FREE TAPATALK APP

rwguinn · 12th February 2009, 02:01 PM

Gregg withdraws
Seems he kept a vestige of honesty, rare among politicians--I cannot support your policies, so I can't take the job and pretend I do...

KoihimeNakamura · 12th February 2009, 02:06 PM

Eh. I can't bash him for that.

mortimer · 12th February 2009, 02:10 PM

Sounds to me like the Republican leadership convinced him it would be better to remain in the Senate so as to lessen the chances of a Democrat picking up his seat in 2010.

rwguinn · 12th February 2009, 02:31 PM

Originally Posted by mortimer

Sounds to me like the Republican leadership convinced him it would be better to remain in the Senate so as to lessen the chances of a Democrat picking up his seat in 2010.

Oh, wow...

dudalb · 12th February 2009, 02:48 PM

I understand the deal was the Governor of Gregg's state would pick a Republican.
Obama is having one hell of time filling this slot.
But I admit I dislike the strong arm tactics that some "unofficial" conservatives groups are using.

NoZed Avenger · 12th February 2009, 03:15 PM

Originally Posted by mortimer

Sounds to me like the Republican leadership convinced him it would be better to remain in the Senate so as to lessen the chances of a Democrat picking up his seat in 2010.

Those crafty DEVILS!

The less shifty would have thought about convincing him to never agree to take the appointment in the first place, but this is SO much better.

I don't know how they managed to have Obama take the census away from Commerce to give him an excuse to bail, but my hat is certainly off to them.

Steele, you MAGNIFICENT BASTARD!

Alferd_Packer · 12th February 2009, 03:18 PM

There are reports that he threw a hissy fit because Obama didn't trust him to run the census.

dudalb · 12th February 2009, 03:20 PM

Yeah it seems to be the census.
Although to be fair, Obama should not have appointed him if Obama did not trust him to run the census.
Lets' face it, Obama has some egg on his face over this with two failed nominations.

The Mutha · 12th February 2009, 03:44 PM

What I don't get is that Gregg apparently actively campaigned for the post. He threw his name into the ring, not the administration. So, after swearing that he would be fine with following Obama's wishes on everything, suddenly he claims he can't... Seems a little wishy-washy to me.

Alferd_Packer · 12th February 2009, 03:51 PM

As I understand it, Obama wants to set up a separate Census department.

Historically Gregg has been antagonistic toward Census spending.

T.A.M. · 12th February 2009, 06:50 PM

Like we need another reason.

The present republican group remind me of the child who pouts, gathers his toys, and refuses to play.

TAM

DavidJames · 12th February 2009, 07:21 PM

My initial reaction was "they" got to him, made the same kind of threats these guys did.

On the one hand, what an opportunity. An "outsider" gets to have influence over policy in the "enemy" adminstration. Skeptics might say he really wouldn't, but I guess we'll never know.

On the other hand, was Obama really reaching out, was it just a show in hopes of making some points? But would Obama really pick someone who he didn't feel could make him look good with his own supporters?

So I'm not sure what to think. I do believe, it would have been much more interesting, and maybe even good for the country, if he would have stayed.

Texas · 12th February 2009, 07:30 PM

Originally Posted by The Mutha

What I don't get is that Gregg apparently actively campaigned for the post. He threw his name into the ring, not the administration. So, after swearing that he would be fine with following Obama's wishes on everything, suddenly he claims he can't... Seems a little wishy-washy to me.

It was both the stimulus package that Gregg vehemently opposed and could not then turn around and be its advocate in the administration and the taking of half of his duties regarding the census and putting it under Emanuel. He was under no pressure from any groups to withdraw except from the left that hate the appointment from the beginning. I am sure that Obama was not sorry to hear his decision since he didn't get a democrat to fill Gregg's senate seat.

DavidJames · 12th February 2009, 09:08 PM

Originally Posted by Texas

He was under no pressure from any groups to withdraw except from the left that hate the appointment from the beginning. I am sure that Obama was not sorry to hear his decision since he didn't get a democrat to fill Gregg's senate seat.

How are you so sure about both of those things?

