WH Bars Republicans from Jobs Meeting

Onceler said:
You're failing.

As long as both you & I know that you shouldn't be posting here, and that you're completely lacking in integrity, it's cool.
Click to expand...

waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

i was wrong and can't admit yurt did not actually claim i support union money, but i'm a petulant pussy and will talk about it in every thread despite telling SF i was going to stop the bullshit

you're a mangina
 
NigelTufnel said:
It only makes sense if you assume that holding a meeting with Democratic Governors means the president will not work with Republican Governors. That assumption is fucking stupid.
Click to expand...

Give me a break. He is holding a meeting with leaders of states to try and find a way to improve the jobs situation.... yet he doesn't invite ANY of the Rep Governors? That is petty partisan bullshit....

It is bullshit moves like that which cost the Dems in 2010. Keep it up.... I think it is a great strategy for the Dems. Really show the independents that you really want to 'work on problems' in an 'open and bipartisan' manner.

I am sure that is a great strategy.
 
Superfreak said:
Give me a break. He is holding a meeting with leaders of states to try and find a way to improve the jobs situation.... yet he doesn't invite ANY of the Rep Governors? That is petty partisan bullshit....

It is bullshit moves like that which cost the Dems in 2010. Keep it up.... I think it is a great strategy for the Dems. Really show the independents that you really want to 'work on problems' in an 'open and bipartisan' manner.

I am sure that is a great strategy.
Click to expand...


So, the president is not able to meet with governors of his own party? Instead he has to invite all governors? Even the ones that shitbag him on a regular basis? The Rick Perrys and Chris Chrities and whoever that jackass is down In Florida? Yeah, I'm sure they're dying for a fucking invite and I'm sure any meeting including those guys would be uber-productive.

Is this grade school? I remember when I was a kid my mom used to force me to invite all the kids in my class to may birthday parties, even the ones I didn't like. Is this the same thing?
 
NigelTufnel said:
So, the president is not able to meet with governors of his own party? Instead he has to invite all governors? Even the ones that shitbag him on a regular basis? The Rick Perrys and Chris Chrities and whoever that jackass is down In Florida? Yeah, I'm sure they're dying for a fucking invite and I'm sure any meeting including those guys would be uber-productive.

Is this grade school? I remember when I was a kid my mom used to force me to invite all the kids in my class to may birthday parties, even the ones I didn't like. Is this the same thing?
Click to expand...

yeah....you had the same thoughts when bush did this.....:rolleyes:
 
Onceler said:
And you think that unless Republicans are invited to everything, there is no bipartisanship?
Click to expand...

well, some might think that's part of the definition.....but then I wouldn't expect a liberal to actually understand that.....

NigelTufnel said:
So, the president is not able to meet with governors of his own party? Instead he has to invite all governors? Even the ones that shitbag him on a regular basis? The Rick Perrys and Chris Chrities and whoever that jackass is down In Florida? Yeah, I'm sure they're dying for a fucking invite and I'm sure any meeting including those guys would be uber-productive.

Is this grade school? I remember when I was a kid my mom used to force me to invite all the kids in my class to may birthday parties, even the ones I didn't like. Is this the same thing?
Click to expand...

see?.....like I said, liberals don't understand the concept of "bipartisan".....they think politics is like a birthday party instead of a means to solve a problem.....

here's a thought.....if Obama is going to blow out candles, he can invite just Democrats.....if he's going to actually discuss ways of solving the problem of jobs, he should invite everyone....

{I'm having second thoughts.....maybe this IS like a birthday party.....Obama is just inviting those he can expect will bring him gifts}.......
 
Last edited:
NigelTufnel said:
It only makes sense if you assume that holding a meeting with Democratic Governors means the president will not work with Republican Governors. That assumption is fucking stupid.
Click to expand...

really?......does not talking to them somehow fill you with confidence that he's working with them?.......to me it sounds like a repeat of the health care "negotiations"......
 
PostmodernProphet said:
well, some might think that's part of the definition.....but then I wouldn't expect a liberal to actually understand that.....


.
Click to expand...

Wow - what an insanely stupid thing to say.

No, PMP - bipartisanship doesn't mean that Republicans and Democrats do every single thing together; every caucus, every oval office meeting, going to the movies together, vacations to the beach.

You can be bipartisan, and still meet exclusively with your own party once in awhile.
 
Onceler said:
Wow - what an insanely stupid thing to say.

No, PMP - bipartisanship doesn't mean that Republicans and Democrats do every single thing together; every caucus, every oval office meeting, going to the movies together, vacations to the beach.

You can be bipartisan, and still meet exclusively with your own party once in awhile.
Click to expand...

so basically you equate a strategy session on creating jobs with going to the movies?......no wonder Democrats can't create jobs.......
 
NigelTufnel said:
So, the president is not able to meet with governors of his own party? Instead he has to invite all governors?
Click to expand...

Yes. We're talking about the President of the United States holding an economic summit on jobs and employment. He is not the chairman of the Democratic Party.

