SUBSIM Radio Room Forums

SUBSIM Radio Room Forums (https://www.subsim.com/radioroom/index.php)
-   General Topics (https://www.subsim.com/radioroom/forumdisplay.php?f=175)
-   -   The proposed 2012 budget... (https://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=182238)

mookiemookie 04-11-11 02:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by August (Post 1640617)
A lame duck president signed a Democrat created and passed bill. This is your argument? :DL

The Dem's passed it? Looks like 91 Republicans voted for it and 63 Dems against it as well. Don't ignore relevant facts because they're not politically expedient.

August 04-11-11 02:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Armistead (Post 1640498)
the GOP want to help the rich get richer so they can stay in office and force idealology down our throats.

Last I checked the GoP or the rich do not tell me who to vote for.

Quote:

...they believe in helping others even if it is with someone elses money...
Way too general a statement. The Dems believe in helping their political supporters by stealing everyone elses hard earned money even if it causes the nation to collapse financially.

August 04-11-11 02:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mookiemookie (Post 1640619)
The Dem's passed it? Looks like 91 Republicans voted for it and 63 Dems against it as well. Don't ignore relevant facts because they're not politically expedient.

I'm not ignoring anything mookie, just getting tired of the constant hypocrisy of the left in this country.

Ask yourself:
Who controlled Congress when TARP was enacted?
What has been the most common fate of the Blue Dogs who voted against TARP?

mookiemookie 04-11-11 02:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by August (Post 1640631)
I'm not ignoring anything mookie, just getting tired of the constant hypocrisy of the left in this country.

Ask yourself:
Who controlled Congress when TARP was enacted?
What has been the most common fate of the Blue Dogs who voted against TARP?

91 Republicans voted for it and 63 Dems against it. Neither side holds the monopoly on hypocrisy.

August 04-11-11 02:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mookiemookie (Post 1640640)
91 Republicans voted for it and 63 Dems against it. Neither side holds the monopoly on hypocrisy.

If you're going to try and make a point Mookie then tell the whole story instead of cherry picking:

October 1, 2008 TARP Tally
House of Representatives - Controlled by Democrats:
Ayes: 173 Democrats, 91 Republicans = 264 Ayes
Nays: 63 Democrats, 108 Republicans = 171 Nays
435 Total Votes

October 1, 2008 TARP tally
Senate - Controlled by Democrats:
Ayes 38 Democrats 35 Republicans 1 Independent = 74 Ayes
Nays 10 Democrats 15 Republicans 1 Independent = 25 Nays
Not Voting 1

In both houses of Congress more Republicans voted against TARP than voted for it by wide margins.

In both houses of Congress more Democrats voted for TARP than voted against it, again by wide margins.

mookiemookie 04-11-11 03:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by August (Post 1640645)
If you're going to try and make a point Mookie then tell the whole story instead of cherry picking:

October 1, 2008 TARP Tally
House of Representatives - Controlled by Democrats:
Ayes: 173 Democrats, 91 Republicans = 264 Ayes
Nays: 63 Democrats, 108 Republicans = 171 Nays
435 Total Votes

October 1, 2008 TARP tally
Senate - Controlled by Democrats:
Ayes 38 Democrats 35 Republicans 1 Independent = 74 Ayes
Nays 10 Democrats 15 Republicans 1 Independent = 25 Nays
Not Voting 1

In both houses of Congress more Republicans voted against TARP than voted for it by wide margins.

In both houses of Congress more Democrats voted for TARP than voted against it, again by wide margins.

The point is you keep saying "controlled by Democrats" like that means that it was the big bad Democrat party that voted as a whole in lockstep for the ultimate destruction of our fair nation, every one of them voting yea, and the valiant Republicans mustered an ultimately futile defense, every one of them voting nay.

It didn't happen that way, but yet you refuse to admit that in the face of the facts. THAT'S the point.

Bilge_Rat 04-11-11 03:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by August (Post 1640645)
If you're going to try and make a point Mookie then tell the whole story instead of cherry picking:

October 1, 2008 TARP Tally
House of Representatives - Controlled by Democrats:
Ayes: 173 Democrats, 91 Republicans = 264 Ayes
Nays: 63 Democrats, 108 Republicans = 171 Nays
435 Total Votes

October 1, 2008 TARP tally
Senate - Controlled by Democrats:
Ayes 38 Democrats 35 Republicans 1 Independent = 74 Ayes
Nays 10 Democrats 15 Republicans 1 Independent = 25 Nays
Not Voting 1

In both houses of Congress more Republicans voted against TARP than voted for it by wide margins.

In both houses of Congress more Democrats voted for TARP than voted against it, again by wide margins.

yes but on oct. 1, 2008, who was in control of the White House? Whose administration went running to Congress saying they had to give $700 billion to Wall Street RIGHT NOW! or the world as we know it would collapse.

a REPUBLICAN administration came up with TARP and shoved it down Congress's throat. It's a bit disingeneous to try to lay all this on the laps of the Democrats.

