Big Bills Versus Little Bills
The Senate just voted for a fourth time to open debate on a budget bill to fund the Department of Homeland Security, coupled together by the House with poison-pill language to block President Obama's new policies on immigration. For the fourth time, the bill failed to gain the 60 votes necessary to move forward. This time around, Republicans could only muster 47 votes in favor of the legislation -- fewer than any of the previous three times the Senate has voted on it (the bill has never even gotten 55 votes, much less 60, and the only bipartisanship has come from one Republican voting with the Democrats, for those of you keeping score at home).
The reason the fourth vote was held is a simple one: Mitch McConnell is stalling. He is buying time until the last minute looms, which will happen later this week. Republicans will not back themselves out of their self-induced corner until the absolute last possible opportunity to do so arrives. What is amusing in this contest of wills is that the endgame depends not on a fight between Obama and the Republicans, but rather on the outcome of the power struggle between John Boehner and Mitch McConnell. Perhaps "power struggle" is the wrong term -- what it really amounts to is "avoiding being the Tea Party's scapegoat." One way or another, there will be conservative blame. That blame will be laid at the feet of whichever Republican leader is seen to cave first, and neither McConnell nor Boehner wants to be that target. This is why absolutely nothing productive is going to happen until much later in the week.
There are other amusing aspects to this standoff, seen from the point of view of the Democrats. Republicans, now that they are in power in the Senate, have shifted their tactics and their rhetoric accordingly. What this means is that they are now all in favor of procedures they used to be dead-set against, and they are now horrified at the use of procedures they used to enthusiastically embrace. In other words, the hypocrisy is on full display, at least for anyone who remembers what Republicans have been saying for the past few years.
The best example of this is how Republicans now talk about the filibuster. When they were in the minority, they brought a whole new era to the Senate -- one in which even the most routine of bills had to gain 60 votes to move. This expansion of the filibuster was unprecedented in American history, as Senate Republicans filibustered literally hundreds of bills. Now, however, they are decrying the use of the filibuster by Democrats. They whine and whinge about how unfair having to get 60 votes to move legislation now is, after being the filibuster champions for the past few Congresses. They are desperately trying to portray Democrats now availing themselves of the filibuster as being some sort of radicals for using the parliamentary tool that they themselves used so effectively up until two months ago. Their complaints are downright laughable, but Boehner and his ilk seem unaware of this hypocritical hilarity contained within their public statements.
Republican whining about the filibuster isn't the only amusing spin they're now trying to sell, however. Remember their rage when the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (a.k.a. "Obamacare") passed? One major complaint (out of many) from the Republicans was that the law was passed on a party-line vote -- not a single Republican voted for it, in the end. This was supposed to be the mark of a bad law, being partisan as all get-out, and Republicans denounced the fact that Democrats had "jammed the bill down the throat of the American people" without any hint of bipartisanship.
Well, now that Republicans are in the lead, there is absolutely zero effort to get Democrats on board, other than holding a department's budget hostage. A certain percentage of congressional Republicans (most of them in the House) have convinced themselves that -- magically, at the last minute -- a whole bunch of Senate Democrats will suddenly see the light and vote for their bill. There's really no other reason Mitch McConnell has held four votes on the same bill in the past week. In each vote, the result was the same. Democrats did not cross the aisle. The only Senate votes for the bill were Republican votes. In other words, using their previous terminology, Republicans are trying to pass a purely partisan bill on a large and important issue. Remember when they were against that sort of thing?
The third biggest irony (or hypocrisy) of the Republican position on the D.H.S. bill comes from the fight that preceded it (and should, indeed, supercede it) on immigration reform. Almost two years ago, the Senate actually passed a comprehensive immigration reform bill. It got an impressive and bipartisan 68 votes. The bill was sent to the House, where it died. At the time, the big complaint from House Republicans was that the bill was "too big." This was also a complaint often heard about the Obamacare bill -- it had too many pages, too many words, and as such was beyond the comprehension abilities of the House Republicans. That would sound like a slur if it were not, in fact, exactly what they were arguing at the time.
The relative bigness of bills had never before been much of a partisan issue in Washington, but for some reason the House default position became (to paraphrase Orwell's Animal Farm): "big bills bad, little bills better." Rather than just hold a vote on the Senate immigration bill (which would have, by all accounts, passed with a bipartisan majority), the House would instead slice and dice the issue into lots of little bills that each dealt with one specific aspect of immigration reform. They were going to start with border security (of course). The Senate bill would have doubled the size of the Border Patrol, but that wasn't good enough for the House Republicans.