If your precious "leader" (and I use the term very loosely) cannot rise above partisan politics, then he is no fucking leader. I know mindless twits like yourself, with your heads firmly and permanently implanted up the donkeys ass cannot think beyond "Democrat: Good! Republican: Bad!". You'll just have to excuse people with genuine brains who believe the president should be held to a higher standard than that.
 
Good Luck said:
Yes. We're talking about the President of the United States holding an economic summit on jobs and employment. He is not the chairman of the Democratic Party.

If your precious "leader" (and I use the term very loosely) cannot rise above partisan politics, then he is no fucking leader. I know mindless twits like yourself, with your heads firmly and permanently implanted up the donkeys ass cannot think beyond "Democrat: Good! Republican: Bad!". You'll just have to excuse people with genuine brains who believe the president should be held to a higher standard than that.
Click to expand...

Right, because the house republicans are busy trying to repeal Obamacare and have NO INTEREST in creating jobs whatsover, so Obama should include Gov.s from the party that has openly stated that it's only present mission is to cause Obama to fail. Maybe if you use your "genuine brain" more often you could have figured that out on your own.
 
Good Luck said:
Yes. We're talking about the President of the United States holding an economic summit on jobs and employment. He is not the chairman of the Democratic Party.

If your precious "leader" (and I use the term very loosely) cannot rise above partisan politics, then he is no fucking leader. I know mindless twits like yourself, with your heads firmly and permanently implanted up the donkeys ass cannot think beyond "Democrat: Good! Republican: Bad!". You'll just have to excuse people with genuine brains who believe the president should be held to a higher standard than that.
Click to expand...

Is that what you have? "Genuine brains?"
 
PostmodernProphet said:
so basically you equate a strategy session on creating jobs with going to the movies?......no wonder Democrats can't create jobs.......
Click to expand...

You said that some think "part of the definition" of "bipartisanship" is "being invited to everything."

I was addressing that contention....
 
Onceler said:
Reason #314 why you shouldn't be posting here anymore: you have now hit 1,000 posts on some variation of "if this was Bush..."
Click to expand...

One would think that after hearing a FACT one thousand times it would penetrate that abnormally thick skull of yours to some extent....

Onceler said:
Wow - what an insanely stupid thing to say.

No, PMP - bipartisanship doesn't mean that Republicans and Democrats do every single thing together; every caucus, every oval office meeting, going to the movies together, vacations to the beach.

You can be bipartisan, and still meet exclusively with your own party once in awhile.
Click to expand...
And then a month or two from now you all can post how the Republicans didn't meet with Obama by choice and didn't help the poor guy.
Thats the new spin on the HC bullshit.....
 
Dune said:
Right, because the house republicans are busy trying to repeal Obamacare and have NO INTEREST in creating jobs whatsover, so Obama should include Gov.s from the party that has openly stated that it's only present mission is to cause Obama to fail. Maybe if you use your "genuine brain" more often you could have figured that out on your own.
Click to expand...
Translation: Durrr... Durrr... Durrr.... Four legs good, two legs b-a-a-a-d!
/translation

:rolleyes:

Governors are not the congress, even if the congress had "no interest" in creating jobs Governors do. The reality is the WH is focusing on partisan politics to the detriment of the nation as a whole. A fear that Republicans can use this to advance what can be good ideas is at the heart of this exclusion. Considering many of these Governors just got their jobs from the electorate he is sworn to serve pretty much tells us that exclusion of the opposition party is not a good idea.
 
bravo said:
One would think that after hearing a FACT one thousand times it would penetrate that abnormally thick skull of yours to some extent....
.....
Click to expand...

And what is the "fact" of that statement, bravs? "If this was Bush"...what? If this is Bush, we'd be hearing all kinds of criticism - just like we're hearing for Obama.

Yeah - great point. Thanks for clarifying.
 
Onceler said:
You said that some think "part of the definition" of "bipartisanship" is "being invited to everything."
I was addressing that contention....
Click to expand...
Actually, that was your asshole contention....not pmp's


But the definition of bipartisanship certainly is to invite the opposing party to matters of government policy making....
 
Onceler said:
And what is the "fact" of that statement, bravs? "If this was Bush"...what? If this is Bush, we'd be hearing all kinds of criticism - just like we're hearing for Obama.

Yeah - great point. Thanks for clarifying.
Click to expand...
Well, I tried to clear it up for you....maybe I need to dumb it down for you instead....
You're half right... If this is Bush, we'd be hearing all kinds of criticism...

When it comes to criticism, we don't have to keep pointing out we're talking about MSM criticism....you'll hear very little, if any, criticism from them about Obama....on any issue....

On JPP you'll get a little more....
 
Onceler said:
You've decided to keep posting then?

And you think that unless Republicans are invited to everything, there is no bipartisanship?
Click to expand...

Onceler said:
Um, bravs? I think you need to read through that exchange again.

Or, keep putting your foot in your mouth. Your call....
Click to expand...
This is YOUR POST #7.....
Did someone else make that stupid contention about "invited to everything" or was it YOU...???
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top