Pelosi : "It felt like a 10-pound anvil was lifted off my head"

[red states rule]

Without Bush Derangement Synfrome, liberals would never be able to make it through the day

They keep attacking Pres Bush even when he is no longer in office


snip

Pelosi said one of her favorite moments from Inauguration Day was when Marine One lifted off the Capitol grounds, signifying former President George W. Bush's exit from Washington. "It felt like a 10-pound anvil was lifted off my head," she said.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/01/21/MN5Q15EJQ2.DTL&type=politics&tsp=1

[Joe Steel]

Without Bush Derangement Synfrome, liberals would never be able to make it through the day

They keep attacking Pres Bush even when he is no longer in office




Evil is evil.

Deliverance is sweet.

Rejoice!

[red states rule]

Evil is evil.

Deliverance is sweet.

Rejoice!

That 10 lb anvil is an anvil the founding fathers adapted to our country.

Naturally, Pelosi and her minions are happy to see it lifted.

[Joe Steel]

That 10 lb anvil is an anvil the founding fathers adapted to our country.

Naturally, Pelosi and her minions are happy to see it lifted.

"(F)aithfully executing the office of president" is a ten pound anvil?

[red states rule]

"(F)aithfully executing the office of president" is a ten pound anvil?

Only if you do it the liberal way, and ignore what the US Constitution actually means

[Abbey Marie]

How gracious of her.

[red states rule]

How gracious of her.

It is about as gracious as San Fran Nan gets Abbey

Without BDS, they can not get through the day.

They want to investigate him even now. Someone should start an organization to help them MOVEON

What do you think Abbey - are you in? :laugh2:

[stephanie]

Pelosi is one woman I absolutely can not stand. and her face scares me..

[red states rule]

Pelosi is one woman I absolutely can not stand. and her face scares me..

When she walks into a room Steph, the mice jump up on the chairs

[PostmodernProphet]

"(F)aithfully executing the office of president" is a ten pound anvil?

to those opposed to faithful execution, yes......

[red states rule]

San Fran Nan is now free to wreck the country unfettered by a level headed President

[Joe Steel]

I'm quite certain faithful execution of the office of president does not include lying to Congress and the People to start a war.

[red states rule]

I'm quite certain faithful execution of the office of president does not include lying to Congress and the People to start a war.

The old liberal playbook dies hard

[stephanie]

I'm quite certain faithful execution of the office of president does not include lying to Congress and the People to start a war.

there is the old commie rule-repeat a lie enough and see if they can convince people that it is true.

[red states rule]

I wonder if San Fran Nan seen the latest Congressional approval number?

[Joe Steel]

I wonder if San Fran Nan seen the latest Congressional approval number?

Why do you wingnuts keep doing this?

When you mention low Congressional approval, all you do is highlight Republican obstructionism.

[red states rule]

Why do you wingnuts keep doing this?

When you mention low Congressional approval, all you do is highlight Republican obstructionism.

Joe, Dems run Congress

USA Today/Gallup have Congress at 19%

[stephanie]

Why do you wingnuts keep doing this?

When you mention low Congressional approval, all you do is highlight Republican obstructionism.

Obstructionism=so that's the new word your party has told you all to throw out all the time?

when Democrats object, what is that called again, I forget? can you look it up in the Dnc handbook for us..

[red states rule]

Rasmussen has the Reid/Pelosi Congress at 14%

Thursday, January 22, 2009 Email to a FriendAdvertisement
Fourteen percent (14%) of likely voters now give Congress good or excellent marks, representing the legislature’s highest approval ratings since last February.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/mood_of_america/congressional_performance/congressional_performance

[April15]

A ten pound anvil? All I have used are 75# and more.
I can tell you that the relief that knowing Bush is out of office is kinda like a holiday feeling. I have a hunch ol Bush will be fodder for many conversations and arguments in the years to come just like the other bozo RR.

[OCA]

Only if you do it the liberal way, and ignore what the US Constitution actually means

Tell me, did Bush pay attention to the Constitution on an array of subjects?

[OCA]

It is about as gracious as San Fran Nan gets Abbey

Without BDS, they can not get through the day.

They want to investigate him even now. Someone should start an organization to help them MOVEON

What do you think Abbey - are you in? :laugh2:

Why do you want the investigation to not happen? Well maybe you are afraid that there is alot of dirt to be uncovered.

[April15]

Tell me, did Bush pay attention to the Constitution on an array of subjects?

