"A Grave Social Ill": America’s Unworking Men

[whell]

Originally Posted by d-ray657

The Huffpost has no paywall. I would read the article if it was open to people with open minds, but I refuse to add value to Rupert Murdoch's media empire. Isn't that the way capitalism works - one only spends money if he believes he is getting value for the expenditure. I don't see the value in paying for a subscription to the WSJ when there are more credible sources that are not behind a paywall.

Have you purchased a subscription to the Wapo? If so, you might have a scintilla of a point. Otherwise, you can take your sanctimonious BS and fertilize your garden with it.

Ah, the hostility.

Yes, I have a subscription to WaPo, so thanks for conceding the point.

[bobabode]

Originally Posted by whell

Ah, the hostility.

Yes, I have a subscription to WaPo, so thanks for conceding the point.

Now you're just being ridiculous Mike.

[Boreas]

Originally Posted by bobabode

Now you're just being ridiculous Mike.

"Now"?

[whell]

Originally Posted by bobabode

Now you're just being ridiculous Mike.

No, I answered a question. What other baseless critique would you care to make?

[bobabode]

Originally Posted by whell

No, I answered a question. What other baseless critique would you care to make?

I should've highlighted your "Ah, the hostility" comment but maybe I gave you too much credit for seeing that.

[whell]

Originally Posted by bobabode

I should've highlighted your "Ah, the hostility" comment but maybe I gave you too much credit for seeing that.

So what? His comment was a bit nasty. Didn't bother me at all. As I've said elsewhere, forum leans left and non conformists here should expect such comments. Identifying it for what it is falls far short of "silly", though.

[d-ray657]

Originally Posted by whell

So what? His comment was a bit nasty. Didn't bother me at all. As I've said elsewhere, forum leans left and non conformists here should expect such comments. Identifying it for what it is falls far short of "silly", though.

One man's nasty is another man's descriptive.

[whell]

Originally Posted by d-ray657

It wasn't the left wing of the Democratic party that prevented implementation of the full Obama agenda - it was the right wing - the "Blue Dogs." That prevented there being enough votes to overcome the mountain of filibusters. And the death of Ted Kennedy and his subsequent replacement by a Republican further hampered the ability to overcome a filibuster. It is rewriting history to suggest that a majority in the Senate was sufficient to move forward with Obama's legislative agenda. Minority leader Mitch McConnell, in his quest to make Obama a one term president, undertook an unprecedented number of filibusters. One can only hope that he is returned to minority leader again.

More broken-record, off-the-shelf answer bull shit. Try this for a bit more balanced view about why the Senate has been dysfunctional. No paywall either, so no worries about sending money off to any evil empire with views that might differ from yours.

http://www.dispatch.com/content/stor...-the-tree.html

[donquixote99]

Originally Posted by whell

More broken-record, off-the-shelf answer bull shit. Try this for a bit more balanced view about why the Senate has been dysfunctional. No paywall either, so no worries about sending money off to any evil empire with views that might differ from yours.

http://www.dispatch.com/content/stor...-the-tree.html

It isn't bullshit. Your article is bullshit. Unlike you, I'm not just going to namecall. I'm going to explain why.

The article says basically that the Democrats are as bad as the Republicans when it comes to preventing action in the Senate, because the Dems are in the habit of 'filling the tree,' that is, filing lots of meaningless amendments on their own bills so that the amendment limit is reached and the Republicans can't offer any. It goes into detail about how meaningless and silly these amendments are.

But this is false equivalency, typical of modern monopoly newspapers who don't what to offend a single reader, including in this case the many supporters of the popular Republican Senator Portman. Attentive readers will note what sort of Republican amendments are prevented by this maneuver. Here's one example: "Among the proposed amendments was one by Sen. David Vitter, R-La., that would slash federal subsidies for congressional staff members forced to buy individual health insurance through the federal exchanges created by the 2010 health-care law."

This is what is known as a 'poison pill.' A senator voting for the bill with that tacked-on would be voting for a big pay cut for his own staff. That's an amendment designed to be a bill-killer. With Republicans pulling stuff like this, the maneuver of 'filling the tree' can be seen as necessary.

With poison pills and truckloads of filibusters, it's Republicans that have broken the Senate. This article that bends over backwards to find false equivalency is bullshit.

[Dondilion]

Originally Posted by whell

More broken-record, off-the-shelf answer bull shit. Try this for a bit more balanced view about why the Senate has been dysfunctional. No paywall either, so no worries about sending money off to any evil empire with views that might differ from yours.

http://www.dispatch.com/content/stor...-the-tree.html

Missing from the linked article is the inordinate fear of a Republican of being punished in a primary.