Consider the ficticious transcript from C-Span of the following liberal idiotic proposal from the House floor:
Democratic proposal on unemployment: (currently speaking is House Majority Leader Stenny Hoyer) ‘During these trying times, we are seeing unemployment rates of nearly 10%, and things do not seem ready to turn around anytime soon owing to Republican obstructionists blocking our efforts to turn the tide. Extended unemployment benefits are costing this great nation of ours billions and billions of dollars. Accordingly, we propose to eliminate through the facilitation of thermo-nuclear techniques the following metropolitan areas that have been reporting the largest outflows of unemployment disbursals. This proposal will save the treasury 287 Billion dollars annually, or 2.87 Trillion dollars over the next decade, and the President expects to see a bill on his desk no later than next week. It is our intention to deliver on his request with a bi-partisan bill we can all support’ (huge wave of applause here from the left side of the aisle).
Proposed Metro Areas for elimination: Albany NY, Buffalo NY, Trenton NJ, Cleveland OH, Pittsburg PA, Portland ME, Berlin CT, Providence RI, Hackensack NJ, Patterson NJ, Hoboken NJ and Camden NJ.
Republican response to the proposal now on the floor of the House:
(Minority Whip Eric Cantor currently at the podium): ‘Madam Speaker, the minority position on the proposal at hand is that it will create nuclear fallout that will wreak havoc onto neighboring states, and this does not even consider the massive casualties that the Democrats seek to cause in the name of saving tax payer dollars. We are unified in our opposition to this bill on humanitarian grounds, and the bill as written has no support of our party at this time.’
ABC Anchorman George Stephanopoulos: ‘Well, there you have it; Republicans at it again obstructing Democratic efforts to save tax payer dollars. Again we see Republicans rebuke the extended Democratic hands of compromise as the ‘Party of No’ throws a monkey wrench into the president’s agenda yet again with their mean spirited partisan politics of obstructionism. Back to you in New York, Diane….. '
___________________________________________________
President Obama is on the attack against the GOP these last few days, accusing them of playing politics and chastising them for not meeting the president half way on any of his dreadfully destructive policies such as Cap and Trade, Health Care Reform, Card Check, and on and on…
The above analogy is extreme, but the point is valid: what would be the compromise in the scenario above? Remove Trenton and Hoboken from the list, and nuke the other metro areas and show at least some savings on unemployment disbursals and provide the president with his bipartisan victory? And in the real live America we all live in today, we would obtain the same disastrous results by adopting any, and I mean ANY of Obama's hare brained liberal nostrums in compromising on any of his Marxist agenda.
Moral of the Story: compromising on how much destruction we can levy on Americans gives us only destruction in the end.
.jpg)
20 comments:
Good analogy. The Repubs should stand pat on any comprimise as that is not what Americans want,,PERIOD.
They have seen now with eyes wide-open the destruction liberalism brings and as you point out clearly, there can be no comprimise on the destruction of what is left of our American society.
We can all see right through this little ploy, and it's not going to help Obama's sagging poll numbers. It's not as though we've all been asleep for the past year and are unaware that bipartisanship is the last thing on this president's, or the democrat's minds. The Republicans need to stand firm.
I had a similar thought when I heard Obama talking about how a compromise needs to me made and that means that he has to get some of the things he wants, but when what he wants for health care is a single-payer plan and all he really needs is the framework right now to build upon later I don't think he should be given anything because that's just giving him the blueprint for the bomb. And with Cap & Trade anything is too much because that would be akin to conceding that A. Global Warming is a real problem. Hello Snowmageddon. I love God's sense of humor.
Christopher: compromise, schmompromise, I always say, when it comes to liberals. Their premise is socialism, and they leave us no wiggle room as Obama mentioned of conservatives earlier in the week.
How do you compromise with socialist policy proposals? OK, Speaker Pelosi, we'll give you Cap and Trade, but Card Check is off the table? WE DON'T WANT ANY OF THEIR IDEAS IMLEMENTED! No part, parcel, crumb or shred of it is tolerable.
Chick: unless you're blind, it's hard to miss this junior high school end around. I used to defend Obama's intellect, but I think I can't defend it anymore, the guy seems hell bent on our destruction. The GOP seems to be growing a backbone as of late, and I think they will indeed stand firm on their opposition to his idiocy.