Texas · 12th February 2009, 09:09 PM

Originally Posted by DavidJames

How are you so sure about both of those things?

Because that is what he told reporters.

Puppycow · 12th February 2009, 09:15 PM

So much for bipartisanship.

Hopefully he will come to his senses and appoint a democrat.

WildCat · 12th February 2009, 09:16 PM

Originally Posted by Alferd_Packer

As I understand it, Obama wants to set up a separate Census department.

Historically Gregg has been antagonistic toward Census spending.

It's not the spending that is an issue, it's the method. Republicans fear this is an attempt to overcount Dem areas (and thus gain Dem seats in the House) by introducing sampling as a tool in the census count. The SCOTUS has previously rejected this method. The GOP fears that removing this from the purview of the Commerce Secretary and giving it to a new department is an effort to politicize the Census process. It's not a baseless fear.

Puppycow · 12th February 2009, 11:37 PM

This may be off the reservation but I'm skeptical of sampling, too. After that bogus Lancet article on Iraqi casualties.

Perhaps if used correctly, it would be legitimate, but I don't know that it would be.

Texas · 13th February 2009, 12:24 AM

Originally Posted by Puppycow

So much for bipartisanship.

Hopefully he will come to his senses and appoint a democrat.

Well he has already tried that with Richardson.

peptoabysmal · 13th February 2009, 07:30 AM

Originally Posted by T.A.M.

Like we need another reason.

The present republican group remind me of the child who pouts, gathers his toys, and refuses to play.

TAM

And after the Dems have been so cooperative over the last eight years. What a shame.

Upchurch · 13th February 2009, 07:58 AM

Originally Posted by peptoabysmal

And after the Dems have been so cooperative over the last eight years. What a shame.

I'm told the Patriot Act and two authorizations for use of military force passed by a wide majority. I'm also told that congressional democrats knew of Bush's torture techniques and said nothing.

Which is it?

DavidJames · 13th February 2009, 08:09 AM

Originally Posted by peptoabysmal

And after the Dems have been so cooperative over the last eight years. What a shame.

You really need to do some research before you make such comments. I hope you weren't one of those who used their votes for the Iraq war against Democrats in the past.

NoZed Avenger · 13th February 2009, 08:13 AM

Originally Posted by Upchurch

I'm told the Patriot Act and two authorizations for use of military force passed by a wide majority. I'm also told that congressional democrats knew of Bush's torture techniques and said nothing.

Which is it?

I thought Bush had tricked the majority of them into voting his way by his lying lies.

Didn't he?

Denver · 13th February 2009, 08:18 AM

Originally Posted by WildCat

It's not the spending that is an issue, it's the method. Republicans fear this is an attempt to overcount Dem areas (and thus gain Dem seats in the House) by introducing sampling as a tool in the census count. The SCOTUS has previously rejected this method. The GOP fears that removing this from the purview of the Commerce Secretary and giving it to a new department is an effort to politicize the Census process. It's not a baseless fear.

I agree it does seem to be the census issue, though I thought it a bit disingenuous when Gregg described his reasons as "The Stimulus package and other issues". I think he was just using the occasion to take another party-line swipe at the administration's stimulus plan.

The census issue, from what I have gathered so far, seems to have to do with statistical modeling for those areas that have poor census numbers. I didn't get the impression the entire census procedure would be converted to a sampling approach. But either way, I can see how this would definitately cause some ire in political circles.

peptoabysmal · 13th February 2009, 08:52 AM

Originally Posted by DavidJames

You really need to do some research before you make such comments. I hope you weren't one of those who used their votes for the Iraq war against Democrats in the past.

LOL
No I don't. If I am walking outside and it starts to rain, I don't need to do research to see that it is raining. Have you been living in a cave or do you just have incredibly good blinders? Yes, the Dems were among those who voted to approve military force against Iraq, if needed. They did not vote "for" the Iraq war and that is a topic worthy of many other threads already. That does not wipe out eight years of obstructing almost every Republican proposal, appointment or idea that came along. Medicare, Social Security, Mortgage Finance, Offshore Drilling, Sam Fox, Steven Bradbury. war funding ... these are just a few topics that leap to mind, the list goes on and on. Research, LOL, just do a little googling.

