Thank you for your big speech right before the vote...way to bring congress together you dumb shit

9/29/2008 8:22:30 PM

I'm glad it failed, it's good for America.

9/29/2008 8:23:07 PM

Well personally, I'd like to see everyone pay for their mistakes...and since I didn't take out a home loan I couldn't afford...and since I don't invest my money in a gambling game....I'm doing just fine...

However....for those people who wanted this shit to pass...they can thank Pelosi for her speech.

9/29/2008 8:26:08 PM

http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=Zk69e1Vcmvg

9/29/2008 8:28:34 PM

message_topic.aspx?topic=542182

[Edited on September 29, 2008 at 8:38 PM. Reason : +]

9/29/2008 8:38:19 PM

Yes, it's her fault we're in this mess! Down with Democrats!

9/29/2008 8:46:24 PM

i've actually been trying to wrap my head around what exactly is the "main blame" here

1) the bill was good... people were gonna vote for it before being convinced they shouldn't through logic
2) the bill was bad... people were gonna vote for it before being convinced they shouldn't through logic
3) the bill was good... people were gonna vote for it before being convinced they shouldn't because of pettiness
4) the bill was bad... people were gonna vote for it before being convinced they shouldn't because of pettiness

[Edited on September 29, 2008 at 8:51 PM. Reason : ?]

9/29/2008 8:50:20 PM

If a member of congress is swayed by a speech and changes his vote instead of voting based on his interpretation of the quality of the bill, then he is a dumbfuck and deserves to lose his job.

9/29/2008 8:57:30 PM

that's kind of what i'm alluding to

9/29/2008 9:14:17 PM

um.....well in that case...since it's the House Speaker's job to get everyone to try work together, then I'd say she should be fire first.


And I'm not saying it's all the Democrats fault. IT'S CONGRESSES FAULT....I see you went ahead and ignored that

9/29/2008 9:14:39 PM

Blaming Pelosi is just silly. Politicians voted against the bailout because it's unamerican. For once, they listened to the people.

9/29/2008 9:22:07 PM

i didn't even mention party

there were votes for and against the bill on both sides

i'm not arguing with you

i was simply writing out a couple of scenarios

jeeze louise, lady

[Edited on September 29, 2008 at 9:44 PM. Reason : ^^]

9/29/2008 9:40:54 PM

i heard like 60 percent of the dems voted for it and like 67 percent of the repubs voted against it

9/29/2008 9:42:49 PM

Yeah, but it's still -somehow- the Democrats' fault.

I'm sure Bill Clinton was behind the scenes, leading the opposition.

9/29/2008 10:12:14 PM

its childish all around since at least a good bit of the bicking is all political.

WE DONT WANNA PASS IT, TAKE THE RISK, AND GET STUCK WITH THE BLAME.

WELL YOU DONT NEED OUR VOTES BECAUSE YOU HAVE THE MAJORITY, BUT WE'LL BE GLAD TO BLAME YOU IF IT FAILS MISERABLY.

i mean shit.

[Edited on September 29, 2008 at 10:15 PM. Reason : ,]

9/29/2008 10:15:03 PM

Quote :

"Yeah, but it's still -somehow- the Democrats' fault. I'm sure Bill Clinton was behind the scenes, leading the opposition."

Did you not see immediately after the bill was rejected? All the Democrats were out in full force blaming the Republicans, when in reality, they didn't even need the Republicans to pass it. The responsibility is shared but if anything, Pelosi should be blaming herself for not rallying her OWN damn party to the bill.

9/29/2008 11:09:00 PM

so who are these 12 republicans who were such crybabies that they decided to put the economic welfare of the nation behind the interest of their silly egos.

9/29/2008 11:11:26 PM

^ I dunno, I was wondering about the same 95 fucking Democrats who voted against it

9/29/2008 11:14:20 PM

This is a failure of the Republican leadership. They claimed they had the votes. They didn't. I don't know how anyone can blame the Democratic party on this. The Republican leadership could not get a simple majority of the people to vote with the leadership on the bill.

The civil war is on within the Republican ranks. I for one am excited.

9/29/2008 11:17:19 PM

Quote :

"If a member of congress is swayed by a speech and changes his vote instead of voting based on his interpretation of the quality of the bill, then he is a dumbfuck and deserves to lose his job."

9/29/2008 11:18:21 PM

So, let me see if I understand this correctly - Pelosi's move to lash out at a fragile coalition, thus alienating enough Representatives - rightly or wrongly - is somehow a sign of good leadership? That this, despite 40% of Democrats turning on this bill, is yet again, all the Republicans' fault?

Jesus Christ. It's like Democrats don't even want to govern.

If there's one thing you do in situations where you're trying to hold together a "bipartisan coalition," is that you shut yer goddamned trap until after the votes are counted.