After much waiting and many promises, the House did absolutely nothing on comprehensive immigration reform. No small bills passed and were sent over to the Senate. No big bills, either. Even with this record of utter failure, the core concept seemed to remain and become the Republican go-to position: the smaller and more targeted a bill was, the better.
Right up until it became time to fund the Department of Homeland Security, of course. Then House Republicans demanded that the two issues be jammed together. The D.H.S. budget could not be passed, the House Republicans vowed, without additional measures to register their anger over President Obama's immigration policies. They've been working hard on immigration reform in the House for years now, with absolutely nothing to show for it -- no bills, big or little -- and now they are determined to make a simple budget bill bigger by hitching immigration policy to it. That this goes counter to their entire strategy for the past few years apparently does not bother them a bit.
In fact, this is likely how the standoff is going to end. Mitch McConnell is going to have to bow to the reality that the big bill the House Republicans sent over cannot pass his chamber (and would get vetoed, even if it did). So the only real possible answer is going to be to separate what the House passed into two discrete bills -- one that contains a clean budget for D.H.S., and one that allows all the Republicans to vent their rage at President Obama to their heart's content. The first bill will pass both chambers and be signed by the president. The second will not. The only real question is whether the clean budget bill will fund the department all year, or just for the next few months (so Republicans can have this pointless and unwinnable battle all over again, later).
Congressional Republicans who cannot do basic math will be outraged. Call them the "Ted Cruz wing" of the Republican Party -- those folks who don't understand the reality of not having a veto-proof majority in both houses of Congress, and who thus think that merely "holding our ground" will somehow magically win the day for them in the end. They will denounce the tactic of splitting the bills apart, because they will see all their supposed leverage disappear as a direct result.
It serves them right, though. They've been arguing against big comprehensive bills for years now, and insisting that the best bills are the smallest ones, targeted to one individual issue (or even sub-issue). So it is now amusing for Democrats to watch them try to defend their big bill, just as it will be amusing to watch them howl later this week when it gets split in two. All a Democrat will have to do to really rub it in will be to affect a mock-surprise tone of voice and say: "But you've been saying all along that immigration reform can only be done one tiny step at a time -- why are you now so upset at such a targeted bill?" Then stand back and watch the apoplexy.
-- Chris Weigant
Cross-posted at The Huffington Post
Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant
I'm rooting for Big Orange.
They really are unbelievable.
“There are two kinds of people in politics, those who want to make a point and those who want to make a difference." - McConnell
The point he's making is that he's weak and ineffective against the socialist tyrant ayatollah in chief. Passing legislation that allows all those deportables to stay is like raping the American Sniper. It's like slavery too.
While it's a great loquacious commentary and all, it really could be summed up in two small sentences..
Republicans in the majority are acting exactly like Democrats acted when they had the majority.
Democrats in the minority are acting exactly like Republicans acted when they had the minority.
What's "unbelievable" is that ya'all seemed shocked by it.. :D
And if Democrats get their way and have millions and millions of illegal votes in 2016 and get the majority back, then Democrats are going to be doing the EXACT same thing that the complain about the Republicans doing..
"... and so it goes.. and so it goes..."
-Billy Joel
Michale
Little Bill O'Reilly is doubling down on his lies. If he were a bigger Bill with more integrity, he'd admit what the video shows and put himself on leave for a short duration, but he works for Fox Noise. He knows that Foxbots can endure a great deal of cognitive dissonance. Reality isn't a factor.
Little Bill O'Reilly is doubling down on his lies. If he were a bigger Bill with more integrity, he'd admit what the video shows and put himself on leave for a short duration, but he works for Fox Noise. He knows that Foxbots can endure a great deal of cognitive dissonance. Reality isn't a factor.
Why not keep this topic back where it belongs, JFC...
http://www.chrisweigant.com/2015/02/20/ftp336/#comment-57542
No need to pollute new threads with your wishful thinking and denial of reality..
Hokay, buckwheat?? :D
Michale
Dear Chris,
Please explain to Michale why the DHS bill requires 60 votes to pass. He will not believe any of us if we tell him. He has it firmly fixed in his head that it must have been filibustered. I trust you can explain to him that it was not.