August 04-11-11 03:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mookiemookie (Post 1640660)
The point is you keep saying "controlled by Democrats" like that means that it was the big bad Democrat party that voted as a whole in lockstep for the ultimate destruction of our fair nation, every one of them voting yea, and the valiant Republicans mustered an ultimately futile defense, every one of them voting nay.

It didn't happen that way, but yet you refuse to admit that in the face of the facts. THAT'S the point.

You know what control of Congress entails Mookie. :roll:

mookiemookie 04-11-11 03:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by August (Post 1640665)
You know what control of Congress entails Mookie. :roll:

Not every Democrat voted for TARP. Not every Republican voted against it.

August 04-11-11 03:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mookiemookie (Post 1640667)
Not every Democrat voted for TARP. Not every Republican voted against it.

So what?

Twice as many Democrats voted for it than against it.
Twice as many Republicans voted against it than for it.

Those are the important facts here.

mookiemookie 04-11-11 03:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by August (Post 1640677)
Twice as many Republicans voted against it than for it.

Better check your math.

August 04-11-11 03:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mookiemookie (Post 1640682)
Better check your math.

Fair enough mookie. You've managed to ignore and derail the point for so long that you've caught me in a technicality. Good for you. :yeah:

mookiemookie 04-11-11 03:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by August (Post 1640685)
Fair enough mookie. You've managed to ignore and derail the point for so long that you've caught me in a technicality. Good for you. :yeah:

I suppose we disagree on the pertinent part of the discussion. I'm less willing to lump all members of a party into a narrowly defined category, whereas I get the impression that you would like to paint them both with a broad brush.

gimpy117 04-11-11 04:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bilge_Rat (Post 1640664)
yes but on oct. 1, 2008, who was in control of the White House? Whose administration went running to Congress saying they had to give $700 billion to Wall Street RIGHT NOW! or the world as we know it would collapse.

a REPUBLICAN administration came up with TARP and shoved it down Congress's throat. It's a bit disingeneous to try to lay all this on the laps of the Democrats.

Exactly, Thats the dagger, the Bush administration Liked the idea! they championed it! and who signed it into law? Bush! This wasn't some evil bill drafted up by democrats, it was a bill backed by a conservative white house, and voted on with bipartisan support, and is arguably one of the most bipartisan bills in a long time.

I don't think Mookie was derailing the point at all, sorry August thats a lame Ad hominem defense> the writing is on the wall with Tarp, with almost as many republicans voting for it than against AND Bush backing and proposing the bill it's obvious.

August 04-11-11 04:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bilge_Rat (Post 1640664)
yes but on oct. 1, 2008, who was in control of the White House? Whose administration went running to Congress saying they had to give $700 billion to Wall Street RIGHT NOW! or the world as we know it would collapse.

So what you're saying is that after years of contradicting and disparaging every single word that came out of Bush's mouth suddenly these skeptical Democrats are given to take his lame duck word at face value even though his own party was against it?

All that says to me is the Democrats are so incompetent that they'd make their decisions based on how much it sticks it to their political opponents, not what is good for the country.

gimpy117 04-11-11 04:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by August (Post 1640732)
So what you're saying is that after years of contradicting and disparaging every single word that came out of Bush's mouth suddenly these skeptical Democrats are given to take his lame duck word at face value even though his own party was against it?

All that says to me is the Democrats are so incompetent that they'd make their decisions based on how much it sticks it to their political opponents, not what is good for the country.

what about all the republicans who voted for it? It kinda helps your argument when you ignore that doesn't it?

also, it makes it ok for bush to propose the bill just because he was a lame duck? get real.

mookiemookie 04-11-11 04:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by August (Post 1640732)
All that says to me is the Democrats are so incompetent that they'd make their decisions based on how much it sticks it to their political opponents, not what is good for the country.

Not disagreeing with that as that's politics, but do you honestly think they hold the monopoly on that either?

August 04-11-11 09:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gimpy117 (Post 1640737)
what about all the republicans who voted for it? It kinda helps your argument when you ignore that doesn't it?

See post #145. I'm ignoring nothing.

Quote:

also, it makes it ok for bush to propose the bill just because he was a lame duck? get real.
Get real yourself pal. Bush might have proposed the bill but it's your party who actually crafted the legislation and your party who passed it and your party who must therefore defend it. Trying to shuffle the blame off on the Republicans just wont wash. It didn't wash in 2010 and it won't wash in 2012.

August 04-11-11 09:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mookiemookie (Post 1640743)
Not disagreeing with that as that's politics, but do you honestly think they hold the monopoly on that either?

I have no patience with anyone who puts their political party first, Dem, Repub or Other.

nikimcbee 04-11-11 09:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by August (Post 1640874)
I have no patience with anyone who puts their political party first, Dem, Repub or Other.

:sign_yeah:


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:25 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 1995- 2025 Subsim®
"Subsim" is a registered trademark, all rights reserved.