Upchurch · 13th February 2009, 09:16 AM

Originally Posted by NoZed Avenger

I thought Bush had tricked the majority of them into voting his way by his lying lies.

but were they being uncooperative when they agreed to his garbage?

Gullible, yes. Uncooperative, not so much.

DavidJames · 13th February 2009, 09:43 AM

Originally Posted by peptoabysmal

LOL
No I don't. If I am walking outside and it starts to rain, I don't need to do research to see that it is raining. Have you been living in a cave or do you just have incredibly good blinders? Yes, the Dems were among those who voted to approve military force against Iraq, if needed. They did not vote "for" the Iraq war and that is a topic worthy of many other threads already. That does not wipe out eight years of obstructing almost every Republican proposal, appointment or idea that came along. Medicare, Social Security, Mortgage Finance, Offshore Drilling, Sam Fox, Steven Bradbury. war funding ... these are just a few topics that leap to mind, the list goes on and on. Research, LOL, just do a little googling.

To bad moving the goal posts doesn't exercise the brain along with the body.

Yawn Just did a little googling. Damn obstructionist Democrats.

peptoabysmal · 13th February 2009, 09:52 AM

Originally Posted by Upchurch

I'm told the Patriot Act and two authorizations for use of military force passed by a wide majority. I'm also told that congressional democrats knew of Bush's torture techniques and said nothing.

Which is it?

Originally Posted by Upchurch

but were they being uncooperative when they agreed to his garbage?

Gullible, yes. Uncooperative, not so much.

So the Dems are gullible and were fooled into going along with the evil mastermind Bush The Stupid during a time when emotions were high and the country as a whole feared for its security? Wow it just reeks of cooperation.

Upchurch · 13th February 2009, 10:07 AM

Originally Posted by peptoabysmal

So the Dems are gullible and were fooled into going along with the evil mastermind Bush The Stupid during a time when emotions were high and the country as a whole feared for its security? Wow it just reeks of cooperation.

Okay, how did they not cooperate? What did Bush want to do that they obstructed or prevented?

Scootch · 13th February 2009, 10:56 AM

What the congressional democrats said and how they voted are 2 very different things.They would state bush's policies were bad,but would end up voting for most of those policies. Iraq is the best example.They voted to go to Iraq and approved money to stay in Iraq. They were just behaving like politicians,not that republicans are better.If situation reversed republicans would do exact same thing, see the Clinton administration.
(that is why i voted for montgomery brewster)

So the confusion is the dems sounded obstructionist but really werent

NoZed Avenger · 13th February 2009, 11:06 AM

Originally Posted by Upchurch

but were they being uncooperative when they agreed to his garbage?

Gullible, yes. Uncooperative, not so much.

I don't subscribe to the point of view you were responding to, but this argument -- that they voted for that thing and then spent years complaining about the vote because Bush tricked them into it, the crafty chimp (normally by the claim he was willfully lying) -- is some sign of cooperation, is just not worth much. It isn't, wasn't, and will not be a measure of being "cooperative." It's a bad argument, regardless of the merits of the original post and resulting stuff flying from both sides.

Upchurch · 13th February 2009, 12:20 PM

Originally Posted by NoZed Avenger

I don't subscribe to the point of view you were responding to, but this argument

Oh, I don't subscribe to it either, as far as Congress goes. (As for what he sold to the American people, that's another issue.) I just wasn't challenging you on it, as it had little to do with what we were talking about.

Originally Posted by NoZed Avenger

It isn't, wasn't, and will not be a measure of being "cooperative."

So you say. Neither did they actively do much to hinder the process and most voted for the stuff Bush wanted up until the last year or two. If that isn't cooperating, what would you imagine cooperation to look like?

NoZed Avenger · 13th February 2009, 12:32 PM

Originally Posted by Upchurch

Oh, I don't subscribe to it either, as far as Congress goes. (As for what he sold to the American people, that's another issue.) I just wasn't challenging you on it, as it had little to do with what we were talking about.

So you say. Neither did they actively do much to hinder the process and most voted for the stuff Bush wanted up until the last year or two. If that isn't cooperating, what would you imagine cooperation to look like?