Why did the Republicans only get 47 votes on the fourth attempt to pass this bill? I'm disappointed that there's no explanation for this. Were some Republican senators missing? If so, why and where were they?
Please explain to Michale why the DHS bill requires 60 votes to pass. He will not believe any of us if we tell him. He has it firmly fixed in his head that it must have been filibustered. I trust you can explain to him that it was not.
Why don't you do your own dirty work??? :D
Let me put it this way.. It was as much "filibustered" by Democrats in the here and now as Republicans "filibustered" Democrat legislation..
That's the problem with ya'all around here.
You want to apply one standard to Democrats and a different standard to Republicans.
A little consistency would not be out of line here.. :D
Michale
But hay.. I'm easy..
If the semantics are ooohh so important around here, I'll use "obstructs" instead of "filibusters" where appropriate..
I only want to make you happy... :D
Michale
This farcical situation would make a great light opera if Gilbert and Sullivan were still alive to write it.
"Then I can write a spending bill in Washington cuneiform,
And tell you ev'ry detail of the Surgeon General's uniform:
In short, in matters taxable, factional, and polemical,
I am the very model of a modern Mitch - McConnical."
This just in: "Compromise" has been redefined by corporate media to mean doing what Republicans and corporate special interest groups want without anything in return.
The only time compromise is ever brought up by the news media is when Democrats are asked to compromise. Republicans are referred to as "principled" or "taking a stand" and never asked to compromise.
Where is this "liberal" media I hear so much about again?
-David
This just in: "Compromise" has been redefined by corporate media to mean doing what Republicans and corporate special interest groups want without anything in return.
Do you mean "compromise" as in how Democrats compromised on TrainWreckCare??
Is that the kind of "compromise" you are talking about??
Let's face it. Democrats define "compromise" exactly how you think that Republicans define "compromise"..
Will Democrats "compromise" on minting millions and millions of fresh new Democrat voters???
Of course they won't.. They would rather see DHS de-funded rather than "compromise"...
Once again, there is no difference between Republicans or Democrats on the issue of "compromise"...
Michale
Did Democrats "compromise" and hold off on the illegal amnesty program and give the new GOP Congress time to put something together??
No, they did not..
The problem here is that Democrats define "compromise" as "Do it our way and we can talk about what you want afterwards"...
That's how Democrats "compromise".. The proved as much with TrainWreckCare...
Michale
And, I am once again constrained to point out that the American people are on the side of the GOP... They know that Democrats won't compromise which is why they (the American people) gave the GOP such a commanding majority..
Michale
"Do you mean "compromise" as in how Democrats compromised on TrainWreckCare??"
Yes, Michale. Democrats compromised with Republicans by accepting compromises Republican offered on healthcare. Republicans once again showed their bad faith and refusal to compromise by then refusing to support the final ACA solely to deny Obama a "win" as a partisan political ploy.
"Will Democrats "compromise" on minting millions and millions of fresh new Democrat voters???"
There you go again, Michale, recycling your favorite absolute lie. And you think you can bully me into not calling you out for your constant lying by falsely claiming my accurate recognition of your obvious lying is a "personal attack?!"
"Of course they won't.. They would rather see DHS de-funded rather than "compromise"..."
What compromise have Democrats been offered to fund DHS? Republican ultimatums to defund Obama's immigration initiatives in order to fund DHS isn't a compromise, its extortion. The opposite of compromise. Once again Republicans refuse to act in good faith, or compromise. And, once again, you are blatantly lying.
"Once again, there is no difference between Republicans or Democrats on the issue of "compromise"..."
Yet another bald-faced lie by Michale. ACA wasn't rammed through by Democrats until after Republicans refused to compromise. Not after they refused to compromise on the particulars of the bill, after they refused to compromise at all. Democrats tried for over a decade to get Republicans to compromise on healthcare reform.
Just as Democrats tried for over a decade to get Republicans to compromise on immigration reform. Once again, Obama didn't act unilaterally until Republicans, after six years of Obama attempts to compromise, made it clear that they would not compromise on anything.
Which is David's point. Republicans trot out the need to "compromise" as a demand that Democrats cave to Republican demands. Republicans have no intention of compromising on anything themselves.
