Is Hillary A Lock?
- Thread starter bamacon
- Start date
Saw this earlier and thought I would share it here:
Some side splitters on this forum!:biggrin: Even this libtard has laughed at some.:biggrin:
Provoked how, exactly? McConnell made a point of immediately saying that his only legislative priority was to ensure that Obama was a one-term president--not really what you could call reaching out.
I remember McConnell's remark very well. He had a feces eating grin on his face when he said it. I remember Paul Ryan meeting with the President on the budget and Ryan talked so much trying to "school" the President that Ryan came across as a pendantic nitwit. The Repubs certainly didn't reach out with open arms. I dare say they have done everything they could to undermine the President.
Oh hell, here we go again. The Democrats had 59 Senate seats and Obama made it clear he didn't need them and now they're to blame?
He sure as hell didn't have ANY trouble passing that party-line health care vote. And as one liberal said at the two-year mark, don't give me the excuses because Obama had more seats than Bush ever did - and Bush got whatever he wanted even when the opposition was strong. Might be because he'd been a governor and knew how to do it.
I won't sit here and defend one thing the GOP did like the McConnell crack or the dude who said "you lie" during a Presidential address. That's bush league (if you'll pardon the pun), but it doesn't change the fact the Democrats had no problem changing the rules on filibuster or whatever whenever it was convenient.
I'm sorry but those excuses as to what the idiot couldn't do don't cut it. And the notion the Republicans were picking this fight from a position of any sort of strength at all is monumentally laughable on its face. You Obama apologists simply need to accept the fact the man never had any demonstrated leadership capacity to do anything. Bill Clinton did better with a GOP that IMPEACHED him than Obama did with a GOP minority. Why? Because he'd been a governor, not an undistinguished legislator whose resume would fit on a maple leaf.
He sure as hell didn't have ANY trouble passing that party-line health care vote. And as one liberal said at the two-year mark, don't give me the excuses because Obama had more seats than Bush ever did - and Bush got whatever he wanted even when the opposition was strong. Might be because he'd been a governor and knew how to do it.
I won't sit here and defend one thing the GOP did like the McConnell crack or the dude who said "you lie" during a Presidential address. That's bush league (if you'll pardon the pun), but it doesn't change the fact the Democrats had no problem changing the rules on filibuster or whatever whenever it was convenient.
I'm sorry but those excuses as to what the idiot couldn't do don't cut it. And the notion the Republicans were picking this fight from a position of any sort of strength at all is monumentally laughable on its face. You Obama apologists simply need to accept the fact the man never had any demonstrated leadership capacity to do anything. Bill Clinton did better with a GOP that IMPEACHED him than Obama did with a GOP minority. Why? Because he'd been a governor, not an undistinguished legislator whose resume would fit on a maple leaf.
Selma why limit yourself to the first part of his presidency? Hastert Rule should be renounced forever. Is your memory failing you?
How many nominees have been held up by the republicans. Unprecedented. Can you ever remember such personal and insulting disrespect for the presidency?
How many nominees have been held up by the republicans. Unprecedented. Can you ever remember such personal and insulting disrespect for the presidency?
You can't blame your memory for this pile of crap.
Bush got what he wanted in his first few years because of post 9/11 hysteria.
Come on Selma. This field will offer the biggest contrast in ideology in my lifetime. I was alive during Reagan but was to little to understand anything going on. There are at least conservatives running this time that are very different than the establishment RINO party. I can't wait to see where it goes. While they all have something "wrong" I'm not a purist. Most of them irritate the party leaders which is a huge plus to me.
I think Hillary is the sacrificial lamb on the left. They know what's up and that is why Obama is going full tilt with his pen and phone. They are literally running rings around the Rep. Leaders to the point that it is embarrassing.
I think the Dems are ceding 2016 with the knowledge that the Republicans are so pathetically dysfunctional and impotent that 2020 and the midterms will be a sweepstakes for them again like 2006 and then 2008.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Hmm. So Bush got a 2001 tax cut BEFORE 9/11 BECAUSE of 9/11?You can't blame your memory for this pile of crap.
Seriously?
And btw, I remember the whole run-up to the war quite well - which considering I was in med school and not paying that much attention is quite amazing. It was the DEMOCRATS who decided to "get the Iraq issue off the table" and VOTED FOR the damn war. Then they ran around the country after years of telling us what a dummy Bush was and tried to convince us that the dummy had hoodwinked them, which boggled my mind: how do you gain anything by saying you got snookered by an idiot?
You know why I admire the late Jewish hippie Paul Wellstone? I doubt Wellstone and I agreed on hardly anything as he was a 60s radical by all counts. But Paul Wellstone stood up and voted AGAINST the war while facing an election challenge he might well have lost. He was a man of conscience unwilling to send men (and women) to die in a manufactured war and willing to lose his job by that defiant stand on principle. The rest of the jellyfish decided, "I'm gonna vote for this just in case it turns out okay so they can't say I'm soft on defense (Hillary, Kerry, Edwards) and if it goes bad I'll just say they 'misled' me."
Bush also got his stem cell thing through before 9/11 despite the Senate being Democratic. So I'm sorry, but this whole "9/11 excuse" doesn't cut it with me. It's true he got some things done - most notably the biggest disaster since Vietnam - in 2002, but let's not try to pretend that's all it was.
As far as filibustering nominees - you folks are pretty shallow on American history if you think this is anything new. And you better remember that it was the DEMOCRATS (once again) who STARTED this whole modern thing when they torpedoed an "exceptionally well qualified" (per the ABA) nominee to the Supreme Court named Robert Bork. Yeah, I remember the fall of 1987 quite well.
