Monday, January 17, 2011

Sitting Together at the State of the Union........

Did you hear about THIS?   Two senators, so far, have agreed to sit with each other during the State of the Union on January 25 (think they'll pass T shirts that say  "WE UNITED FOR THE STATE OF THE UNION?":-)
Anything Chuck Schumer says or does gives me pause (and nausea, I should add)...but I'm not sure where I stand (or sit) on this one...  ..What do you think....is it grandstanding hooey?
Two Republicans were on FOX this morning and beautifully and skillfully  (and disingenuously, in my opinion) evaded the question if they'd sit with Democrats.  Do they really have to wait a week and take the temperature of their fellow Republicans before they decide?  Don't they have opinions of their OWN?

I'm thinking more Democrats will agree to sit with the Republicans because they know that most of America probably likes the idea.........Americans are fair-minded and will applaud any sign of mending fences, especially when they see that the proverbial AISLE has grown wider than it's every probably been.......SO, the Dems will probably get great kudos in the media, as they usually do.....and any Republican who won't sit with a Dem will be touted as a nut who doesn't want unity.   That's how I think it'll be touted in the media, anyway.

Where do you stand.........er....SIT?
z

43 comments:

Faith said...

I'm sure you're right about how it will be presented by the media but the whole thing is what you said, a bunch of grandstanding hooey.

For starters it was prompted by the shooting in Arizona which has been twisted into a political event by the left so it should be shunned for that reason alone, to answer them that it was not an example of political divisiveness so there's no call for a show of coming together in response to it. Don't play into their stupid plots!

Second, why after generations of sitting in separate sections for this address should they now try to project this phony picture of unity at the feet of OBAMA! Give us a break!

Third, it will make it somewhat hard to tell who's cheering for what. I'm sure not TOO hard, but with the usual sitting arrangement there is no doubt.

No!

Always On Watch said...

GM Roper's take on this sitting together:

You know that when the leftoids (read Democrats) want to engage in bipartisanship, want to merge seating at the SOTU address so they won’t have to look like a minority because of the way the numbers work, want to get rid of labels and come together in the spirit of being “Americans, not Democrats, not Republicans but Americans” that the Repubs may very well get screwed. Again!

I think that GM is right on this issue.

Always On Watch said...

Of course, if the GOP balks on sitting with the Dems, then that refusal will be used against the GOP.

Therefore, this issue of sitting together is a win-win for the Dems. **sigh**

Ducky's here said...

They can sit on my middle digit and the budget is still going to run huge deficits, we won't have a public health insurance option, the military bloat will continue and financial regulation will remain weak.

Always On Watch said...

I see that we have Duck's erudite State of the Union Message.

Anonymous said...

Yes, it's grandstanding hooey. Meaningless symbolism.

The Dems are already saying that a vote in the House this week to repeal the healthcare bill, shows a lack of sensitivity by the Republicans. Give me a break.

If you had to take time off of work because of a death in your family, you'd be lucky to get three days off, then it's back to work!

It's the same old thing. The left setting an agenda even when they've lost their power in Congress. Setting up Republicans to look uncaring and mean spirited.

Frankly, I don't think the American people care where they sit, or if they hold hands! Just get down to the people's business of attacking the healthcare power grab, and cut spending.

Obama will be up there touting unity, which translated means, Republicans should compromise and play nice.

The beat goes on.

Pris

beamish said...

Given the all too common, likely, and probable chance that a Democrat or any other kind of leftist will spontaneously erupt in senseless violence, I think it's a bad idea.

Why can't they hold all the potential psycho killer Democrats in a separate chamber and carry the event over closed-circuit TV?

Karen Howes said...

I'm sure it IS grandstanding hooey. I wouldn't be opposed to the idea itself-- in fact, I'd like to scrap political parties altogether.

FrogBurger said...

Bunch of crap to me. I don't want bipartisanship with fascistic statist minds. I don't even want "bipartisanship" between small gov folks and statist republicans.

They can sit on my middle digit and the budget is still going to run huge deficits, we won't have a public health insurance option, the military bloat will continue and financial regulation will remain weak.

Blah blah blah.

Anonymous said...

If the Republicans fall for this trick they deserve what they get. Wake up & realize that the Dems play hard-ball gutter politics, so stop playing nice & being SUCKERS! Turn their own tricks against them, stick to your own side & tell them to stick to theirs. They weren't trying to play nicey-nice when they had the majority.

Silvrlady

Z said...

Good comments, thanks...you all make sense.

This really does sound like Kumbaya with a capital "D", doesn't it.....and SilvrLady's right...they didn't think of this when they were the majority...

Pris, I called that right, huh..."Lack of sensitivity"...There are still people who believe that this bill will save money, that's scary.

Anonymous said...

Faith said it all very eloquently in the first post.

Nothing to add to that.