Look what happened when Democrats compromised on budget negotiations, and agreed to massive across the board cuts to incentivize the Super Committee negotiations. Republicans refused to compromise. There was mo budget. And the cuts "nobody wanted" took place.
Like Michale, Republicans are chronic liars. They talk up "compromise" and "bipartisanship" but they are bad faith actors with no intention of honestly negotiating any compromise. Democrats compromise, Republicans won't.
"And, I am once again constrained to point out that the American people are on the side of the GOP... They know that Democrats won't compromise which is why they (the American people) gave the GOP such a commanding majority..
Michale"
And I am once again constrained to point out that Michale us full of shit. The only elections Republicans won were for State and regional representation. There were no national issues. No national campaigns. No national candidates. And no national elections.
The only thing the American people weighed in on were local issues. Michale is, as always, lying. He, and Republicans, are just making up the story that "the American people are on the side of the GOP..." It I not factually supported. The GOP, and the GOPs extreme views, are a minority position nationally.
LD,
Why don't we show CW and the rank and file Weigantians some respect and keep the sad, pathetic and mean-spirited bullying limited to just the Friday Talking Points, eh??
What do ya say, sunshine??
Michale
Michale -
Seen the news today? McConnell is doing exactly what I predicted, and have been predicting all month long. There will be two bills. One will pass. One will not.
As for "both sides are the same," OK, sure, except for "Democrats are doing what Republicans were doing -- which had never been done before to that extent."
Let's lay the blame where it belongs.
That aside, here's a military metaphor for you to contemplate. As I've said, Republicans chose this battle and chose this battlefield. But they never had an exit strategy other than "and then the enemy stops fighting and surrenders." Now, is that a valid plan of battle for any fight? There simply was no possible endgame that Republicans had a plan for other than "and then Obama and the Democrats vote with Republicans" which was never going to happen.
Would you go into a battle with that battleplan?
-CW
CW,
What do you want me to say??
That Republicans suck???
You have known me since 2006 and you KNOW I don't have a problem saying that... :D
But just in case there is any doubt...
REPUBLICANS SUCK PURPLE PANTHER PISS!!!
So, now that we are agreed that Republicans suck..
Let's talk Democrats....
K??? :D
Michale
Getting me to say that Republicans suck has NEVER been a problem..
Getting ya'all to say that Democrats suck??
It's like pulling teeth...
"Damage control is easy. Reading Klingon?? Now THAT is hard.."
-Captain Montgomery Scott, STAR TREK IV, The Voyage Home
:D
Michale
Mopshell [7] -
I wondered about that, too. I think the previous votes (just counting "yea" votes) were in the 51-53 range. Now, one caveat: whenever a bill is voted on, if the Majority Leader wants to bring the bill back up for a vote later, he MUST vote no on it. So the totals for any bill that fails is always one lower than the actual support. If the first vote was 52 yeas, it meant it actually had 53 yes votes, in other words.
But the total was pretty low on the fourth vote: 47-46. That means 7 didn't vote. Up until now, the "nay" votes were all the Democrats plus one Republican, plus Mitch McConnell voting so he could bring it up again. So at least 44 Dems voted no (out of 46). One or two may have been absent. But it means most of the absentees were Republicans.
Now, this may have been weather-related? Dunno. I hear the East Coast is pretty iced in these days. It was a Monday vote, after all, so some may not have been able to get back from the week-long vacation they all just took.
In any case, I can look it up if you're really interested. It might just reveal that the absentees were from states where GOP senators are worried about re-election....
-CW
Seen the news today? McConnell is doing exactly what I predicted, and have been predicting all month long. There will be two bills. One will pass. One will not.
And now Reid is asking for more..
You see my point about Democrats and their "compromise"???
McConnell gives Reid a Senate hand-job and now Reid says, "No.. That's not enough! I want full on fellatio!!"
So remind me again how it's Republicans who are the Party of NO COMPROMISE???
Michale
Michale -
No, no, I didn't need to hear that. I actually buy into a lot of the argument you've been making for the past few weeks ("Dems and GOP have flipped control in the Senate, therefore they've flipped what they now complain about"). There is indeed hypocrisy on both sides. I just tend to notice it more on the Republican side (although I don't always comment on it -- the funniest GOP flip-flopping was on why they didn't now change the filbuster rule back on appointees. They howled about what an evil, evil rule change it was when Harry "dropped the nuke," but now that they're in power, they are not even interested in changing the rule back... because it would benefit Democrats).
