Republicans say they're the new Taliban, this is not a joke. Unreal. Options

[Truth be known]

Nice...real nice you fuckin' douchebag.

Pete Sessions ® - Texas

"Insurgency, we understand perhaps a little bit more because of the Taliban," Sessions said. "And that is that they went about systematically understanding how to disrupt and change a person's entire processes. And these Taliban -- I'm not trying to say the Republican Party is the Taliban. No, that's not what we're saying. I'm saying an example of how you go about [sic] is to change a person from their messaging to their operations to their frontline message. And we need to understand that insurgency may be required when the other side, the House leadership, does not follow the same commands, which we entered the game with."

Sessions said the "Taliban" approach was a reaction to a lack of bipartisan outreach from House Democrats.

When asked to clarify:

"I simply said one can see that there's a model out there for insurgency," Sessions said before being interrupted by an aide. The staffer said Sessions was trying to convey that the Republicans need to start thinking about how to act strategically from their perch in the minority.

[mhaverty]

Awesome. So what one guy says while he trips over himself becomes "republicans". Sweet. That means Gov. Hot Rod from Ill. and Diane Tits Full of Cash Wilkerson and Chuck Turner speak for all democrats.

You are better than this.

[Klogger]

Yeah I have to agree with Havs here. This one clown doesn't represent the entire right wing.

[The Balls]

lame

[screeg neegis]

Could you please post a link to the source?
I'd like to pass it on but it needs to be attributed.
Funny - last night I was thinking that the Republicans' only hope of gaining back any seats in Congress in the next mid-term is in a continuing collapse of the economy, and thus they have a motive to undermine anything the new administration does - good or bad - to try to bring about a recovery.
The term I though of was "Republican insurgency" - or if you use Jay Severin's post-election vow to work to prevent the new administration from even being able to function - "sedition."

This post has been edited by screeg neegis: Feb 6 2009, 11:03 AM

[screeg neegis]

Awesome. So what one guy says while he trips over himself becomes "republicans". Sweet. That means Gov. Hot Rod from Ill. and Diane Tits Full of Cash Wilkerson and Chuck Turner speak for all democrats.

You are better than this.

Actually, from the day Boehner gave that press conference after meeting with Obama - before the details of the stimulus package were submitted - his first comment was "Oh my God..."
These Republican assholes have no other strategy - undermine any attempt to slow the economic collapse to try to turn it their political advantage.

[JodyThePig]

I'm not trying to say the Republican Party is the Taliban.

See thread title.

[Soup]

Only Joe the Plumber can speak for the G.O.P

[mfk]

Awesome. So what one guy says while he trips over himself becomes "republicans". Sweet. That means Gov. Hot Rod from Ill. and Diane Tits Full of Cash Wilkerson and Chuck Turner speak for all democrats.

You are better than this.

You're right on this one. However, you have to admit that the GOP are not doing themselves any favors here with their response to the stimulus. I don't get it, frankly. Bush never met a spending bill he didn't like and the GOP were falling all over themselves to give him spending bills to sign. Now, all of a sudden they're fiscal conservatives? This is yet another example of putting party above country and they're just prolonging their stay in the wilderness. jerks like sessions making comments like this won't help either.

[MARSMAN]

You're right on this one. However, you have to admit that the GOP are not doing themselves any favors here with their response to the stimulus. I don't get it, frankly. Bush never met a spending bill he didn't like and the GOP were falling all over themselves to give him spending bills to sign. Now, all of a sudden they're fiscal conservatives? This is yet another example of putting party above country and they're just prolonging their stay in the wilderness. jerks like sessions making comments like this won't help either.

I am really trying to stay out of political threads ..
But you gotta admit Matt .. the stimulas bill is full of pork.

Something Obama said would not happen

[Dave K.]

I am really trying to stay out of political threads ..
But you gotta admit Matt .. the stimulas bill is full of pork.

Something Obama said would not happen

Not only will he not agree, but Vermin will be here to tell
you you're an idiot for questioning government spending.

[mfk]

I am really trying to stay out of political threads ..
But you gotta admit Matt .. the stimulas bill is full of pork.

Something Obama said would not happen

i was under the impression that a "stimulus" bill involved spending. I will gladly agree with you that in my opinion some of that spending makes me scratch my head and say "wtf?" but the republicans are saying that all spending is pork and that's a load of horseshit.

As President Obama said yesterday "What do you think a stimulus is? It's spending - that's the whole point! Seriously!"

[benhamean]

I am really trying to stay out of political threads ..
But you gotta admit Matt .. the stimulas bill is full of pork.