Back in the year 2000, when George W. Bush lost the popular vote and was shoe-horned into office by the Supreme Court in spite of clear conflicts of interest on the part of Scalia and Thomas, the psychology of Little George was known to only a few.

To most of us he seemed like a doofus -- a more or less well-meaning guy who enjoyed running things like baseball teams and the State of Texas if not too much work was involved. Had been an alcoholic and a drug user, but had apparently come clean in some hazy, quasi-religious way -- that was his personal history to many Americans (if not to all those who met with Karl Rove behind closed doors and heard the truth).

At any rate, I remember thinking that Bill Clinton had done such a good job over the years getting the budget into a surplus and winning good feelings around the world that it really didn't matter who of the four who were running (Gore, Bradley, McCain, Bush) might win. They all seemed about the same in lots of ways.

What we really needed was some respite from Clinton's own penchant for mischief. I liked Clinton. I remember that The New Yorker magazine asked me for my take on the Lewinsky scandal, and I said that on balance, in spite of the brouhaha, I still preferred a president who would make love, not war. Clinton was a flawed human being, that was evident, but he knew it. He never didn't know it. And he was always trying to make amends.

But he was exhausting -- or the media made him exhausting. I thought we were due for a rest.

Little did we know, of course, that the neocons thought we were due for a war. Thinktank gun-jockeys looking for a fight. Do they personally have some human qualities? Who cares. May they rot.

At any rate, what I think happened is that when the Bush/Scowcroft/Baker faction decided to use Little George as their presidential poster boy to expand their Middle-East-based wealth and power, they didn't reckon with Cheney and Rumsfeld. They thought their boy would be personable and easy to control.

The key moment was when Cheney went looking for a vice-presidential candidate and found himself. Once they had given him the opening and he had publicly used it to aggrandize himself and his agenda, B/S/B realized that for the sake of party solidarity, they had to live with it. When Baker engineered the coup that was Florida (and I do think one of the "perks" Bush offered as a candidate was that Florida was guaranteed ahead of time by Jeb and K. Harris), I think that B/S/B and C/R found themselves in an uneasy alliance -- goals were the same, but temperaments were different. Right there at the pivot was Little George.

It's pretty clear that Little George requires a constant stream of flattery and cajolery to keep him going, and this was to be supplied by Harriet Miers, Karen Hughes, and Condi Rice. At the same time, his words (and ideas) were going to be supplied by Michael Gerson, who was his favorite speech writer for five or six years, a man who hides his unscrupulous neocon soul beneath a holier-than-thou, falsely modest self presentation. Christian soldier in every sense of the word, and someone who has largely escaped the contempt he deserves for the mess we are in.

At the same time, Little George has a hard time with bad news, so he was never going be told the truth -- he can't take the truth, as Jack Nicholson might say -- this is evident in the famous 9/11 film of Bush reading about his pet goat when he gets news of the WTC. Talk about dumbstruck and unprepared and feckless and doltish! No, I don't think Little George planned the Trade Center attacks. If he had, he would have practiced a smarmy fake reaction, and he didn't.

But he did get a feel, just a little feel, right after the attacks, of what it might be like to lead the nation. He got a feel and he liked it, and for the purposes of the neocons, it was a good feel and it gave them something to build on in their plan to overcome the cautious side of his nature, represented by B/S/B. The neocons, as we know to our sorrow, never pay back anything they owe, except perhaps with betrayal, so even though B/S/B got them into office, they were never going to listen to B/S/B unless they absolutely had to.

How do you build yourself a madman? Well, first you flatter him, and then you try never to make him angry, and then you feed him ideas that flatter him even more by making him seem to himself sentimentally visionary and powerful and righteous. You appeal to his already evident mean streak and his hot temper by reminding him all the time that he has enemies, and you cultivate his religious side so that the sense of righteous victimization inherent in extreme religion comes out.

If he were not already an ignorant, dependent, fragile, and rigid person, he would not be susceptible to this sort of conditioning, but by temperament and practice, he has nothing of his own to counter your efforts. Then you hire a few shyster-sycophants like John Yoo to tell him (ignorant as he is, with no actual understanding of the Constitution), that as president he can do whatever he wants.

So, here he is, Little George, caught between the devil (Cheney) and the deep blue sea (fifty-some years of being infantilized by B/S/B). Cheney and Rumsfeld, aided by Rice and Miers and Hughes, convince him that his masculinity will only be enhanced by doing all the masculine things he missed out on over the years, especially making war. And Gerson gives his war a virtuous, godly gloss.