What I do object to, however, is any suggestion that the overuse of the filibuster was just "always the way things were" when that is not true. From when it was changed in the 1970s (used to be 67 votes to override), filibuster use has gone up during both Dem and GOP minorities in the Senate. But in the last few years (last GOP minority period), this use has exploded.
So both sides bear some blame, but the GOP bears the blame for the new tactic of "filibuster EVERYTHING." That doesn't mean Dems aren't going to now use the tactic, but it does mean it's a little amusing to see the GOP complain about it now.
I'm sure some Dem comments these days are amusing Republicans, too. But I do find it very interesting that McConnell refused to even consider "get rid of the legislative filibuster" during the past few weeks (it was suggested by a few). It means he is still interested in preserving the minority's rights, even while in the majority. He knows what the map looks like for the GOP in 2016 (for Senate seats)...
Anyway, gotta get writing for today's column.
-CW
Michale -
Reid's just asking (from what I read) for a promise that the House will take the bill seriously. He's playing politics, but then so are Republicans (to be fair). He knows full well that McConnell can't make promises for Boehner. He's just increasing the pressure on Boehner to act, later in the week. Reid and the Dems will all vote for the clean bill, mark my words, no matter what.
-CW
Reid's just asking (from what I read) for a promise that the House will take the bill seriously. He's playing politics, but then so are Republicans (to be fair).
Yes, they ARE playing politics..
But, have you ever noticed that it's only REPUBLICANS who get slammed for it??
David's "No Compromise" comment is a perfect example..
BOTH sides play politics...
But it's only acceptable if DEMOCRATS play politics..
Republicans are not allowed to play politics..
At least, not in Weigantia...
THAT is my point..
Reid and the Dems will all vote for the clean bill, mark my words, no matter what.
And, can you say that Republicans will get any credit for making that clean bill happen??
:D
Michale
I actually buy into a lot of the argument you've been making for the past few weeks
Nice ta know that..
I mean that sincerely... :D
Michale
If only rank and file Weigantians were as open and honest about it.. :D
Michale
"LD,
Why don't we show CW and the rank and file Weigantians some respect and keep the sad, pathetic and mean-spirited bullying limited to just the Friday Talking Points, eh??
What do ya say, sunshine??
Michale"
Michale, pointing out your innumerable lies isn't "pathetic and mean-spirited bullying" its called "fact-checking." Or, "a full-time job," take your pick.
Now libeling people in an attempt to intimidate them into not discussing your chronic lying is "pathetic and mean-spirited bullying."--And, of course, yet another example of your apparent inability to reply to comments without lying.
So, whatever rationales you concoct to shut me up, it just ain't gonna happen, Sunshine!
If you want to restrict being called a liar to FTPs then stop lying anywhere else!--Ya see. It's easy! Don't lie, you don't get called a liar!--At least its easy for everyone else.
I'm very disappointed in Mitch the Squish (RINO-KY). I'm certainly glad that I didn't vote for him! Don't blame me for this mess. Republicans should've seen this coming and voted for Bevin (bagger-KY). He would make those DHS heroes go without paychecks.
[Editor's note:
This comment was removed for violating our commenting guidelines.
-CW]
Apologies to everyone else..
I tried to keep things civil and adult..
But when you are dealing with low-life gutter trash moronic bigots, sometimes ya just gotta get down in the muck and mud.....
Michale
"And, can you say that Republicans will get any credit for making that clean bill happen??"
Lol, IF it happens it will only happen because Republicans had no choice but to let it happen, because Democrats made it have to happen.
So, why, exactly, would Republicans deserve any credit for making it happen? And you believe thinking that Republicans deserve credit merely for participating is nonpartisan?! As if being forced at the last minute to actually do your job is an achievement on your part? People get credit for making contributions, not for finally getting out of the way so necessary work can get done!
Chris [21]
Marco Rubio was in New Hampshire (possibly on Monday; Huff Post doesn't mention the day but reported it Monday night) on the campaign trail. He, Cruz and Paul are all listed as speakers at CPAC which begins Wednesday morning in Maryland. I was thinking CPAC was the reason seven of them were missing on Monday.
I can find no mention of any weather problems preventing senators from getting to work and I assume that would be a story if it happened.
