With the seating chart getting more press than the speculative contents of the speech, we as a whole are in some pretty deep trouble.

If Sarah Palin were a member of Congress, I bet John McCain would agree to sit next to her, and hold her...(hand.) Ever notice how he leers (I mean "smiles") when he looks at her??

If I were a Republican, I wouldn't want to sit next to a Democrat. Would give America the impression I approved of how the Democrats have been destroying America.

mel2877

Only 60 house members out of 434 -1 will agree to sit next to someone from the opposite party? Wow that new era of bipartisanship the republicans promised sounds like it is really working. (heavy sarcasm)

so NOW the Dems are worried about Bipartisanship?

What happened to the last two years? The Bipartisanship that OBAMA ran on? That ended with Reid and Peolsi didnt it. Now that you know for 100 percent fact that Republicans can stop your " progressive " movement you all of a sudden cry for Bipartisnship..

willowbrook

If I were a Republican, I wouldn't want to sit next to a Democrat. Would give America the impression I approved of how the Democrats have been destroying America.

DOOM! GLOOM! WAR! NO TAXES!

*yawn* Nothing to see here folks. Same old garbage.

The hypocracy of this whole thing is absurd. Dems are just trying to play down the fact that Reps are a majority and make it seem like a more favorable speech for President Obama. Don't get me wrong, I think bipartisanship is important in some ways, but seating assignments are not the true gauge of that. Once again Americans are satisfied with trite, superficial answers to deeper problems.

Republlicans have the majority in the House only. Democrats still have the majority in the Senate.

javadanny, I respectfully disagree with you. I don't care where anyone sits. I care about what the President is going to say to ALL the people of this country. He's the one that will set the tone for the next 2 years. He won't be able to get by with another "we won" type of attitude as he had during the HC debate. He won the job of President because he brought a large number of Independents to his side with promises of a change in how Washington would conduct itself. There was no change. We The People got to see how DC really works; backroom bargains that added more to our deficit, lobbyists still in control, favors to special interests, etc. Where anyone sits will make no difference unless there is a major attitude adjustment within Congress and that will only happen if the President shows he's willing to help make it happen.

MMos-575010

javadanny, I respectfully disagree with you. I don't care where anyone sits. I care about what the President is going to say to ALL the people of this country.

You dont care about a less hostile and more synergistic congress? You dont care that they should be working together instead of sniping at each other? You dont care that they are trying to tone down the hate rhetoric? Shining beacon of patriotism - you are.

Yes I care but this is just show biz.

ksw62118

Yes I care but this is just show biz.

Its show biz to stop acting like a douche?

They're not trying tone down any rhetoric. They're playing politics with seating. Just sit down where you have for over two hundred years, each side of the aisle.

They've spent a week debating who's going to sit next to whom. If they're going to change the seating, line up A to Z and be done with it. You'll end up sitting next to someone from the other party. Stop the games.

Mike, oh I do care, probably more than you realize. I listened to the President call for a stop to the rhetoric when he spoke at a memorial service and in less than 24 hrs one from his own party was on the floor in the House calling people Nazi's. It's not where they sit that will make a difference, it's the actions they take when they go back to work that I will be interested in. I'm not interested in a show, I'm interested in results.

You dont care about a less hostile and more synergistic congress? You dont care that they should be working together instead of sniping at each other? You dont care that they are trying to tone down the hate rhetoric? Shining beacon of patriotism - you are.

This is such hogwash. Sometimes, working together is not the answer. Political opposition and decent is necessary to counteract very reprehensible things. "Working together" and "bipartisanship" have netted us eighty years of a progressive march toward socialism. And all this breathless talk about "hate rhetoric" is clearly an attempt at repression of opposing viewpoints and nothing more. Isn't if funny how all these sensitivities always come up whenever the Democrats get kicked out of congress?

John Galt 2112

Sometimes, working together is not the answer.

Dumbest thing I have ever read. Stopped reading there.

Dumbest thing I have ever read. Stopped reading there.

Let me guess, you're a progressive....

John Galt..... I'm a Republican...and I think your comment is pretty dumb as well.

I do care where they sit because if they are spread out they don't have the "bully backbone" to count on when they act like snotty children. People are far more likely to behave civilly if they aren't seated with their like minded friends. Sadly, our elected lawmakers tend to behave as if they are still in Junior high..though looking at some of the comments here they are reflecting the behaviour of some of their more ignorant constituents......Its not a huge step...but its a good thing for at least this event.

John Galt..... I'm a Republican...and I think your comment is pretty dumb as well.