I suspect it is just a matter of disagreeing on the terms being used. The Congress wanted the best of both worlds -- tough talk against Bush and the measures, and then they often caved to avoid the fallout from things like stopping funding for the troops. Then they sat around afterwards talking down the measures they just voted on, etc. I just don't agree that the behavior qualifies as "cooperation." YMMV.

Similarly, I don't call their vote on the war measure "gullible," because I simply don't believe for a second that a single person in the House or Senate was truly trusting, naive, or innocent.

Again, I don't buy the argument going the other way on this topic, either -- both sides appear to be wanting to eat their cake and have it, too.

Upchurch · 13th February 2009, 12:47 PM

Originally Posted by NoZed Avenger

I suspect it is just a matter of disagreeing on the terms being used. The Congress wanted the best of both worlds -- tough talk against Bush and the measures, and then they often caved to avoid the fallout from things like stopping funding for the troops.

Short term memory you have there. Right after 9/11, the Democrats rolled over like good little puppies for at least a good year or two. They voted for his wars and gave him years of funding for it.

Originally Posted by NoZed Avenger

Then they sat around afterwards talking down the measures they just voted on, etc. I just don't agree that the behavior qualifies as "cooperation." YMMV.

What would you consider qualifying as "cooperation"?

T.A.M. · 13th February 2009, 02:05 PM

Originally Posted by peptoabysmal

And after the Dems have been so cooperative over the last eight years. What a shame.

touche.

TAM

peptoabysmal · 14th February 2009, 01:32 PM

Originally Posted by Upchurch

Okay, how did they not cooperate? What did Bush want to do that they obstructed or prevented?

So you didn't read the list I provided in my previous post? And that was just of the top of my head.

12th February 2009, 02:01 PM	#1
rwguinn Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: 16 miles from 7 lakes Posts: 8,505	Another Chance to bash Republicans Gregg withdraws Seems he kept a vestige of honesty, rare among politicians--I cannot support your policies, so I can't take the job and pretend I do...
	__________________ "Political correctness is a doctrine,...,which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end." "I pointed out that his argument was wrong in every particular, but he rightfully took me to task for attacking only the weak points." Myriad http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=6853275#post6853275

12th February 2009, 02:06 PM	#2
KoihimeNakamura Creativity Murderer Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Graham, WA Posts: 6,922	Eh. I can't bash him for that.
	__________________ Don't mind me.

12th February 2009, 02:10 PM	#3
mortimer NWO Janitor Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Austin, TX Posts: 3,479	Sounds to me like the Republican leadership convinced him it would be better to remain in the Senate so as to lessen the chances of a Democrat picking up his seat in 2010.
	__________________ "why would i bother?" - Bikerdruid, on providing evidence for his claims "I view hamas as an organization fighting for the freedom of its people." - Bikerdruid

12th February 2009, 02:31 PM	#4
rwguinn Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: 16 miles from 7 lakes Posts: 8,505	Originally Posted by mortimer Sounds to me like the Republican leadership convinced him it would be better to remain in the Senate so as to lessen the chances of a Democrat picking up his seat in 2010. Oh, wow...
	__________________ "Political correctness is a doctrine,...,which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end." "I pointed out that his argument was wrong in every particular, but he rightfully took me to task for attacking only the weak points." Myriad http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=6853275#post6853275

12th February 2009, 03:18 PM	#7
Alferd_Packer Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 7,279	There are reports that he threw a hissy fit because Obama didn't trust him to run the census.
	__________________ No laws of physics were broken in the writing of this post

12th February 2009, 02:48 PM	#5
dudalb Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 23,023	I understand the deal was the Governor of Gregg's state would pick a Republican. Obama is having one hell of time filling this slot. But I admit I dislike the strong arm tactics that some "unofficial" conservatives groups are using.

12th February 2009, 03:15 PM	#6
NoZed Avenger Bitter Whiner Join Date: Apr 2002 Posts: 11,313	Originally Posted by mortimer Sounds to me like the Republican leadership convinced him it would be better to remain in the Senate so as to lessen the chances of a Democrat picking up his seat in 2010. Those crafty DEVILS! The less shifty would have thought about convincing him to never agree to take the appointment in the first place, but this is SO much better. I don't know how they managed to have Obama take the census away from Commerce to give him an excuse to bail, but my hat is certainly off to them. Steele, you MAGNIFICENT BASTARD!