At this point I'm finding American reporting really exasperating. There's so much that's just never mentioned or never explained.
?While I am not on the ballot this election, make no mistake. All of my policies ARE on the ballot.."
-President Barack Obama
Obama was speaking metaphorically, not literally. And the majority of citizens abstained from voting. That means that means that they indicated no preference. There is no rule that either you vote Democrat or you are voting Republican.
Republicans won their majorities due to gerrymandering and low voter turnout, not to winning a plurality of American votes. The plurality abstained completely.
So in spite of your childish descent into profanity you are still lying. I see no point in even addressing the rest of your bullshit. Most of it I've already addressed. You just keep repeating the same old lies, and libels, demonstrating why you've such an impressive record for being banned from commenting on so many sites.
Mopshell -
To get the straight story on votes, check out the Library of Congress "Thomas" service. Um, I think it's:
thomas.loc.gov
It takes some practice getting used to it, but it accurately tracks every bill in both houses. That's where I go when I want to find out exactly who voted for (and against) what.
You may also have to go to the Senate site to get the bill's number (makes it a lot easier to search on Thomas). Senate bills are always "S.123" and House bills are usually "HR.321". Find the budget bill's number on the Senate site, then look on Thomas to see who voted which way in the last vote. You can also (on Thomas) see the text of the bill, the entire legislative history (all committee votes, etc.) and who is co-sponsoring it. It's a valuable tool...
-CW
Michale [30] -
OK, that one was just too over the top. Your comment has been forceably removed. You know it pains me to do this, but it was necessary.
Looks like I need to go back and check the Friday scrum a little closer, too.
Sigh.
-CW
OK, that one was just too over the top. Your comment has been forceably removed. You know it pains me to do this, but it was necessary.
No more over the top than any of LD's posts...
I am sick and tired of all his personal attacks and name-calling and ignorant gutter trash bigotry..
If my post is going to be removed, I would think all the posts with his name-calling should ALSO be removed..
Michale
I am sick and tired of all his personal attacks and name-calling and ignorant gutter trash bigotry..
If my post is going to be removed, I would think all the posts with his name-calling should ALSO be removed..
For example, when LD attacked a 12-yr old child and called him an "asshat"..
I mean, what is wrong with you people that some gutter trash ignorant jackass can attack a CHILD and no one says anything about it!???
Seriously, people!???
"For example, when LD attacked a 12-yr old child and called him an "asshat"..
I mean, what is wrong with you people that some gutter trash ignorant jackass can attack a CHILD and no one says anything about it!???
Seriously, people!???"
http://www.chrisweigant.com/2014/07/31/boehner-exposes-his-own-weakness-once-again/#comments
"My point in posting the MS-13 pictures, of which the presence is HEAVILY documented is to counter ya'alls ideologically enslaved argument that these are all pixie-dust, my little pony, rainbow children.
They are not...
The families people who have been murdered by these "children" can attest to that fact..
If you want to make the case for the "children" at least have the intellectual honesty to address ALL the children... Not just the afore mentioned pixie dust, my little pony, rainbow brite children that serves ya'alls agenda..
Barring that, I'll continue to show the OTHER half of the "children" that are JUST as real and JUST as relevant...
Michale" #12
"Actually, even MORE relevant because they are a threat to the safety and security of AMERICANS..
Ya know.. AMERICANS.. The people that Obama and the Democrats should be MORE concerned about???
I am also constrained to point out the health threat that even those pixie dust, my little pony, rainbow brite children represent...
Do I have to list all the diseases and outbreaks that are happening wherever these "children" are being processed??
Why not send all these "children" to live in the White House??
Oh, can't do that. That would put a damper on Obama's Hollywood soirees and might crimp his golf outings...
Michale" #13
"If ya'all start addressing the issue without the "OH MY GOD THINK OF THE POOR LITTLE CHILDREN" bullshit propaganda then I'll be happy to reciprocate..
But as long as ya'all are intent on telling only a PART of the story that suits ya'alls partisan agenda, then I'll be posting the OTHER side of the story that has all the gang-bangers and drugs and murders and deaths..."
Michale #22
asshat
/?ashat/
Etymology
From the slang expression have one's head up one's ass, thus, wearing the ass as a hat. The term is extended to people who are clueless or bumbling, who don't understand what is going on.