Of course, you are welcome to your opinion, but you haven't said anything that contradicts my actual points. When a conservative constitutionalist works together with a progressive on their agenda, the slide is always incrementally to the left. You can't deny it because we have eighty years of empirical evidence. We can't continue in this regard because our nation is bankrupt. We can't afford to continue to work with them on their agenda and on their terms and using their PC semantics. We need to roll back much of what has been built "together" or our country will face a crisis the likes of which we have never seen before. It will make 2008-2009 look like a day in the park.

Meh....who is John Galt? Sorry. I couldn't help myself.

So if this is like prom, does that mean in 9 months we will have some mutant offsprings from these dates? *shutters* Let's hope nobody has twins running in their families.

John Galt 2112

Of course, you are welcome to your opinion, but you haven't said anything that contradicts my actual points.

You want someone to argue with you that cooperation is bad?

2nd dumbest thing Ive ever read.

Keep it up - you're on a roll. And while I am socially liberal and fiscally in the middle - I dont think that defines me as a progressive.

You act a lot like a progressive since you can't seem to discuss the content, but have to stoop instead to calling my statements dumb. Are you sure you don't regularly vote for Democrats? If you were running for congress, I'm pretty sure we'd be referring to you as a RINO. ;)

1st of all I would like to say that Shelley Moore Capito, R-W.Va is 100 percent correct.

The only people who give a damn about where anyone sits, are the partisan hacks. The people who want to see everything working like it is supposed to be, couldnt give a rats arse.

Mike-416

You dont care about a less hostile and more synergistic congress? You dont care that they should be working together instead of sniping at each other? You dont care that they are trying to tone down the hate rhetoric? Shining beacon of patriotism - you are.

Yet somehow you think that a simple seating chart will accomplish this?

ALL of this is 100 percent partisan politics. The article even tells you why they are wanting to do it...

From the article.....

The result could be helpful to Obama as he delivers what is effectively the first speech of his re-election campaign. Rather than serving the traditional visual of the president's party popping up on one side of the chamber for dozens of standing ovations, the applause will be more evenly spread, perhaps giving the illusion of wider acceptance.

2Wylde4U

John Galt..... I'm a Republican...and I think your comment is pretty dumb as well.

I do care where they sit because if they are spread out they don't have the "bully backbone" to count on when they act like snotty children. People are far more likely to behave civilly if they aren't seated with their like minded friends. Sadly, our elected lawmakers tend to behave as if they are still in Junior high..

................................

I have to agree, well said. Unfortunately, people often behave with the pack mentality you see in animals, which when on their own, are no problem, but when they get into a group, e.g., domestic dogs allowed to run free, can become vicious. Still, this seating could be only cosmetic and without substance if tomorrow they go back to Capitol Hill behave like the same old immature jerks as in the past, and I mean BOTH sides of the aisle.

When a conservative constitutionalist works together with a progressive on their agenda, the slide is always incrementally to the left. You can't deny it because we have eighty years of empirical evidence.

------------------------------------

......1. If someone starts out in the extreme far right position, the only room for movement has to be to the left, but that doesn't mean the result is bad, i.e., it ends up on the left end of the spectrum instead of somewhere in the moderate middle, which I admit, is still anathema to some extreme conservatives (not all conservatives are extreme, there are moderates, but apparently the Tea Party doesn't like them, hence Whiz Kid Christine O'Donnell won the GOP NJ senatorial primary, and that is troubling, I voted straight GOP for years, but after watching them the last 2 years, they've lost me, and I will not become a liberal or DEM, so I'm stuck in the middle with no hope in sight).

.....2. How does your statement work with the way the GOP completely watered down the attempted financial reform bill last year, much to the benefit of big banks and Wall Street.

.....3. Could you please post your "eighty years of empirical evidence"?

If someone starts out in the extreme far right position,

It is not EXTREME RIGHT to be for the constitution and a government that is limited to the powers laid out in it. This is just one of the methods by which the radical left hijacks the conversation.

How does your statement work with the way the GOP completely watered down the attempted financial reform bill last year, much to the benefit of big banks and Wall Street.

The financial reform bill is yet another attack on entreprenurship and small community banking in the U.S. and is yet another example of the crony capitalism and massive rules and regulations that Democrats just love. I would have walked out on it too.

Could you please post your "eighty years of empirical evidence"?

You can't see it with your own eyes? Social Security, bankrupt, Medicare, bankrupt, Medicaid, bankrupt, as a result, federal government, bankrupt even though they spend a whopping 25%+ of the GDP of the country. Trillions and trillions of dollars confiscated from the private sector to grow and grow and grow the federal leviathan and no real problems have been solved. We still have rampant poverty and crime, we still have corruption, we still have massive waste and fraud, and yet, what is the progressive response? To grow it some more. Please....

"Social Security, bankrupt,"

Not according to their trustees: http://www.ssa.gov/oact/TR/TR08/II_project.html#105057

"Medicare, bankrupt"

Again, not according to their trustees: http://www.hhs.gov/news/press/2010pres/08/20100805d.html

Let's be accurate, okay?