Something Obama said would not happen

They are stripping it down in the Senate- and rightfully so.

Obama has now learned (the hard way) that Pelosi needs some slapping down, and that the GOP is still largely the party of 'opposition'.

Work with the centrists first, and outward from there...

[Dave K.]

They are stripping it down in the Senate- and rightfully so.

Obama has now learned (the hard way) that Pelosi needs some slapping down, and that the GOP is still largely the party of 'opposition'.

Work with the centrists first, and outward from there...

This whole thing started as a banking/financial crisis, and dovetailed from
there. The bailout money was supposed to fix that, but didn't. The focus
should be on shoring up the banks.

I like the plan in this article:

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commen...,6972232.column

[mfk]

This whole thing started as a banking/financial crisis, and dovetailed from
there. The bailout money was supposed to fix that, but didn't. The focus
should be on shoring up the banks.

I like the plan in this article:

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commen...,6972232.column

the banks took the money and either held onto it or used it to buy other banks. If anything, i would say create a NEW bank w/ that money... one that doesn't have any of this bad debt and let some of these failed banks go the way of the dinosaur.

as for that article... why should the very institutions that got us into this mess be propped up even further when they're NOT taking any responsibility for the society's needs? They don't deserve to be rewarded for their bad behavior.

[Dave K.]

the banks took the money and either held onto it or used it to buy other banks. If anything, i would say create a NEW bank w/ that money... one that doesn't have any of this bad debt and let some of these failed banks go the way of the dinosaur.

as for that article... why should the very institutions that got us into this mess be propped up even further when they're NOT taking any responsibility for the society's needs? They don't deserve to be rewarded for their bad behavior.

I think the article does say something about creating a new bank, doesn't it?

Either way, I agree with you on that. Let the bad banks go bankrupt but strengthen
the overall banking industry.

[benhamean]

This whole thing started as a banking/financial crisis, and dovetailed from
there. The bailout money was supposed to fix that, but didn't. The focus
should be on shoring up the banks.

I like the plan in this article:

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commen...,6972232.column

Consumption, bra. Necessitating money. Necessitating 'lending'.

The banks are being cunts and not lending- so the Government is essentially going to 'lend' to various factions- business, consumers, employers, and banks- hoping that increased consumption creates increased production, more jobs, and a means by which the deficit created will ultimately be repaid.

This very situation is what deficit spending is for. It is amazing that Bush managed to spend like a motherfucker and create a deficit when times were fat...

This post has been edited by benhamean: Feb 6 2009, 12:56 PM

[Dave K.]

Consumption, bra. Necessitating money. Necessitating 'lending'.

The banks are being cunts and not lending- so the Government is essentially going to 'lend' to various factions- business, consumers, employers, and banks- hoping that increased consumption creates increased production, more jobs, and a means by which the deficit created will ultimately be repaid.

This very situation is what deficit spending is for. It is amazing that Bush managed to spend like a motherfucker and create a deficit when times were fat...

What's this? Times were 'fat' under Bush?! Who are you, and what have you
done with Ben?

Even I don't think times were fat under Bush, but things were pretty normal
up until the financial meltdown late last summer. Now, not only are the banks
not lending, but everybody (companies and consumers) are afraid to spend.
Let's face it, economics is not a hard science, it's more like psychology. Nobody
really knows if this huge stimulus package is going to do anything. Despite everything
tried as part of the New Deal, only WWII ended the Depression. Also, unemployment
was 10.8% in 1982, and nobody was pushing for a huge stimulus. And the economy recovered.

I still say fix the underlying problems, reassure people that the whole thing isn't
going to come down like a house of cards, and things will turn around. Pass a stimulus
which is a combination of spending and tax cuts, but nothing like the one being debated now.

[benhamean]

What's this? Times were 'fat' under Bush?! Who are you, and what have you
done with Ben?

Even I don't think times were fat under Bush, but things were pretty normal
up until the financial meltdown late last summer. Now, not only are the banks
not lending, but everybody (companies and consumers) are afraid to spend.
Let's face it, economics is not a hard science, it's more like psychology. Nobody
really knows if this huge stimulus package is going to do anything. Despite everything
tried as part of the New Deal, only WWII ended the Depression. Also, unemployment
was 10.8% in 1982, and nobody was pushing for a huge stimulus. And the economy recovered.

I still say fix the underlying problems, reassure people that the whole thing isn't
going to come down like a house of cards, and things will turn around. Pass a stimulus
which is a combination of spending and tax cuts, but nothing like the one being debated now.