Noun
asshat (plural asshats)
1.(pejorative, slang, vulgar) An obnoxiously ignorant person; a fool."
And calling everyone else "ideologically enslaved" and challenging their "intellectual honesty" are "name-calling" and "personal attacks", both of which Michale has always wielded with indiscriminate abandon. Much as his latest "gutter trash ignorant jackass" slur on me.
Michale is a chronic liar. Just as he's lying now about being a victim, having concerns over language used in "attacks" on children, and the use of name-calling and personal attacks.
Michale is simply a lying bully who can't stand having someone who won't let his bullshit pass unchallenged stand up to him and refuse to be intimidated by him.--I suggest he get used to it.
Michale and LewDan,
Here's just a thought, for whatever it's worth ...
Avoid name-calling at every opportunity (or just ignore it) and focus not on the person(s) - pols or otherwise - but concentrate only on the issues and ideas, calling those good, bad or ugly with corresponding arguments for or against, trying at all times to leave out political parties or partisan descriptions.
I'd bet a boatload of quatloos that following this will vastly add to the pleasure of the both of you and the rest of us here, too!
I'd bet a boatload of quatloos that following this will vastly add to the pleasure of the both of you and the rest of us here, too!
I am sure it would Liz. And it's what I have endeavored to bring about. I have proven that *I* can debate in such a manner..
Just as LD has proven he CANNOT debate in such a manner..
As such, any agreement on my part would be pointless because LD simply CANNOT be trusted to act like a civilized human being..
Anyone who lashes act and attacks a 12 year old child has proven beyond any doubt that they are not civilized...
And, to be perfectly frank, any who sit idly by and allow such atrocious and uncivilized acts to occur without comment.....???
Michale
Anyone who lashes act and attacks a 12 year old child has proven beyond any doubt that they are not civilized...
And, to be perfectly frank, any who sit idly by and allow such atrocious and uncivilized acts to occur without comment.....??
Put it in this context, Liz..
Imagine someone had posted a youtube clip of a 12 yr old child calling President Bush to task for his actions.. And I called that 12 yr old child an "asshat"...
What do you think the response would have been around here??
Yea, you know what it would have been...
All I am saying is that people around here need to forget political ideology ONCE IN A WHILE and stand up for what's right...
And calling out an old, angry, lonely sad, pathetic gutter trash bully when he attacks a 12 yr old child is the right thing to do...
REGARDLESS of whether one agrees with the 12 yr old child or not..
Am I wrong??
Michale
CW,
Isn't it time you put a leash on your resident fool?
"Ad hominem
An attack upon an opponent in order to discredit their arguement or opinion. Ad hominems are used by immature and/or unintelligent people because they are unable to counter their opponent using logic and intelligence"
Fine, you two. Go at it.
But, don't be surprised if no one else around here pays any attention to your boring back-and-forth antics.
The sort of thing you guys are endlessly engaged in is infinitely easy to ignore ... for time constraint reasons, alone.
S I G H
Liz,
I agree with you. But Michale's been lodging spurious ad hominem attacks against me for a week now, since
CW seems disinclined to enforce his own commenting guidelines against his cash cow. I've tried ignoring him and he only escalates his attacks in response. I haven been calling him names. I haven't told him he shouldn't comment. I haven't been cursing him. I'm the one who's been under attack, not Michale.
And the whole point of his attacks is to convince others that he's been responding to attacks when he's been initiating the ad hominem attacks on me.
So I'm unimpressed by your impartial response of "a pox upon both your houses" since you've just encouraged him and made yourself a part of the problem.
Liz,
It takes two to end a fight..
I have already proposed *AND* demonstrated that I can....
You saw the response..
The commission AND definition of an ad hominem attack..
I can only do so much by myself...
Michale
LD and Michale,
Here's the thing ... all of us who choose to participate in CW.com have fairly good reading and comprehension skills and so we are quite capable of understanding exactly what is going on between the two of you.
Here's the rub ... "I DON'T CARE"
I will continue to participate here but I am no longer going to have anything to do with your particular brand of nonsense.
And, one more thing ... ahem.
If the two of you would cut out all of the crap from your comments you'd have fewer comments, number one ... and, number two, a whole lot more compelling things to say.
And, y'all call Biden a blowhard. Geesh.
I mean that sincerely ... I'm not trying to be facetious, here. :)