And Gerson's words come out of his mouth so often that he believes them and thinks they are his. In the meantime, Karl Rove continues to think that he is the maestro, playing Little George (and his base and the rest of the nation) like his own personal piano. Playing the president, for Rove, means enhancing Little George's actual dependency while encouraging him to think that he's the boss (allowing him to call you "Turdblossom," for example, and isn't it telling that "turd" seems to be Bush's favorite imprecation, rather than, say, "fuck"?).

Bush is the worst possible president because he is simultaneously unusually ignorant for a president and unusually shallow, as well as desperate for a success he can call his own. I can see how in a certain sort of era -- say an era of prosperity and world peace (can you think of one? I can't) an unusually ignorant and shallow man could bump along in the presidency for a few years without creating havoc and destruction, but these years didn't happen to be peaceful and prosperous, they happened to be delicate and dangerous.

Clinton knew that, and he approached his compromising and self-contradictory foreign policy tasks with care. But Bush and his fellow boors were so blind that they adopted as their motto "anything but Clinton", sheer contrarianism and resentment. It wasn't enough to them for the US to be powerful, as it was in the Clinton years, or to be generally respected and appreciated -- they wanted something more sensational -- power they could feel, power that was erotic and fetishistic, power that was uncomfortable for others, power that would make them feel big by making others feel small, power that would show Clinton up.

That's the tit Little George has been sucking for the last six years -- the deluded propaganda of the neocons, addressed first to him and through him to the rest of us. What we saw the other night, when he proposed more war against more "foes" was the madman the last six years have created. This time, in his war against Iran, he doesn't even feel the need for minimal PR, as he did before attacking Iraq. All he is bothering with are signals -- ships moving here, admirals moving there, consulates being raided in this other place. He no longer cares about the opinions of the voters, the Congress, the generals, the press, and he especially disdains the opinions of B/S/and B. Thanks to Gerson, he identifies his own little ideas with God (a blasphemy, of course, but hey, there's lots of precedent on this), so there's no telling what he will do.

We can tell by the evidence of the last two months that whatever it is, it will be exactly the thing that the majority of the voters do not want him to do, exactly the thing that James Baker himself doesn't want him to do. The propaganda that Bush's sponsors and handlers have poured forth has ceased to persuade the voters but succeeded beyond all measure in convincing the man himself.

He will tell himself that God is talking to him, or that he is possessed of an extra measure of courage, or he that he is simply compelled to do whatever it is. The soldiers will pay the price in blood. We will pay the price in money. The Iraqis will pay the price in horror. The Iranians will pay the price, possibly, in the almost unimaginable terror of nuclear attack. Probably, the Israelis will pay the price, too.

Little George isn't the same guy he was in 2000, the guy described by Gail Sheehy in her Vanity Fair profile -- hyper-competitive and dyslexic, prone to cheat at games, always swinging between screwing up and making up, hating criticism and disagreement, careless of others but often charming. He is no longer the guy who the Republicans thought they could control (unlike, say, McCain).

The small pathologies of Bush the candidate have, thanks to the purposes of the neocons and the religious right, been enhanced and upgraded. We have a bona fide madman now, who thinks of himself in a grandiose way as single-handedly turning the tide of history. Some of his Frankensteins have bailed, some haven't dared to, and others still seem to believe. His actions and his orders, especially about Iran, seem to be telling us that he will stop at nothing to prove his dominance. The elder Bush(es), Scrowcroft, Baker, and their friends, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Gerson, and the neocons have made the monster and in the process endangered the country, the Constitution, and the world, not to mention the sanity of wretches like Jose Padilla (for an analysis of the real reason Gitmo continues to exist, see Dahlia Lithwick's article in Slate, here.

Maybe the bums planned this mess for their own profit, or maybe they planned to profit without mess; maybe some of them regret what they have wrought. However, they all share the blame for whatever he does next.

Jane Smiley is a novelist and essayist. Her novel A Thousand Acres won the Pulitzer Prize and the National Book Critics Circle Award in 1992.

http://www.alternet.org/story/46794/

[PostmodernProphet]

I'm quite certain faithful execution of the office of president does not include lying to Congress and the People to start a war.

I couldn't agree more....Bush's execution of office didn't.....