[Edited on September 29, 2008 at 11:19 PM. Reason : .]

9/29/2008 11:18:50 PM

^^^ haha truly pathetic

why are Dems not focused on the 95 members of their own damn party who voted against the bill?

because it's easier to be mad at the meanie conservatives who just ruin everything for everybody

[Edited on September 29, 2008 at 11:20 PM. Reason : .]

9/29/2008 11:19:02 PM

Quote :

"This is a failure of the Republican leadership. They claimed they had the votes. They didn't. I don't know how anyone can blame the Democratic party on this. The Republican leadership could not get a simple majority of the people to vote with the leadership on the bill."

You've got to be fucking kidding me. The Democrats hold the majority, and 40% of them voted no.

Christ, are you living on your own planet now?

9/29/2008 11:20:49 PM

it is a controversial bill. if you want a true bipartisan effort, your leadership should rally to get a majority of both parties to vote for it. democrats did, replublicans supposedly did. everyone needs to man up.

9/29/2008 11:23:53 PM

This needs to be repeated.

Quote :

"it is a controversial bill. if you want a true bipartisan effort, your leadership should rally to get a majority of both parties to vote for it. democrats did, replublicans supposedly did. everyone needs to man up."

I love watching a three party coalition fall to pieces. The republicans are systematically fucking themselves at every turn on this.

9/29/2008 11:26:41 PM

yes, vote for a bill that goes against all your conservative principles and that your base is apparently 10-1 against.

all so we can be friends and share in a bipartisan bill


whatever, this bill was a piece of shit and if 95 Democrats were willing to vote against the majority and vote against it, it definitely did not need to be passed

[Edited on September 29, 2008 at 11:30 PM. Reason : .]

9/29/2008 11:28:58 PM

^^^^common now, there's a 50/50 chance this bill, whether approved or not, will blow up in everyone's face. not passing the bill has more to do with nobody wanting to be stuck with the blame if it passes.

the "pelosi is an idiot" sentiment is a giant smokescreen because republicans don't want the blame if it fails, but want the luxury of pointing the fingure across the aisle if it passes and fails. i'm sure the same could be said for the dems, but at least they got a majority of the people to risk putting their heads on the block.

when it comes down to it, there never was any bipartisan "teamwork" to get this thing passed. everyone is just scrambling to keep their hands clean of the situation altogether.

[Edited on September 29, 2008 at 11:29 PM. Reason : ^^]

9/29/2008 11:29:34 PM

I love it when people who marginally pay attention latch onto a talking point and never let it go.

The reasons why those Democrats voted against the bill are not the same as the republican reasons.

9/29/2008 11:30:40 PM

Oh please enlighten me

9/29/2008 11:31:51 PM

Just remember - if the Democrats vote "no," it's for all the right reasons.

When the Republicans do it, it's because they hate America.

It all comes together now!

9/29/2008 11:35:36 PM

There was an agreement, the Republicans would deliver half and the Democrats would deliver half. There would not have been a floor vote had Rep. Boehner not had promised the votes he was supposed to deliver. He failed. The Republican leadership failed and there is a civil war currently under way with the Republican party. No matter how much the Republicans want to spin this, the Wall Street wing of the party is leaving and that cannot be denied. I'm laughing over myself on this.

The Republicans have fucked themselves.

Quote :

"Just remember - if the Democrats vote "no," it's for all the right reasons. When the Republicans do it, it's because they hate America. It all comes together now!"

no one is arguing that. The point stands, the Republicans claimed they had the votes they were supposed to deliver. That didn't happen. What was the argument for that? A mean speech by Nancy Pelosi. That is as laughable as it gets.

[Edited on September 29, 2008 at 11:37 PM. Reason : .]

9/29/2008 11:35:59 PM

So, Enlightened One, please explain to us why many, many Democrats also defected. And why their reason was morally defensible compared to the Republicans you are so wont to generalize.

Because, all I've heard so far is that "this is the Republicans' fault." You know, despite Democrats holding a majority.

The fact is, Pelosi made a tremendous tactical error alienating people already uncomfortable with this bill. Whether or not someone changing their position over a partisan screed is childish isn't being debated - but there's a question of statecraft here. You don't alienate the people you need on your side. At least until after the votes are counted.

It doesn't take a Republican hack to see that you don't go out of your way to alienate fragile coalitions - it's just bad strategy.

[Edited on September 29, 2008 at 11:41 PM. Reason : .]

9/29/2008 11:38:31 PM

^^ fucked themselves how?

into the minority in the House? oh wait, they're already there


and why couldn't the Democrats deliver more than half? Pelosi's speech pissed them off too, or was it really just that shitty of a bill?