TKC: you see it like everyone else on the GOP side - we can't give him anything he wants, nothing at all.
It's like me compromising with the Taliban:
Mahmoud the Taliban guy: 'We insist that all infidels are beheaded, and that women must wear burkas at all times.'
Fredd: 'How about we behead only half of the infidels, and women can take their heavy black burkas off at night, and wear frilly sleeping burkas?'
Mahmoud: 'hmmmmm. I'll have to run that one by Mullah Omar. I'm not sure he's gonna go for the frilly thing. I'll get back to you....'
We can't give them even a morsel of what they want because you see, if we accept Obama's premise, the camel has gotten not only his nose into the tent, the camel owns the tent.
Yeah... I could see that happening...
I don't see why the Red Team is worried about being called obstructionists.
Massachewsits voted in a guy so he Could Obstruct.
Kid: I'm OK with obstructing destruction. Completely OK with it. I kinda like 'The Party of No.' That moniker has some legs, we could work with that...
To President BO, bipartisanship means "give up your values and accept mine."
Good post!
Fredd I agree with your comment that we cannot compromise with ANYTHING the man wants. The Party of No must remain the Party of Absolute No.
I see today that he is "agnostic" on Middle Class tax hikes. I don't how the man can stand himself.
Great article!
Exactly, Joe: Obama wagged his finger as us, warning that the notion of him accepting all of the Republican ideas and giving up all of his was not what he would call the definition of compromise.
Yet, he wants it just exactly the opposite, and will be calling that bipartisan spirit.
Maggie: 'The Party of Absolute No', I like it. Or perhaps 'The Party of Hell No.'
Better.
And the notion of this guy reconsidering any, and I mean ANY of his previous positions on ANYTHING is bogus: he is a pinko Marxist Communist to the bone, and anything he says to the contrary is just smoke and mirrors.
He doesn't really care who gets taxed, rich or poor or inbetween, frankly, as long as the revenues flow into his treasury coffers and he can dole them back out to whomever he deems deserving. Of course, he sleeps like a baby at night, dreaming of that very prospect.
And I can tell you, Maggie, that he won't be shoveling any dough to the rich anytime soon to jump start his precious jobs program. Or ever.
Maggie: 'The Party of Absolute No', I like it. Or perhaps 'The Party of Hell No.'
Better.
And the notion of this guy reconsidering any, and I mean ANY of his previous positions on ANYTHING is bogus: he is a pinko Marxist Communist to the bone, and anything he says to the contrary is just smoke and mirrors.
He doesn't really care who gets taxed, rich or poor or inbetween, frankly, as long as the revenues flow into his treasury coffers and he can dole them back out to whomever he deems deserving. Of course, he sleeps like a baby at night, dreaming of that very prospect.
And I can tell you, Maggie, that he won't be shoveling any dough to the rich anytime soon to jump start his precious jobs program. Or ever.
Very nice post here, Fredd. When all else fails, triangulate the Republicans - make them look like the 'obstructionists,' all the while ignoring your deliberately secretive, closed-door-Democrats-only meetings in shadowy, smoke-filled rooms.
Yeah. No, sure! Go ahead...(let's pray there are more 'Scott Browns' waiting in the wings).
Christopher: I accidentally deleted your last comment along with one other before reading it, feel free to repost it.
Yeah, Susannah, spin it to look like Democrats are the reasonable folks at the table when in reality they are the extreme radicals setting the stage to wreck America for the sake of their own power.
My insane parody here makes the point that is obvious and has always been obvious to the Right and quite a few in the Center. But it always amazes me how those other "Centrists' and Left of center and beyond types can't figure any of this out.
Fredd, It seems as though I did not clarify in my initial comment in reading your reply.
It was my intent to say the republicans should stand pat on NO comprimises with liberals, hence my usual agreement with your perspective.
I apologize for error in my keyboarding.
This is true. The progs are so far, so radically left that no compromise is possible. It's like trying to compromise with a serial killer, gee, please kill only 30 people instead of 60. No thanks, as long as these destructive, anti-American ideas are on the table, reps BETTER stay the party of HELL NO!
Fuzzy: your serial killer analogy is right on the money, and very creepy.
This upcoming 'bipartisan' meeting with Obama gives me the heebie jeebies as well, there's absolutely no upside for any attending Republicans. Let's hope they stand pat.
Post a Comment