[PostmodernProphet]

Why do you wingnuts keep doing this?

When you mention low Congressional approval, all you do is highlight Republican obstructionism.

just trying to set the dumbfuck liberals straight.....

[red states rule]

A ten pound anvil? All I have used are 75# and more.
I can tell you that the relief that knowing Bush is out of office is kinda like a holiday feeling. I have a hunch ol Bush will be fodder for many conversations and arguments in the years to come just like the other bozo RR.

I'm not sure how she would know how it feels to have a 10 pound anvil on her head, but she is from San Francisco

They're into some weird crap out there.

10 pounds is actually pretty small for an anvil though. It might be something used by a jeweler, for example. She can't even get her smarmy hyperbole right. Not a very bright woman.

[5stringJeff]

Tell me, did Bush pay attention to the Constitution on an array of subjects?

He apparently stopped before he read the Bill of Rights... or at least the Tenth Amendment.

[Joe Steel]

Rasmussen has the Reid/Pelosi Congress at 14%

Fourteen percent (14%) of likely voters now give Congress good or excellent marks, representing the legislature’s highest approval ratings since last February.

Republican obstructionism is on the run.

[Yurt]

Why do you wingnuts keep doing this?

When you mention low Congressional approval, all you do is highlight Republican obstructionism.

wingNUTS

are you obsessed with my nuts?

[REDWHITEBLUE2]

Without Bush Derangement Synfrome, liberals would never be able to make it through the day

They keep attacking Pres Bush even when he is no longer in office


snip

Pelosi said one of her favorite moments from Inauguration Day was when Marine One lifted off the Capitol grounds, signifying former President George W. Bush's exit from Washington. "It felt like a 10-pound anvil was lifted off my head," she said.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/01/21/MN5Q15EJQ2.DTL&type=politics&tsp=1 TOO bad the loony bitch didn't jump off the golden gate bridge with the anvil around her ugly ass
:beer:

[PostmodernProphet]

"It felt like a 10-pound anvil was lifted off my head," she said.

every time I read this I wanna say "somebody ought to put it back".....

[Abbey Marie]

every time I read this I wanna say "somebody ought to put it back".....

Lol, for more reasons than one. :laugh2:

[KSigMason]

So that's what happened to her face...it was hit with a 10-pound anvil.

[Hobbit]

Where the hell do you find a 10 pound anvil, anyway. A ten STONE anvil is considered light. Those things are heavy.

[red states rule]

San Fran Nan is happy the anvil is off her head. It is amazing, that she continues to be blind to the albatross around her neck.

[avatar4321]

Republican obstructionism is on the run.

There is nothing Republicans can do to obstruct Joe. You have complete control of everything. You cant blame Republicans when you control everything.

[red states rule]

There is nothing Republicans can do to obstruct Joe. You have complete control of everything. You cant blame Republicans when you control everything.

Dems only need a simple majority vote in the House, and maybe 1 or 2 Republican votes in the Senate to shut off debate.

Dems have no excuses if they fail to deliver on their promises

[Joe Steel]

There is nothing Republicans can do to obstruct Joe. You have complete control of everything. You cant blame Republicans when you control everything.

Congress permits a variety of parlimentary procedures to obstruct legislation. For instance, Cornyn of Texas put a hold on Hillary Clinton's confirmation to Sec. of State.

[manu1959]

Congress permits a variety of parlimentary procedures to obstruct legislation. For instance, Cornyn of Texas put a hold on Hillary Clinton's confirmation to Sec. of State.

should she not have been challenged......

[Yurt]

Congress permits a variety of parlimentary procedures to obstruct legislation. For instance, Cornyn of Texas put a hold on Hillary Clinton's confirmation to Sec. of State.

what does hillary's confirmation have to do with legislation?

[5stringJeff]

Congress permits a variety of parlimentary procedures to obstruct legislation. For instance, Cornyn of Texas put a hold on Hillary Clinton's confirmation to Sec. of State.

A one-day hold is "obstructionism?" What do you call the weeks of hearings that Democrats forced GOP nominations to go through?

[manu1959]

A one-day hold is "obstructionism?" What do you call the weeks of hearings that Democrats forced GOP nominations to go through?

uhhhhhhhhhhhh.....bi-partisan politics..........

[Joe Steel]

should she not have been challenged......

That's not the point. Read the postings.

[Joe Steel]

what does hillary's confirmation have to do with legislation?

Read the postings.