[Edited on September 29, 2008 at 11:38 PM. Reason : .]

9/29/2008 11:38:40 PM

Quote :

"So, Enlightened One, please explain to us why many, many Democrats also defected. And why their reason was morally defensible compared to the Republicans you are so wont to generalize."

I'm not making the argument of moral defensibility. Try paying attention.

Quote :

"^^ fucked themselves how? into the minority in the House? oh wait, they're already there and why couldn't the Democrats deliver more than half? Pelosi's speech pissed them off too, or was it really just that shitty of a bill? "

There is more to politics then who controls the house. The failure of the Republican leadership will lead to a revolt within the party and it won't be pretty.

As for the Democrats, they delivered on their end of the deal, the Republicans failed to deliver as they stated they would. Again, a revolt against the leadership. I know one thing, this never would have happened under Tom DeLay. He would have held their balls to the fire and got the votes he promised.

[Edited on September 29, 2008 at 11:41 PM. Reason : .]

9/29/2008 11:39:33 PM

wow, thanks for clearing all that up. You definitely showed me why everything went down like it did by telling me more than once "Democrats delivered on their end of the deal"

9/29/2008 11:43:04 PM

Quote :

"so who are these 12 republicans who were such crybabies that they decided to put the economic welfare of the nation behind the interest of their silly egos."

That's the sound of someone who believes the 95 Democrats who also voted no are morally equivalent to 12 Republicans. You can tell, because the only people you actually call out are the Republicans.

I mean, it's all there. Anyone who can't glean that must be some kind of moron for thinking you just sound like a total partisan hack.

9/29/2008 11:43:54 PM

What is even funnier was John McCain having a press conference to take credit for the bail out passing before the vote was even held. Trumping up his leadership to get the Republicans to support the bill for the betterment of the nation, only that didn't happen. So much for McCain's leadership ability.


^, ^^It is evident you don't understand how legislatures work.

Quote :

"That's the sound of someone who believes the 95 Democrats who also voted no are morally equivalent to 12 Republicans. You can tell, because the only people you actually call out are the Republicans. I mean, it's all there. Anyone who can't glean that must be some kind of moron for thinking you just sound like a total partisan hack."

I don't know how to make it even simpler for you to understand. The Republicans claimed they had the votes, as per their agreement with the Democratic leadership. After it became evident the Republicans did not have the votes, what did Boehner do? He blamed a speech by Nancy Pelosi for insulting the Republican party. This means, that at least 12 Republicans (since the Republicans promised to deliver their share) had a change of mind do to a speech by Nancy Pelosi. If you cannot understand that, then you are beyond lost.

[Edited on September 29, 2008 at 11:45 PM. Reason : .]

[Edited on September 29, 2008 at 11:47 PM. Reason : .]

9/29/2008 11:45:16 PM

hey I can't make an argument, so I'm going to call out McCain!

You mention latching on to a talking point but there's no talking point in looking at a vote tally and seeing how many of each party voted for the bill. If it makes you feel better to blame the Republicans and ignore the rest of your party's failure to pass a bill that is supposedly going to make everything okay again but is obviously not worth a damn, then go for it.

9/29/2008 11:47:30 PM

Hello aimorris, it is a simple concept. It's okay that you don't understand it, politics isn't for everyone.

9/29/2008 11:48:43 PM

Quote :

"^, ^^It is evident you don't understand how legislatures work."

You're right, because by my count, 95 > 12. And, silly me, my understanding of legislatures is that the end of the day, we don't count votes by "majority of each party," we count votes by the majority of the body.

Which Pelosi failed to deliver - thanks in equally large measure to defections on her side.

Quote :

"I don't know how to make it even simpler for you to understand. The Republicans claimed they had the votes, as per their agreement with the Democratic leadership. After it became evident the Republicans did not have the votes, what did Boehner do? He blamed a speech by Nancy Pelosi for insulting the Republican party. This means, that at least 12 Republicans (since the Republicans promised to deliver their share) had a change of mind do to a speech by Nancy Pelosi. If you cannot understand that, then you are beyond lost."

So screaming at the people you desperately need to go along with your "bipartisan" plan about how the current crisis is all their fault is an effective leadership now? When you can't even deliver a broad enough margin from your own party to cover any possible defections?

I'm not sure how much simpler I can make this - whether or not it was justified for those Republicans to change their votes, how is berating those people you obviously need so desperately to join your coalition (given the fact that you can't even manage sufficient muster from your own party) an effective strategy?

Really, just answer that one for me. How was Pelosi's hyper-partisan rant before the vote a "good idea?" Regardless of whether anybody getting their feelings hurt by it was childish (which, again, nobody is debating.)