Oh, I'm being accurate, it is those cooked reports that are not. The trustees know that there are no actual assets in those programs, and that they are relying instead on the imaginary "trust fund" that has all accrued to the federal government. So they rely on accounting gimicks and the "full force and good will" of the U.S. government to fund them either through increased tax revenues, major cuts in benefits, and/or printing of money. They are failed Ponzi schemes.

Ooooh, riiiight. The people who run and oversee the programs don't know what they're talking about, but you do. Okay.

"This is just one of the methods by which the radical left hijacks the conversation"

.......and this is just another method by which someone on one end of the spectrum can't handle disagreement and has to begin throwing out unfounded accusations or insluts by calling the other party "radical left", which I am not, I want to see our government meet in the middle.

"he financial reform bill is yet another attack on entreprenurship and small community banking in the U.S. and is yet another example of the crony capitalism and massive rules and regulations that Democrats just love"

.....I don't recall where the bill was concerned with small banks, but rather the large ones dealing with high risk investments like derivatives, you won't find any small, local banks heavily involved in this, and after what these wonderful examples of entreprenureship did to this country, common sense would dictate we put controls in place to prevent that from happening again, maybe you don't mind being dragged down by someone else, but plenty of other people do. Tell me, did you love the big bank bailout just before the 2008 elections? Want to see another one?

Ooooh, riiiight. The people who run and oversee the programs don't know what they're talking about, but you do. Okay.

You really aren't aware that the "trust fund" has been raided? I thought everyone knew about this by now, but maybe you haven't been paying attention. All that is in there are a special class of U.S. Treasury securities as the money either goes to pay current benficiaries or is "loaned" to the U.S. government to cover some of its debts. If a real investment fund were run this way, the managers would all be in jail.

http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/ProgData/fundFAQ.html#n2

.......and this is just another method by which someone on one end of the spectrum can't handle disagreement and has to begin throwing out unfounded accusations or insluts by calling the other party "radical left", which I am not, I want to see our government meet in the middle.

So lets see, you call the right "extreme", and then called the left "radical", but mine is an unfoudned accusation or an insult? What does that make yours? I do see much of the left as radical because they want to ignore the constitution (by calling it a "living document") and transform our society to something totally alien.

.....I don't recall where the bill was concerned with small banks, but rather the large ones dealing with high risk investments like derivatives, you won't find any small, local banks heavily involved in this, and after what these wonderful examples of entreprenureship did to this country, common sense would dictate we put controls in place to prevent that from happening again, maybe you don't mind being dragged down by someone else, but plenty of other people do. Tell me, did you love the big bank bailout just before the 2008 elections? Want to see another one

Your not recalling it doesn't make it so. This abominable bill has over 1600 sections and totals over 2300 pages. It places a whole new set of regulatory and reporting burden on banks of all sizes and dramatically limits the ability of smaller banks to compete against the goliaths, it makes bailouts a statutory mandate, and creates an expensive new regulatory body to oversee the whole mess. And that is all packaged up with a lovely bow and called "financial reform", otherwise known as reactionary, backwards looking regulation that grows government.

John Galt 2112

You really aren't aware that the "trust fund" has been raided?

So are you saying SS is solvent as long as its not raided?

'So lets see, you call the right "extreme", and then called the left "radical", but mine is an unfoudned accusation or an insult?"

..first, I didn't call the entire right extreme, I referred to those on the right who are extreme (just as there are extreme people on the left), I specifically made a point to say that there are moderate GOPers, you have learned how to truth/fact twist very well from Mr. Beck. I also did not call the left extreme (although some are), I referred to your comment which used my post to illustrate how the extreme left hijacks the conversation, which can only mean you were calling me someone on the extreme left, you don't read very well.

By the way, hijack? HIJACK! You can only hijack soemthing that belongs to someone else, are you saying this whole thread is your property, and the rest of us are not allowed to comment, at least i we choose to disagree with you? Talk about arrogance.

The mandatory bailout in the financial reform bill you mentioned was not that at all, but a requirement for large banks to increase their reserves to sufficient levels so that bailouts would NOT be necessary in the future, again some nice Beckian truth twisting.

So are you saying SS is solvent as long as its not raided?

It's a moot point. It already has been raided. The assets are long gone. There is no way to tell what its condition would be if there were a real trust fund.

I don't watch or listen to Beck. This is just another tactic you guys use to attempt to discredit your opponents. Why do you do this? Do you really think it's effective? You can't possibly believe it's truthful since you're implying a generalized smear with it.