I also remember: John Tower, Clarence Thomas, John Ashcroft, John Bolton, Bernard Kerik, and a host of other lesser-known confirmation struggles such as Rhenquist as CJ and Ed Meese as AG. The only justice denied for political reasons in the 20th century prior to Bork was John Parker under Hoover - and that had to do with his segregationist background (as he was a Southerner from NC). And Bork was defeated with suggestions that he favored a return to "separate but equal" treatment despite the fact he was on the record denying that.
Please note again I am NOT defending what the GOP is doing here in any way, and I find it stupid to tie it with sex slaves or abortion. But they learned this game from the party that controlled DC for so long and mastered it, too. All of a sudden the leftists on here have a problem with having to play the exact same game.
And besides, all I heard for eight years was how DISSENT was the highest form of patriotism - if that's so then doesn't that make McConnell a patriot? (Yes, I'm being facetious, but you began the rhetorical argument).
Now in regards to Hillary (which the OP is about):
has ANY candidate in American history told as many demonstrable lies about his or her PERSONAL story? I know they lie about their investments and positions on issues but this woman
a) claimed to have been named after Edmund Hillary despite being several years old before anyone heard of him
b) claimed to have dodged Bosnian sniper fire
c) this week claimed an immigrant background that is demonstrably untrue
d) suggested she didn't know Bill was lying about Monica until he told her in August 1998 but was revealed by Andrea Mitchell (from Lying NBC, ha ha) to have "known from day one" the truth
She also claims to have communicated with Eleanor Roosevelt - didn't we all mock Nancy Reagan's astrologer and Christine O'Donnell's paganism?
has ANY candidate in American history told as many demonstrable lies about his or her PERSONAL story? I know they lie about their investments and positions on issues but this woman
a) claimed to have been named after Edmund Hillary despite being several years old before anyone heard of him
b) claimed to have dodged Bosnian sniper fire
c) this week claimed an immigrant background that is demonstrably untrue
d) suggested she didn't know Bill was lying about Monica until he told her in August 1998 but was revealed by Andrea Mitchell (from Lying NBC, ha ha) to have "known from day one" the truth
She also claims to have communicated with Eleanor Roosevelt - didn't we all mock Nancy Reagan's astrologer and Christine O'Donnell's paganism?
Easy there Selma...remember that lots of folk that had issues with the clintonistas have woke up dead from apparent suicides. After shooting themselves in the head...seven times...with a six shooter.
I distinctly remember Obama making the statement to the effect that "he won" and if anyone disagreed with him they could "get over it."
There has been hostility from both sides, no doubt. But I believe the President is the tone setter. Obama set a tone of hostility from the very beginning and relations between the 2 sides has suffered mightily because of it, from the government on down to everyday people.
I'm not blaming it all on Obama. But I believe he started the whole mess. Does the "but he started it!" defense ever win or work? Of course not. I'm just stating my opinion. Going forward, I don't think anyone on either side that's been named so far is going to make things any better. Especially not Hillary Clinton.
So we've gone from Bush getting "whatever he wanted" to him getting a single bill passed? Nice.
Bush' stem cell ban was an executive order, so the Senate being Democratic isn't really an issue; Bush did veto a couple of attempts to abolish his restrictions, though.
Is this the free association thread? Cause I don't recall discussing filibusters here.
Dissent isn't the same thing as obstruction.
Semantics.
Besides - you might ought to remember something: many of those members doing what you call "obstructing" were elected BY THEIR CONSTITUENTS in their districts BY LARGER MARGINS than Obama won (or probably in most cases lost) the same district.
WHO represents their views?
You can complain all you want about how they went about it - just quit pretending one party plays nice and the other is a bunch of mean obstructionists. Now I'll grant you one point here: historically, Republicans are better at stopping the opposition with a united front than the Democrats but there's a solid reason for that. The GOP was a minority party in the House for all but four years from 1930-1994. The only way to have power was to vote as a block, and this was passed down from generation to generation. That's probably also a good reason why the Democrats have a bigger problem doing that (although you'd think they'd have nearly a generation of practice from 1994-2006) - they don't have as much practice at it. I'm not arguing it's good or bad but observing the why.
Again - you deep six your credibility as objective when you whine about McConnell's statement that he had virtually no way to accomplish but try to mitigate Obama's arrogant "put them in their place" comment right out of the chute. That comment alone made it a declaration of war, and his own lackies made sure the press knew he was "telling them off," which made all his conciliatory mumbo-jumbo little more than words.
There's a reason our system is set up the way it is, and it's quite the thing of beauty. Also - let me concede my own error regarding Bush and the stem cell executive order, which was in irrelevant example on my part. Thank you for pointing it out.
Hillary scares the crap out of me! I'm no Obama fan, I disagree with him on almost everything but, Hillary... just scares me to death. I just don't understand how anyone in this country can support her, even Obama supporters should be scared. Hillary = lies, deceit, cover ups and distrust. I'm not against a women being president but, I am against electing a monster. I fear that this country is so blind these days that she'll win easily.
No, it's not. There's a difference between a dissent that engenders an honest discussion and just saying "no", just as there's a difference between the proper exercise of the Senate's power of advise and consent and refusing to allow a vote on a nominee just because you can.
And yes, the dems have had some harsh confirmation hearings of their own. In some cases, the harshness was warranted.
REALLY?!?!?
Regarding the "putting in their place" comment, IIRC, I rejected your interpretation because the quote was provided without any context. In context, it may well mean what you think it means, but then again, it might not. Not sure how that constitutes "mitigation".
I like the system too; I just don't think it's working particularly well at the moment.
Latest threads
-
-
-
SIAP there was an article that Joe K interviewed for assistant coach
- Started by mlingerfelt31
- Replies: 11
-
Final Home Midweek for Alabama Brings Samford to The Joe- Started by Diamond Tide
- Replies: 0
-
-
