No, this is just bullshit you dolts trot out every time someone mentions supporting someone other than a Democrat.
It’s actually kind of funny to see the knee-jerk knuckleheads accusing other people of blind partisanship.
Regards,
Shodan
The threat of a veto is used more often than the veto itself. Congrtess usually knows upfront whether a President will sign or veto. When the veto is used, it’s usually not tied to the potential for a government shutdown, and sometimes Congress will submit something knowing it will get vetoed for symbolic reasons.
Obama has used the veto twice. Bush used it 12 times and was overridden once.
I don’t give a crap about whether Boehner in particular is. “Some people in the Republican party” are all the other side needs in a game of chicken, if enough of Those People would be perfectly delighted to default and so don’t stop playing said game of chicken after the President makes the July 25th speech you have in mind.
What he did. You can’t win a game of chicken when the other side doesn’t actually want to swerve.
FWIW, here’s a handy list of Presidents & number of vetoes, including percentage that were eventually overridden. For some reason Grover Cleveland was completely veto crazy his first term.
The Republicans win on the “do nothing” outcome.
They are quite happy damaging the short term interests of the country in exchange for the long term advancement of the GOP.
When you campaign on the idea that government is the problem, it’s to your advantage that it works out that way.
Noted without comment that Bush Jnr used less than any president since Harding, and you have to go back to Chester Arthur to find a president who served a full term and used less. Also, Bush used none in his first term. I assume this has something to do with the makeup of Congress, but I don’t know enough about it to be sure.
USA! USA! USA! :rolleyes:
Gosh, what a thoughtful and nuanced response.
Look, we all know that it is beyond your intellectual grasp to understand that there can be conscientious motives to vote other than Democrat. You don’t have to prove it again.
We get it. You’re a mindless knee-jerk partisan, who cannot comprehend anything beyond the usual “four legs good, two legs bad”. We’re fine with that, because it represents as close to rational thought as you can manage. We don’t expect you to do any better.
So really, these kind of penis-compensation posts aren’t strictly necessary.
Regards,
Shodan
There is no conscientious reason to vote for Michele Bachmann.
Yeah fuck this guy. It’s not like he killed Osama bin Laden or anything.
It’s unclear to me why anyone would assume a Republican president in 2013 would be an improvement.
You’re confusing my annoyance with both houses with being stupid enough to vote for anybody on the Republican ticket. Other than perhaps Jon Huntsman, who actually seems to have a brain and some sense of free will.
To be honest you are not worth a thoughtful and nuanced response. Moreover the way that you, of all posters, are calling others in this thread partisan is beyond belief, though when I think about it not out of character with the way that your ilk seems to continually try to define the terms of debate in ways that are inconsistent with a reality based view of the world.
I have watched you, over the years, twist and turn, bob and weave and jump through all sorts of rickety hoops to try to defend increasingly indefensible positions. I just want you to know that you are only fooling yourself at this point. You can be snide and smug all you want. You can keep telling us that the Emperor has a really nice new outfit. But we have your number.
Anyway, I look forward to the day when your type of thinking is a relic of the past, gratefully forgotten.
Ah, you liberals, with your weak, indecisive views.
“What do we want?”
“Change!”
“When do we want it?”
“Well, pretty soon, if that’s OK with you…”
“Lord, give me chastity…but not just yet.”
-St. Augustine of Hippo
Regarding the OP: I think that things are really not as bad as they seem to you right now. Remember that this whole manufactured crisis has exposed deep divisions in the republican party. Moreover Obama was able to use this as a platform to point out that when Bush 2.0 came into office he inherited a surplus that he and the Republican party squandered. Further he has, I believe, successfully exposed the Republicans as being willing to plunge the world economy into chaos in order to get their way.
Finally lets not forget that the next “crisis” has been put off until after the 2012 election. The more I think about it the more that I think that this was a very calculated move. I imagine that this will cost the Republicans quite a few seats in the 2012 election cycle. At that point we let the Bush era tax cuts expire and have a shot at a real recovery. I remain optimistic.
Quite so.
Or, as Fox News and many other media sources will report it next year:
“Obama created 14 trillion dollars in debt, and almost destroyed the country because he would not compromise on raising the debt ceiling. He inherited a growing, fabulous economy full of jobs (created by the “job creators”), and now look at our unemployment rate! This is because of his dangerous socialist policies and connections to the Chicago mob.”
This would come as a consolation if you think the Democratic Party is more important than the nation.
I do not.
That is not what I am saying at all. At most I think that the Democrats are slightly less bad for the nation than the Republicans. What I am saying is that, under the terms of this deal, especially given the looming expiration of the Bush era tax cuts, I think that we have a shot of getting out of these economic doldrums and returning to some measure of prosperity and security.