12th February 2009, 03:20 PM	#8
dudalb Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 23,023	Yeah it seems to be the census. Although to be fair, Obama should not have appointed him if Obama did not trust him to run the census. Lets' face it, Obama has some egg on his face over this with two failed nominations.

12th February 2009, 03:44 PM	#9
The Mutha thoroughly confused, but valiantly trying... Join Date: May 2006 Location: Houston Posts: 1,515	What I don't get is that Gregg apparently actively campaigned for the post. He threw his name into the ring, not the administration. So, after swearing that he would be fine with following Obama's wishes on everything, suddenly he claims he can't... Seems a little wishy-washy to me.

12th February 2009, 03:51 PM	#10
Alferd_Packer Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 7,279	As I understand it, Obama wants to set up a separate Census department. Historically Gregg has been antagonistic toward Census spending.
	__________________ No laws of physics were broken in the writing of this post

12th February 2009, 06:50 PM	#11
T.A.M. Keeper of the Kool-Vax Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: The Far East...of Canada Posts: 20,816	Like we need another reason. The present republican group remind me of the child who pouts, gathers his toys, and refuses to play. TAM

12th February 2009, 07:21 PM	#12
DavidJames Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: Front Range, CO Posts: 7,116	My initial reaction was "they" got to him, made the same kind of threats these guys did. On the one hand, what an opportunity. An "outsider" gets to have influence over policy in the "enemy" adminstration. Skeptics might say he really wouldn't, but I guess we'll never know. On the other hand, was Obama really reaching out, was it just a show in hopes of making some points? But would Obama really pick someone who he didn't feel could make him look good with his own supporters? So I'm not sure what to think. I do believe, it would have been much more interesting, and maybe even good for the country, if he would have stayed.
	__________________ I will no longer respond to those who choose to have tools of murder as their avatars. Everyone is a skeptic except, of course, for the stuff that they believe Beaver Hateman: Is your argument that human life loses value proportionate to the number of humans available? Malcolm Kirkpatrick: That's part of the argument. Value is determined by supply and demand.

12th February 2009, 07:30 PM	#13
Texas Master Poster Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 2,847	Originally Posted by The Mutha What I don't get is that Gregg apparently actively campaigned for the post. He threw his name into the ring, not the administration. So, after swearing that he would be fine with following Obama's wishes on everything, suddenly he claims he can't... Seems a little wishy-washy to me. It was both the stimulus package that Gregg vehemently opposed and could not then turn around and be its advocate in the administration and the taking of half of his duties regarding the census and putting it under Emanuel. He was under no pressure from any groups to withdraw except from the left that hate the appointment from the beginning. I am sure that Obama was not sorry to hear his decision since he didn't get a democrat to fill Gregg's senate seat.
Texas Master Poster Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 2,847

12th February 2009, 09:08 PM	#14
DavidJames Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: Front Range, CO Posts: 7,116	Originally Posted by Texas He was under no pressure from any groups to withdraw except from the left that hate the appointment from the beginning. I am sure that Obama was not sorry to hear his decision since he didn't get a democrat to fill Gregg's senate seat. How are you so sure about both of those things?
	__________________ I will no longer respond to those who choose to have tools of murder as their avatars. Everyone is a skeptic except, of course, for the stuff that they believe Beaver Hateman: Is your argument that human life loses value proportionate to the number of humans available? Malcolm Kirkpatrick: That's part of the argument. Value is determined by supply and demand.