~ FreeThinke

Ticker said...

It's grandstanding!
There are no rules as to who can sit where, only tradition. The Republicans need to arrive "very early" and sit as a body and the Dems can then chose where they wish to sit in the seating left available. In that manner the Dems will have no ammunition to call the Republicans cold and uncaring to which I of course call BS on.

Roper summed it up perfectly. They don't want have to look like a minority.

Frankly to use the words of the current Occupier of the White House, The Republicans should answer in kind. "We don’t mind the (Republicans) Democrats joining us. They can come for the ride, but they gotta sit in back.”

Dan said...

A man saw a rattle snake dieing in the snow. Feeling compassion for the snake the man put him next to his body to save him. When the snake revived the man asked him, "you're not going to bite me are you?". The snake replied "You knew I was a snake when you picked me up".

Anonymous said...

Lie down with dogs & get up with fleas. Republicans need to forget this kumbaya trap.

Silvrlady

Elmers Brother said...

nothing more than an attempt at better optics for the dems is all

Elmers Brother said...

apparently saving less than 3% of GDP by cutting the military will save the gubmint....quite the math genius there duhkkky

Elmers Brother said...

and besides we've been told that government spending is saving the country...

FrogBurger said...

Gotta make a comment on GDP b/c it used left and right for the wrong purposes.

It seems to me GDP is used left and right to make a point.

EB says "saving less than 3% of GDP by cutting the military" which is a bit confusing. There's nothing to save on the GDP.

Likewise healthcare reform was based on the fact the % of healthcare spending was too high in the GDP. Again, wrong/shallow analysis.

Leftist also use the GDP to promote welfare and food stamps saying it's adding to the GDP in that case. How convenient!

What matters is what the GDP comprises, and how it is generated. Gov spendings, for example, may increase the GDP but if it's unproductive spendings leading to debt, it's no good. In that regard, 3% of military cuts could be good. Likewise, consumption based on debt growing the GDP may not be that great.

Details, details, details...

Anonymous said...

The Evil Party v. The Stupid Party at it again.

Guess which is which?

My my! But we are given poor choices, aren't we?

But doesn't the way Republicans ALWAYS fall right into line, then roll over and play dead for political ploys initiated by D'Rats lend support to the idea that BOTH parties are playing roles assigned to them behind the scenes, and quietly COOPERATING against OUR best interests?

Certainly seems plausible if not strictly provable to me.

~ FreeThinke

beamish said...

It can be quite challenging to get an individual who is suffering from paranoia to accept treatment. Their paranoid condition makes them distrustful of people's motivations towards them, so that even a medical doctor appears to be a suspicious party. Medications that may be offered are usually looked at with great distrust, and efforts at psychotherapy are considered "mind control" by a profoundly paranoid individual.

The first step to be taken when someone is suffering from paranoia is that of determining whether an easily reversible situation (such as an adverse reaction to a medication) might be causing the paranoia. If so, discontinuing the drug (either immediately or by gradually weaning the dose) might end the symptoms of paranoia.

Patients who have other diseases, such as Alzheimer's disease or other forms of dementia, Huntington's disease, or Parkinson's disease may notice that their paranoid symptoms improve when their general medical condition is treated. The circumstance that can occur as their underlying disease progresses, is that the paranoia may return or worsen over time.

People who are suffering from diagnosable mental conditions such as schizophrenia or paranoid personality disorder may benefit from the use of typical antipsychotic medications, such as chlorpromazine or haloperidol , or from the newer, atypical antipsychotic medications, such as clozapine , olanzapine , or risperidone .

Cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) or other forms of psychotherapy may be helpful for certain people who have paranoia. CBT attempts to make a person more aware of his or her actions and motivations, and tries to help the individual learn to more accurately interpret cues around him or her, in an effort to help the individual change dysfunctional behaviors. Difficulty can enter into a therapeutic relationship with a paranoid individual, due to the level of mistrust and suspicion that is likely to interfere with their ability to participate in this form of treatment.

Support groups can be helpful for some paranoid individuals—particularly helpful in assisting family members and friends who must learn to live with, and care for paranoid individuals.

Z said...

sometimes I think so, FT. Sometimes the Republicans lie down and play dead when there's so much they can say/do. Particularly on TV, I'll hear accusations against them and they don't stand up for themselves, as if they are told not to.

BUT, I think some of the new, young Republicans aren't like that and I'm hoping against hope we see big differences soon. Let's see if THEY sit with the Democrats. :-(

Z said...

beamish, that doesn't help much.

Anonymous said...

"Pris, I called that right, huh..."Lack of sensitivity"...There are still people who believe that this bill will save money, that's scary."

Yep Z, you sure did. The only transparency I see with the Dems, is their strategy. It's wearing thin don't you think?

Pris

beamish said...

What?

