something that they and their constituency were opposed to (despite this opposition having been less uniform and vehement 20 years earlier). That does not count as bipartisanship. That the persistent claims that the ACA was based on “conservative principles” and only opposed out of political gamesmanship is historical revisionism. ---
**Author:** ![Fotheringay-Phipps](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/d9b06d/32.png) [@Fotheringay-Phipps](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fotheringay-Phipps)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2016, 3:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/clothahump-and-others/770465/374 "2016-11-11T15:18:37Z")
> [@Chisquirrel](#): > > It’s Salon, but it raises some good points. It also brings up the Gang of Six, which I had completely forgotten about. What part of “We’ll give you 50% of the committee to develop this” isn’t an olive branch? The Gang of Six did not have the full support of the Democratic leadership in Congress. It was just a small group of moderate senators in both parties hoping to come up with a middle way. The Democrats had an iron grip on the presidency and both houses of government at the time, and unless the Democrats as a whole were satisfied with the results, nothing the Gang of Six came up with was going to pass. The positive about the Gang of Six, from the perspective of the Democrats at that time, was that if you could get support from a few of the most liberal members of the Republican Party, such that you could claim bipartisan support without sacrificing anything of real significance, then it would be worthwhile. But not more than that, and even at that, there was no guarantee that anything the Gang of Six came up with would eventually be supported by the Democratic Leadership once the progressive wing of the party had their say. ---
**Author:** ![HeweyLogan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/heweylogan/32/547_2.png) [@HeweyLogan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HeweyLogan)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2016, 3:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/clothahump-and-others/770465/375 "2016-11-11T15:56:41Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > Sorry, a WSJ op ed piece (behind a pay wall) is not evidence for what you want to have happened. It’s more than you’ve put up. Except your word, which as Fotheringay-Phipps is pointing out, is all you apparently need to prove your point. - To read the article without the paywall, here’s a Google link with the article the second down from the top [he truth is that Democrats never had any intention of working with Republicans, except to pick off two or three Senators and calling it "bipartisanshi - Google Search](https://www.google.com/search?q=he+truth+is+that+Democrats+never+had+any+intention+of+working+with+Republicans%2C+except+to+pick+off+two+or+three+Senators+and+calling+it+%22bipartisanshi&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8#q=The+truth+is+that+Democrats+never+had+any+intention+of+working+with+) ---
**Author:** ![Clothahump](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/51bf81/32.png) [@Clothahump](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Clothahump)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2016, 4:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/clothahump-and-others/770465/376 "2016-11-11T16:01:14Z")
> [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](#): > > Question for the moderators about the latest **Clothahump** thread… > > [http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=809826](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=809826) > > So, stupid question… Is the reason this isn’t considered trolling because you collectively think he’s too stupid to lie like this on purpose? Like, do we need to prove malicious intent? Would you please point out where I lied? That would be a good start. I’ll wait… ---
**Author:** ![Clothahump](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/51bf81/32.png) [@Clothahump](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Clothahump)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2016, 4:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/clothahump-and-others/770465/377 "2016-11-11T16:02:34Z")
> [@Princhester](#): > > He really isn’t trolling. I’ve never seen anything to suggest that Clothy is anything other than sincerely, truly, deeply, idiotically as blindly partisan as he appears to be. > [@JackieLikesVariety](#): > > this is true, Clothahump is completely wrong but he\* is\* sincere: not trolling. Please point out where I was wrong. I’ll wait… ---
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2016, 4:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/clothahump-and-others/770465/378 "2016-11-11T16:03:05Z")
> [@Clothahump](#): > > Would you please point out where I lied? That would be a good start. > > I’ll wait… You’re too stupid to lie. You have to actually know something to willingly obfuscate it. ---
**Author:** ![Clothahump](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/51bf81/32.png) [@Clothahump](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Clothahump)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2016, 4:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/clothahump-and-others/770465/379 "2016-11-11T16:04:52Z")
> [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](#): > > See **Clothy** , the reason you’re not getting banned for this stupid shit is the same as the reason Clinton isn’t a felon: can’t establish malicious intent. Just stupidity. 🙂 Malicious intent is not required in her case. Stupidity fits the bill. Let’s look at Comey’s statement again (emphasis mine): > [@](#): > > Our investigation looked at whether there is evidence classified information was improperly stored or transmitted on that personal system, in violation of a federal statute making it a felony to mishandle classified information either intentionally **or in a grossly negligent way** , or a second statute making it a misdemeanor to knowingly remove classified information from appropriate systems or storage facilities. Comey later points out that she committed 110 felonies: > [@](#): > > From the group of 30,000 e-mails returned to the State Department, 110 e-mails in 52 e-mail chains have been determined by the owning agency to contain classified information at the time they were sent or received. She’s a felon. Deal with it. ---
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2016, 4:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/clothahump-and-others/770465/380 "2016-11-11T16:06:29Z")
> [@Clothahump](#): > > Malicious intent is not required in her case. Stupidity fits the bill. Let’s look at Comey’s statement again (emphasis mine): Did you read the part of the statement where he said charges weren’t warranted? You doddering twat? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/clothahump-and-others/770465.md?page=18) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/clothahump-and-others/770465.md?page=20)