12th February 2009, 09:09 PM	#15
Texas Master Poster Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 2,847	Originally Posted by DavidJames How are you so sure about both of those things? Because that is what he told reporters.
Texas Master Poster Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 2,847

12th February 2009, 09:15 PM	#16
Puppycow Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Japan Posts: 16,024	So much for bipartisanship. Hopefully he will come to his senses and appoint a democrat.
	__________________ “Some men are born mediocre, some men achieve mediocrity, and some men have mediocrity thrust upon them. With Major Major it had been all three.” ― Joseph Heller, Catch-22

12th February 2009, 09:16 PM	#17
WildCat NWO Master Conspirator Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Albany Park, Chicago Posts: 49,457	Originally Posted by Alferd_Packer As I understand it, Obama wants to set up a separate Census department. Historically Gregg has been antagonistic toward Census spending. It's not the spending that is an issue, it's the method. Republicans fear this is an attempt to overcount Dem areas (and thus gain Dem seats in the House) by introducing sampling as a tool in the census count. The SCOTUS has previously rejected this method. The GOP fears that removing this from the purview of the Commerce Secretary and giving it to a new department is an effort to politicize the Census process. It's not a baseless fear.

12th February 2009, 11:37 PM	#18
Puppycow Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Japan Posts: 16,024	This may be off the reservation but I'm skeptical of sampling, too. After that bogus Lancet article on Iraqi casualties. Perhaps if used correctly, it would be legitimate, but I don't know that it would be.
	__________________ “Some men are born mediocre, some men achieve mediocrity, and some men have mediocrity thrust upon them. With Major Major it had been all three.” ― Joseph Heller, Catch-22

13th February 2009, 12:24 AM	#19
Texas Master Poster Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 2,847	Originally Posted by Puppycow So much for bipartisanship. Hopefully he will come to his senses and appoint a democrat. Well he has already tried that with Richardson.
Texas Master Poster Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 2,847	Last edited by Texas; 13th February 2009 at 12:28 AM.

13th February 2009, 07:30 AM	#20
peptoabysmal Illuminator Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 3,468	Originally Posted by T.A.M. Like we need another reason. The present republican group remind me of the child who pouts, gathers his toys, and refuses to play. TAM And after the Dems have been so cooperative over the last eight years. What a shame.
	__________________ OBAMA: It's not that I want to punish your success; I just want to make sure that everybody who is behind you that they've got a chance to success, too. I think when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody.

13th February 2009, 07:58 AM	#21
Upchurch Papa Funkosophy Join Date: May 2002 Location: Funky Town (STL, MO) Posts: 23,472	Originally Posted by peptoabysmal And after the Dems have been so cooperative over the last eight years. What a shame. I'm told the Patriot Act and two authorizations for use of military force passed by a wide majority. I'm also told that congressional democrats knew of Bush's torture techniques and said nothing. Which is it?

13th February 2009, 08:09 AM	#22
DavidJames Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: Front Range, CO Posts: 7,116	Originally Posted by peptoabysmal And after the Dems have been so cooperative over the last eight years. What a shame. You really need to do some research before you make such comments. I hope you weren't one of those who used their votes for the Iraq war against Democrats in the past.
	__________________ I will no longer respond to those who choose to have tools of murder as their avatars. Everyone is a skeptic except, of course, for the stuff that they believe Beaver Hateman: Is your argument that human life loses value proportionate to the number of humans available? Malcolm Kirkpatrick: That's part of the argument. Value is determined by supply and demand.

13th February 2009, 08:13 AM	#23
NoZed Avenger Bitter Whiner Join Date: Apr 2002 Posts: 11,313	Originally Posted by Upchurch I'm told the Patriot Act and two authorizations for use of military force passed by a wide majority. I'm also told that congressional democrats knew of Bush's torture techniques and said nothing. Which is it? I thought Bush had tricked the majority of them into voting his way by his lying lies. Didn't he?

13th February 2009, 08:18 AM	#24
Denver Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Denver, Colorado Posts: 6,680	Originally Posted by WildCat It's not the spending that is an issue, it's the method. Republicans fear this is an attempt to overcount Dem areas (and thus gain Dem seats in the House) by introducing sampling as a tool in the census count. The SCOTUS has previously rejected this method. The GOP fears that removing this from the purview of the Commerce Secretary and giving it to a new department is an effort to politicize the Census process. It's not a baseless fear. I agree it does seem to be the census issue, though I thought it a bit disingenuous when Gregg described his reasons as "The Stimulus package and other issues". I think he was just using the occasion to take another party-line swipe at the administration's stimulus plan. The census issue, from what I have gathered so far, seems to have to do with statistical modeling for those areas that have poor census numbers. I didn't get the impression the entire census procedure would be converted to a sampling approach. But either way, I can see how this would definitately cause some ire in political circles.

