Another mistake McConnell is poised to make, assuming he’s not just lying to the rubes, is focusing on Obama. What’s the point? Pitchers don’t throw at .220 hitters. Forget about him. Just pass popular shit and if he signs it, great, if he vetoes, hang it on Hillary’s head and the heads of the 2016 senate Democratic candidates.
A lot of that half has been fooled into thinking that, but the actual fraction that clearly benefits is much smaller.
That’s analogous - voting Republican suggests an addiction to self-harm.
Batting 0 for 2. Neither sipping champagne nor voting Republican is fairly described as “self-harm.”
Personally, I’m opposed (not to the point of calling for laws, mind you) generally to things that make you stupid, including drugs, alcohol, creationism (religion overall, pretty much) and voting for people who are trying to use fear as a motivator, which is basically the Republicans since 1996 or so, arguably since the rise of the Christian Right circa 1975.
From here.
And from a peer-reviewed publication, Moderate alcohol consumption and coronary heart disease: a review:
Thanks for the dietary info. In any event, the U.S. has an opportunity to do itself some fairly significant and lasting harm. It’ll have my pity if it allows fear and the greed of those who exploit fear to manipulate them into it.
You’re welcome. Do you now concede that sipping champagne is not a phrase that suggests self-harm?
And once again, true to form, we have 5 posts arguing with Bricker over a technical inconsistency in a throw away one liner unrelated to the topic at hand, just so Bricker can force his opponent to admit that he was wrong and Bricker was right, at the same time turning attention away from the real question of why Bricker feels that having a senate majority leader that threatens to shut down the government if the president doesn’t kowtow to their every whim is grounds for celebration with champagne (harmful or not).
**
Clarifications in case Bricker chooses to challenge my veracity: I recognize that the majority leader does not literally require Obama to get on his knees and bow, I am using kowtow in the vernacular to indicate agreeing an a submissive fashion. I am making an assumption that Bricker’s saying he would sip champagne indicates that he would be celebrating, when it entirely possible that he would be drinking to drown his sorrows or drinking purely for the health effects. If this assumption is incorrect than I humbly apologize to Bricker for casting aspersions on his asparagus. **
Contingent on you conceding that “voting Republican”* is*.
Or don’t. This picayune tangent no longer interests me. I’ll be watching the American election the way many people watch footage of car crashes - the gruesome spectacle engrossing, followed by a "wow, sucks to be him, though he did bring it on himself. "
Of course, if the driver manages to deftly or luckily avoid the damage, that’ll be cool, too.
Because you liberals don’t get to make throw-away one-liners as though this was some sort of safe haven, where we all just know how awful those terrible conservatives are.
If you want to say something, be prepared to defend it.
Not everyone reading agrees with you. Roughly half the country votes for the Republicans every two years. I know you like to picture the SDMB as Liberal Cocoon Central, where of course we all know the Correct Way of Thinking, but it’s not. And among my many burdens in life is to remind of the necessity for defending your claims with citations to fact.
I’m not actually a liberal, by the way. I guess if one tried to place me on a spectrum of American politics, I might seem so, but by the standards of my own nation, I lean (and typically vote) conservative.
The Republican Party in its present incarnation is more insane than right-wing, though. Voting for them is self-abuse, and not the good kind.
Why the hell anyone would argue with Bricker about this quote is a mystery to me. Blaming Bricker for the hijack is equally, if not more, of a mystery. He’s a Republican. Whether one views that as right or wrong, why shouldn’t he celebrate if they win?
I certainly disagree with him on almost everything, and I dislike many aspects of his style of argument, but . . . Jeez Louise, people, this is getting out of hand.
I don’t understand your objection. If anything, Bricker’s the one being presumptuous by telling me to “save it”. I don’t begrudge him his celebration if the Republicans win, he shouldn’t begrudge me my pity for America if the Republicans win.
I can see how “save it” could be interpreted as dismissive. I think you should interpret it in context with his second sentence, which was celebratory. [End of my discussion on this matter. I’ve made my view clear.]
Even at the best view of Republican Senate successes this year, they would still not have enough votes to defeat a filibuster, and should they eliminate the current filibuster rules, not only has that been overdue since the days when a Senator no longer had to actually stand up and run his or her mouth, it gains them nothing. They still cannot override a veto.
It will make matters no worse than they already are, and will be easily returned to what we have today in 2016. (It will take until 2022 to fix the House.)
It occurs to me in light of the way things are going in Iraq and Syria that the Republicans, should they win the Senate, should focus on winning the war. Give the President everything he needs to fight the war and keep him focused on the war by making it clear that it’s the #1 priority(and not one of many #1 priorities).
The President now has a job to do and it’s one of the things I believe he can do well. He’s never been reticent about killing our enemies and now he’s got a whole buttload of them out in the open. Go get 'em, Mr. President.
What war? When did the House and the Senate vote on a declaration of war?
If the President requests a declaration of war, he’ll get one. Or any other level of authorization is wants.
Heh. Against what nation, precisely, will the House vote to declare war at President Obama’s bidding?
General Orlov: Against who?