Obviously the rodentoid servitors of the invisible conspiracy to discredit national socialism are bought and paid for by wealthy capitalists, as FreeThinke's Ron Paul ideology informs us.

We just need to take care to not let left-wing anti-capitalist paranoid delusionals form political programs, even making opposing stances known even when they attempt to impose their cryptoleftist sentiments in conservative and libertarian circles.

Elmers Brother said...

mY understanding FB is that government spending is factored into the calculation and the spending makes up about 3% of GDP...so duhkkky's red herring about cutting the military (i.e. the libtard bromide about 'if we weren't in this war...wouldn't have all these economic woes) would make little difference

Elmers Brother said...

Here's a revised version of an original report that I had read

Z said...

Elbro, thanks.
What bothered me was hearing Gibbs say we have to cut billions from the medical help our soldiers get.
It's grown from something like 15 billion to 50 billion ....

I don't see how America can make it, honestly...all we see is the biggest bills on EVERY front around us....Look how Illinois's raising taxes 67%!! Who the heck can pay that and BUY anything? So, they're killing sales, manufacturing etc.

I just don't see a way out...very upsetting.

Elmers Brother said...

The DOD has already said they're willing to take a cut....the problem is those who ride the entitlement tidal wave are not

Unlike duhkkky I am willing to admit my understanding of the GDP may be shallow

Elmers Brother said...

and I've already heard that military retirement benefits such as medical deductibles and insurance premiums are going up...I'm willing to accept doing my part

Z said...

I guess I feel for those kids with no limbs and their families....two wars DO make for higher medical bills, it's just a given. They might not be able to take a hit like we could.

Elmers Brother said...

just so we're clear duhkkky

Elmers Brother said...

right Z, they should have what they need

Anonymous said...

Nero "fiddled" while Rome burned.

Nowadays, we just do a lot of play acting, trade insults and play mind games with the truth.

When the government of the people, by the people and for the people gets taken over by "George" [of "Let George do it" fame] it won't be long before the Huns, the Goths and the Visigoths swoop down from the hills and lay waste to everything our ancestors fought, bled and died for.

Nowhere in the Scriptures does it say, "And the Smart Alecs shall inherit the earth." Or have I been using the wrong biblical translation?

~ FreeThinke

FrogBurger said...

mY understanding FB is that government spending is factored into the calculation

It is. I was just being anal and said you couldn't save on the GDP :)

But I disagree with your point that because it's only 3% it shouldn't be cut. With that kind of mindset we'll never do any cuts.
And, speaking without the military in mind, cutting 3% of unproductive and costly spending may be better than cutting 10% of unproductive spendings.

There's no small saving right now.

FrogBurger said...

Oops. I meant

And, speaking without the military in mind, cutting 3% of unproductive and costly spending may be better than cutting 10% of productive spendings.

Elmers Brother said...

I'm not saying it shouldn't be cut...I'm saying it's not the catch all that the left seems to think it is

you don't know how many times I've heard well we wouldn't be in this spot if we weren't in this war...but they don't even know what % of our spending is spent on the war

FrogBurger said...

Good diagram

Gov spends most of its money for things it's not supposed to do.

50% of that budget could be cut along the years if I had free reins :)

beamish said...

FT,

You can still buy affordable violins from a Chinese manufacturer and you and your whole klavern can have a symphonic hoe-down revival 'round the ol' burning cross next time Ron Paul comes around with his offering plate.

Anonymous said...

Apparently, the Huns took over long ago. It's already too late to save Civilization.

We done got barbarianized while we thought we was makin' progress.

Once you introduce pureed garlic to your mother's recipe for chocolate fudge, the fudge must be given up for lost.

~ FT

MK said...

You're right in that the media will smear the republicans if they don't sit with the democrap cretins. After what they've done to America, i can understand why anyone wouldn't want to be associated with them.

cube said...

I would like to tell the Republicans to grow a spine and keep with tradition. This is just a ploy to make Obama's reelection look better. Must our side always cave?

beamish said...

Apparently, the Huns took over long ago. It's already too late to save Civilization.

Give us time. We're still writing the obituaries of your fellow Klansmen, like leftist hero Robert Byrd, waiting for them to keel over from old age. This is because the right has never sent hitmen or enthusiastically gathered lynch mobs like the progressive leftist Woodrow Wilson. Sometimes your fellow leftists like James Wenneker von Brunn long for the days of "direct action" and go shoot up the Holocaust Museum while leaving rambling notes alleging that both Democrats and Republicans "are playing roles assigned to them behind the scenes, and quietly COOPERATING against OUR best interests," but most at least try to maintain the illusion of lucidity even as they drop glowing, praising references to nonsense pedddled on despicable white supremacist websites.

Please, FeebThinky, for the love of God and America, stop trying to pretend to be a conservative. You don't know even the first thing about being one, you mendacious, racist leftist.