Fat= lower unemployment, unheard of credit, housing market through the roof, people buying like motherfuckers.

'Fat' compared to Now. Bush rung up a big fucking deficit in that kind of climate- almost unbelievable, really. Now, the GOP are bitching about using deficit spending for a purpose.

[Truth be known]

Awesome. So what one guy says while he trips over himself becomes "republicans". Sweet. That means Gov. Hot Rod from Ill. and Diane Tits Full of Cash Wilkerson and Chuck Turner speak for all democrats.

You are better than this.

No guy, you have blinders on right now. The Republican Party as a whole is now the obstructionist party. That's the only tactic that they have...no strategy. After being decimated the last 2 years, all they can do is try to form some sort of media insurgency, without truly explaining their side or taking responsibility for the last 8 years. What's their plan and why should the American people respect their ideas?

Their ONLY strategy for Republican success, is the insurgent success of America's failure. No matter how you spin it, it's the same thing that Limbaugh spouts about in "routing for failure." So, if you think that this is some localized thing, you are living in lala land, guy.

Unreal.

[MARSMAN]

They are stripping it down in the Senate- and rightfully so.

Obama has now learned (the hard way) that Pelosi needs some slapping down, and that the GOP is still largely the party of 'opposition'.

Work with the centrists first, and outward from there...

ahh we agree once again ..

[mhaverty]

You're right on this one. However, you have to admit that the GOP are not doing themselves any favors here with their response to the stimulus. I don't get it, frankly. Bush never met a spending bill he didn't like and the GOP were falling all over themselves to give him spending bills to sign. Now, all of a sudden they're fiscal conservatives? This is yet another example of putting party above country and they're just prolonging their stay in the wilderness. jerks like sessions making comments like this won't help either.

Even people who are for this said it is more important to fix the toxic debt problem banks have. So why does this HAVE to get done first? The whole thing fucking stinks. Even Obama's top economic advisor said the multiplyer of tax cuts would be 3 whereas government spending is only 1.3 in terms of returns.

Indeed Bush's spending spree and the republican seals from 02-06 would seemingly make the trick of becoming fiscal conservatives impossible again. It is a fair point. In reality though people are really getting pissed off about this. That laundry list of shit in there with democrats names attached to it are what people most likely will focus on. Guys like McCain and the guy from Kansas whose name escapes me right now are going to make serious hay on this because they have a strong record against earmarks and pork.

From my world veiw Republicans are acting like Republicans again and this is a great thing.

[mhaverty]

They are stripping it down in the Senate- and rightfully so.

Obama has now learned (the hard way) that Pelosi needs some slapping down, and that the GOP is still largely the party of 'opposition'.

Work with the centrists first, and outward from there...

[mfk]

Even people who are for this said it is more important to fix the toxic debt problem banks have. So why does this HAVE to get done first? The whole thing fucking stinks. Even Obama's top economic advisor said the multiplyer of tax cuts would be 3 whereas government spending is only 1.3 in terms of returns.

Indeed Bush's spending spree and the republican seals from 02-06 would seemingly make the trick of becoming fiscal conservatives impossible again. It is a fair point. In reality though people are really getting pissed off about this. That laundry list of shit in there with democrats names attached to it are what people most likely will focus on. Guys like McCain and the guy from Kansas whose name escapes me right now are going to make serious hay on this because they have a strong record against earmarks and pork.

From my world veiw Republicans are acting like Republicans again and this is a great thing.

the tax cuts they're talking about are BUSH'S tax cuts which only benefit the wealthy who are the least likely to spend. It does nothing to create jobs, repair the infrastructure or any of the things that we need to get on right away. The Republicans are acting like their policies are effective and the last 8 years have shown us pretty clearly that their way does not work.

[mhaverty]

the tax cuts they're talking about are BUSH'S tax cuts which only benefit the wealthy who are the least likely to spend. It does nothing to create jobs, repair the infrastructure or any of the things that we need to get on right away. The Republicans are acting like their policies are effective and the last 8 years have shown us pretty clearly that their way does not work.

Are you sure they are talking about the bush cuts? I thought she was talking about a new round of cuts for the lower 50% and those would show a 3 time mulitplyer. Either way they are going with 1/3 of the bill as tax cuts and 2/3 spending. The latter part is what only shows a 1.3 x return. The guy talking about this was one of the finance guys who owns the celtics and not some host hack.

The bill as presently constituted is a stinker I think. How is spending money on political groups and sex ed going to generate future returns beyond a short term boost? By all acounts most spending bills just kick the problem down the road.