When I say "hijack", I mean that you are not engaging in a conversation in an above-board, good will manner. To use a metaphor, you are throwing nails and oil out the back of your car to try to derail your counterpart in the conversation. Perhaps the correct word would be "dominate", but no matter, that is exactly what you're trying to do.

And no, the financial reform bill did far more than increase capital requirements. The bill provides for all manner of continued bailouts to financial institutions deemed "too big to fail". in fact, within a week of its passage, the Obama administration was leveraging the new act to pump billions of dollars in to prop up the housing market by helping unemployed people in default make payments on their homes. Additionally, it did nothing to address the largest institutions where we are still hemorrhaging money, namely Fannie and Freddie.

@AtlaswillShrug

Very good recommendation! That is probably the best solution I have heard in this whole thread, just line up A-Z and get it done. I also like the irony of a preschool method being employed on Congress, serves them right :)

Jason, not bad except you forgot JOBS! Real jobs, not just more gov't positions to further drain the economy. Oh, and immigration, the illegal kind.

Jason!

Now...that...was...AWESOME!

Jason, wouldn't it have been easier just to say, "I wish the government would just find a way to provide me with everything while I do nothing?

We don't have a gun problem Jason, we have a problems with letting mentally ill people do what ever they want, until it is too late and they commit heinous crimes.

yeah, why can't we just keep 'em locked up in the basement like the good 'ole days? deep withing each of us lies the ability to become "mentally ill", ever lost a child to the hands of another. ever lost a wife to a drunk driver? believe me when i say, i don't want a gun, but i will defend your right to carry.

That would put Alaska way off to one side of the room. Would they still be able to see Russia from there?

Good one Trsh, make fun of a state because of their geographic location!

Gee Trish, where would that put Hawaii?

I think Trish was poking fun at Alaska's doofey ex-Governor...not the beautiful state.

Teacher Trish?

That would put Alaska way off to one side of the room. Would they still be able to see Russia from there?

Wow, did one of your first graders give you that line?

fredex...I agree 100%. I would like to see more cohesion amongst the representitives of Iowa, and seating them together might foster more communication.

AtlasWillShrug

Teacher Trish?

Wow, did one of your first graders give you that line?

Its funny cuz its true.

Actually, Alaska would have to look over Alabama to see Russia from thier seat......

Nice post bigot.

And no - you dont get to call me a bigot for calling you a bigot.

I see vocabulary is big on the right wing agenda...I know you guys can quote the bible left and right at abortion rallies, but how come you always skip the parts about treating others kindly, and not judging other, and so on???

Here, have a Midol. Fix you right up!

Jason.Jayology

I see vocabulary is big on the right wing agenda...I know you guys can quote the bible left and right at abortion rallies, but how come you always skip the parts about treating others kindly, and not judging other, and so on???

How about you back your train up there Jason... You dont have to look any farther this this very vine to see people from your side of the isle doing exactly what you are accusing geri of doing.

Thoes who live in glass houses should not throw stones. ( or something like that )

What is my side of the aisle? I have no side...One giant open room, no aisles...

How can you say this "by a single deranged individual, not political," and this: "and by a far leftist" in the same sentence? Either it was political or not. And there's no evidence for the latter claim.

When you say the "people of this county," you mean unhinged people of this country, no?

Mary-516377

thank goodness for the Tea Party.

Yes yes. Thank goodness for bigoted, libertarians that dress up in powdered wigs, carry racial epithet signs and put their foot on the throats of woman trying to exercise their first amendment rights. Thank goodness.

What took them so long?!! I've been telling my husband for years that they should have mixed seating in congress. Getting to know each other as people instead of as adversaries would be beneficial.

Come on, do you seriously think they are going to "get to know each other as people" during a couple of hours of sitting together at this speech tonight? It's all a show. They all get to know each other in the cafeterias in the Senate and House office buildings. Most of these guys and gals don't have such enmity with each other that they don't talk casually or play the occasional round of golf together, have dinner together, etc. Many of them on both sides of the aisle know each other quite well from interacting socially in Washington and elsewhere.

Well, we can certainly see why YOU are never invited on a second date!

Well, we can certainly see why YOU are never invited on a second date!

Who is this "we" you speak for? Are you an elected official? Are you going to cozy up to your friends across the aisle and play "truth or dare" before the speech?

Perhaps, but if you try to join in on 'spin-the-bottle' I'm definitely going to remember I have an appointment somewhere!

"These clowns couldn't fight their way out of a paper bag."

Cuz of course, that's why we elected them, to fight.....

Any original thoughts? Any whatsoever?

Sit? Um....You are right, and I am sure there no corruption in the Republican Party or in the Tea Bag Klan...

I understand the premise for why you are saying what you are saying. It is a giant facade. yes. "Bunch of liberal crap..." that is where you loose me...liberal meaning not bellicose??? not being at war...liberal? don't get it...lost me.