9/29/2008 11:55:30 PM

lol

9/29/2008 11:55:33 PM

I, for one, am a democrat, and I don't understand why the democratic party didn't just pass the bill on their own accord. the only explanation that I can think of is that everyone involved "understood" that this bill is essentially a red-headed retarded orphan that nobody wants to adopt, and that a 50/50 delivery on each side of the aisle would relieve both parties from complete ownership of the bill in the event that it passes and still does not prevent the economy from completely shitting it's pants.

if this is the case, then its just a sad case of both sides not wanting to risk their political careers by passing a bill that is unpopular in the eyes of the public. if that's the case, then it's equally as outrageous, because this is a bill that is far to complicated for the lay person to fully understand, and these leaders need to make the best decision for the wealfare of the country, not just their own political popularity.


am i wrong here, or is there just a lot more to it?

9/29/2008 11:56:13 PM

^ ask nutsmackr, he's the politics expert around here.

we're all idiots.

9/29/2008 11:57:38 PM

^^No, that sounds about right. Add onto the fact that this same bill was wildly unpopular with the public at large - and not without good reason, either. That, however, is a debate for a different thread. I'd argue with your contention about going against the wishes of their constituents, however - why bother even having elected representatives if they're simply going to ignore their constituents, especially when the "greater good" being accomplished in this case is so very debatable?

Nobody wanted to own this turd. Hence the "bipartisan" deal-making, and how it so very easily frayed in the end.

[Edited on September 29, 2008 at 11:59 PM. Reason : .]

9/29/2008 11:58:02 PM

Quote :

"the only explanation that I can think of is that everyone involved "understood" that this bill is essentially a red-headed retarded orphan that nobody wants to adopt, and that a 50/50 delivery on each side of the aisle would relieve both parties from complete ownership of the bill in the event that it passes and still does not prevent the economy from completely shitting it's pants."

Democrats obviously want to share the blame because they know this shit isn't a fix-all solution and the Republicans had nothing to lose by standing up against the bill. Either some Republican arms are going to have to be twisted and forced to go against conservative opinion and risk re-election or Democrats are just going to have to man up and pass the bill.

Or, we could wait and see some more evidence that the end of the world is actually going to come, which nobody has been quite clear about. Some type of bill will probably be passed, it's just a good thing (for whatever the fucking reason was) that the knee-jerk panic mode bill passing failed.

9/30/2008 12:01:31 AM

This is how I see it:
On ABC news they showed that the vote split more by 'safety' of the congressman, if they were facing a tough election, or had in the past, they voted no.

Each side knows there are some who need to vote no otherwise they might get booted. This bill is supposed to be under the guise of a 'bipartisan agreement'.

The reason why its bipartisan is neither side wants to end up getting the shaft. If the dems voted for it and it didnt work, they would be called "socialist economy ruiners" by the republicans. If it was just the republicans who blocked this bill and the economy went to shit, the dems could spin it as 'republicans don't care about our economy going to shit'.

Pelosi and Boner are not stupid, its a case of "Im not jumping off the cliff until you do" sorta deal. Bipartisan, in a cold war sorta way. Its their job to go back and stirrup the votes (well actually thats the whips job) and they both said they had the right number of aye votes to get this passed.

12 Republicans defected from this plan, this is the Republicans fault, its their party and for a party thats notable for its lock-step unity, this shows signs of a severe structural problem.

And Pelosi would be a fool to go back and tell Dems to rechange their vote to hammer it through. Would you keep your end of the deal if the other guy's business fell apart? How does Pelosi know it wasn't some last minute ploy to set it so republicans could win political points?

Its all a game ya know


[Edited on September 30, 2008 at 12:16 AM. Reason : ]

9/30/2008 12:14:57 AM

Quote :

"12 Republicans defected from this plan, this is the Republicans fault, its their party and for a party thats notable for its lock-step unity, this shows signs of a severe structural problem. "

According to CNN, those Republicans were a toss up going into the vote, so they didn't defect at all. They didn't want to vote for it, but had been lobbied hard by their congressional leadership.Pelosi's rant just sealed the deal for them.

And the Republican party is no more known for it's "lock-step" unity than is the Democratic party.

9/30/2008 12:20:16 AM

Quote :

"The point stands, the Republicans claimed they had the votes they were supposed to deliver. That didn't happen. What was the argument for that? A mean speech by Nancy Pelosi. That is as laughable as it gets."

9/30/2008 12:51:34 AM

So hyper-partisan rants on the verge of a key "bipartisan" vote is a sign of good leadership? You know, once again, regardless of whether these Representatives were incorrect to change their votes.

Seems like it's awfully hard to get an answer this question.

9/30/2008 1:08:29 AM

Wow, nutsmackr doing what he does best, fagging up another thread with partisan douchebaggery.

9/30/2008 1:54:32 AM