13th February 2009, 08:52 AM	#25
peptoabysmal Illuminator Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 3,468	Originally Posted by DavidJames You really need to do some research before you make such comments. I hope you weren't one of those who used their votes for the Iraq war against Democrats in the past. LOL No I don't. If I am walking outside and it starts to rain, I don't need to do research to see that it is raining. Have you been living in a cave or do you just have incredibly good blinders? Yes, the Dems were among those who voted to approve military force against Iraq, if needed. They did not vote "for" the Iraq war and that is a topic worthy of many other threads already. That does not wipe out eight years of obstructing almost every Republican proposal, appointment or idea that came along. Medicare, Social Security, Mortgage Finance, Offshore Drilling, Sam Fox, Steven Bradbury. war funding ... these are just a few topics that leap to mind, the list goes on and on. Research, LOL, just do a little googling.
	__________________ OBAMA: It's not that I want to punish your success; I just want to make sure that everybody who is behind you that they've got a chance to success, too. I think when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody.

13th February 2009, 09:16 AM	#26
Upchurch Papa Funkosophy Join Date: May 2002 Location: Funky Town (STL, MO) Posts: 23,472	Originally Posted by NoZed Avenger I thought Bush had tricked the majority of them into voting his way by his lying lies. but were they being uncooperative when they agreed to his garbage? Gullible, yes. Uncooperative, not so much.

13th February 2009, 09:43 AM	#27
DavidJames Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: Front Range, CO Posts: 7,116	Originally Posted by peptoabysmal LOL No I don't. If I am walking outside and it starts to rain, I don't need to do research to see that it is raining. Have you been living in a cave or do you just have incredibly good blinders? Yes, the Dems were among those who voted to approve military force against Iraq, if needed. They did not vote "for" the Iraq war and that is a topic worthy of many other threads already. That does not wipe out eight years of obstructing almost every Republican proposal, appointment or idea that came along. Medicare, Social Security, Mortgage Finance, Offshore Drilling, Sam Fox, Steven Bradbury. war funding ... these are just a few topics that leap to mind, the list goes on and on. Research, LOL, just do a little googling. To bad moving the goal posts doesn't exercise the brain along with the body. Yawn Just did a little googling. Damn obstructionist Democrats.
	__________________ I will no longer respond to those who choose to have tools of murder as their avatars. Everyone is a skeptic except, of course, for the stuff that they believe Beaver Hateman: Is your argument that human life loses value proportionate to the number of humans available? Malcolm Kirkpatrick: That's part of the argument. Value is determined by supply and demand. Last edited by DavidJames; 13th February 2009 at 09:47 AM. Reason: Results of first Google

13th February 2009, 09:52 AM	#28
peptoabysmal Illuminator Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 3,468	Originally Posted by Upchurch I'm told the Patriot Act and two authorizations for use of military force passed by a wide majority. I'm also told that congressional democrats knew of Bush's torture techniques and said nothing. Which is it? Originally Posted by Upchurch but were they being uncooperative when they agreed to his garbage? Gullible, yes. Uncooperative, not so much. So the Dems are gullible and were fooled into going along with the evil mastermind Bush The Stupid during a time when emotions were high and the country as a whole feared for its security? Wow it just reeks of cooperation.
	__________________ OBAMA: It's not that I want to punish your success; I just want to make sure that everybody who is behind you that they've got a chance to success, too. I think when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody.

13th February 2009, 10:07 AM	#29
Upchurch Papa Funkosophy Join Date: May 2002 Location: Funky Town (STL, MO) Posts: 23,472	Originally Posted by peptoabysmal So the Dems are gullible and were fooled into going along with the evil mastermind Bush The Stupid during a time when emotions were high and the country as a whole feared for its security? Wow it just reeks of cooperation. Okay, how did they not cooperate? What did Bush want to do that they obstructed or prevented?

13th February 2009, 10:56 AM	#30
Scootch Critical Thinker Join Date: Jul 2008 Posts: 269	What the congressional democrats said and how they voted are 2 very different things.They would state bush's policies were bad,but would end up voting for most of those policies. Iraq is the best example.They voted to go to Iraq and approved money to stay in Iraq. They were just behaving like politicians,not that republicans are better.If situation reversed republicans would do exact same thing, see the Clinton administration. (that is why i voted for montgomery brewster) So the confusion is the dems sounded obstructionist but really werent
Scootch Critical Thinker Join Date: Jul 2008 Posts: 269	Last edited by Scootch; 13th February 2009 at 10:57 AM. Reason: forgot to add last line

13th February 2009, 11:06 AM	#31
NoZed Avenger Bitter Whiner Join Date: Apr 2002 Posts: 11,313	Originally Posted by Upchurch but were they being uncooperative when they agreed to his garbage? Gullible, yes. Uncooperative, not so much. I don't subscribe to the point of view you were responding to, but this argument -- that they voted for that thing and then spent years complaining about the vote because Bush tricked them into it, the crafty chimp (normally by the claim he was willfully lying) -- is some sign of cooperation, is just not worth much. It isn't, wasn't, and will not be a measure of being "cooperative." It's a bad argument, regardless of the merits of the original post and resulting stuff flying from both sides.

13th February 2009, 12:20 PM	#32
Upchurch Papa Funkosophy Join Date: May 2002 Location: Funky Town (STL, MO) Posts: 23,472	Originally Posted by NoZed Avenger I don't subscribe to the point of view you were responding to, but this argument Oh, I don't subscribe to it either, as far as Congress goes. (As for what he sold to the American people, that's another issue.) I just wasn't challenging you on it, as it had little to do with what we were talking about. Originally Posted by NoZed Avenger It isn't, wasn't, and will not be a measure of being "cooperative." So you say. Neither did they actively do much to hinder the process and most voted for the stuff Bush wanted up until the last year or two. If that isn't cooperating, what would you imagine cooperation to look like?

13th February 2009, 12:32 PM	#33
NoZed Avenger Bitter Whiner Join Date: Apr 2002 Posts: 11,313	Originally Posted by Upchurch Oh, I don't subscribe to it either, as far as Congress goes. (As for what he sold to the American people, that's another issue.) I just wasn't challenging you on it, as it had little to do with what we were talking about. So you say. Neither did they actively do much to hinder the process and most voted for the stuff Bush wanted up until the last year or two. If that isn't cooperating, what would you imagine cooperation to look like? I suspect it is just a matter of disagreeing on the terms being used. The Congress wanted the best of both worlds -- tough talk against Bush and the measures, and then they often caved to avoid the fallout from things like stopping funding for the troops. Then they sat around afterwards talking down the measures they just voted on, etc. I just don't agree that the behavior qualifies as "cooperation." YMMV. Similarly, I don't call their vote on the war measure "gullible," because I simply don't believe for a second that a single person in the House or Senate was truly trusting, naive, or innocent. Again, I don't buy the argument going the other way on this topic, either -- both sides appear to be wanting to eat their cake and have it, too.

13th February 2009, 12:47 PM	#34
Upchurch Papa Funkosophy Join Date: May 2002 Location: Funky Town (STL, MO) Posts: 23,472	Originally Posted by NoZed Avenger I suspect it is just a matter of disagreeing on the terms being used. The Congress wanted the best of both worlds -- tough talk against Bush and the measures, and then they often caved to avoid the fallout from things like stopping funding for the troops. Short term memory you have there. Right after 9/11, the Democrats rolled over like good little puppies for at least a good year or two. They voted for his wars and gave him years of funding for it. Originally Posted by NoZed Avenger Then they sat around afterwards talking down the measures they just voted on, etc. I just don't agree that the behavior qualifies as "cooperation." YMMV. What would you consider qualifying as "cooperation"?

13th February 2009, 02:05 PM	#35
T.A.M. Keeper of the Kool-Vax Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: The Far East...of Canada Posts: 20,816	Originally Posted by peptoabysmal And after the Dems have been so cooperative over the last eight years. What a shame. touche. TAM