[Yurt]

Read the postings.

what postings? hillary is in the executive branch. she has nothing to do with legislation. what does her confirmation have to do with legislation?

[Joe Steel]

A one-day hold is "obstructionism?" What do you call the weeks of hearings that Democrats forced GOP nominations to go through?

As I said, Congress permits a number of parliamentary procedures to delay legislation and other proceedings. When they're used as part of an effort to delay the agenda a the other party, it's obstructionism.

[Yurt]

what postings? hillary is in the executive branch. she has nothing to do with legislation. what does her confirmation have to do with legislation?

posted same time

[manu1959]

That's not the point. Read the postings.

it is exactly the point......you called the pubs obstructionist for challenging her appointment.....

you seem to want a socialist dictatorship.....where there would be no challenge to the socialist agenda....

[Joe Steel]

it is exactly the point......you called the pubs obstructionist for challenging her appointment.....

Nonsense.

I used the hold as an example of a parliamentary procedure.

[manu1959]

Nonsense.

I used the hold as an example of a parliamentary procedure.

so you didn't say this.....

Republican obstructionism is on the run.

or this


As I said, Congress permits a number of parliamentary procedures to delay legislation and other proceedings. When they're used as part of an effort to delay the agenda a the other party, it's obstructionism.

or this

Congress permits a variety of parlimentary procedures to obstruct legislation. For instance, Cornyn of Texas put a hold on Hillary Clinton's confirmation to Sec. of State.

and didn't imply that pubs were being obstructionist....

got it ....thanks....

[red states rule]

Nonsense.

I used the hold as an example of a parliamentary procedure.

Joe, as soon as you remove your foot from your mouth please answer the question - or admit you were wrong (as usual)

[avatar4321]

As I said, Congress permits a number of parliamentary procedures to delay legislation and other proceedings. When they're used as part of an effort to delay the agenda a the other party, it's obstructionism.

Perhaps instead of trying to pass the agenda of the other party, you try to pass the agenda of the people.

[moderate democrat]

Perhaps instead of trying to pass the agenda of the other party, you try to pass the agenda of the people.


the recent election would indicate that the agenda of the democratic party IS the agenda of the majority of Americans.

It is impossible to please everyone all the time.

[manu1959]

the recent election would indicate that the agenda of the democratic party IS the agenda of the majority of Americans.

It is impossible to please everyone all the time.

obama's platform was not bush.......he ran on fear that mccain was bush III......he won.....in four years you will get to see if the american people keep him or toss him....till then you are guessing.....

[moderate democrat]

obama's platform was not bush.......he ran on fear that mccain was bush III......he won.....in four years you will get to see if the american people keep him or toss him....till then you are guessing.....


as are you

[manu1959]

as are you

never claimed i wasn't ...... but so far his actions are in my opinion moving america towards something i am not in favour of ......

but there is always the hope that the same inept congress i have watched for the past two years will continue to excell......

[moderate democrat]

never claimed i wasn't ...... but so far his actions are in my opinion moving america towards something i am not in favour of ......

but there is always the hope that the same inept congress i have watched for the past two years will continue to excell......


the congress of the past two years was hampered by a republican president and a filibuster-capable senate. I doubt that such will be the case going forward.

[emmett]

the congress of the past two years was hampered by a republican president and a filibuster-capable senate. I doubt that such will be the case going forward.


You are right! They should be able to implement their moderate democratic agenda quite handily huh?:laugh2:

[emmett]

As I said, Congress permits a number of parliamentary procedures to delay legislation and other proceedings. When they're used as part of an effort to delay the agenda a the other party, it's obstructionism.


So would thirty minute questions by Ted Kennedy be obstructionism?

:laugh2:

[manu1959]

the congress of the past two years was hampered by a republican president and a filibuster-capable senate. I doubt that such will be the case going forward.

really.....name three pieces of legislation the dems tried to pass that were killed by filibuster......and for extra credit name three that were vetoed by bush......

what the dems did was nothing for two years but bitch about how evil bush and the pubs were ..... they got their man in power .... party over country .... well done .... now we shall see .....

[Yurt]

really.....name three pieces of legislation the dems tried to pass that were killed by filibuster......and for extra credit name three that were vetoed by bush......

what the dems did was nothing for two years but bitch about how evil bush and the pubs were ..... they got their man in power .... party over country .... well done .... now we shall see .....

exactly, they made promises and did not keep them. even hillary blamed bush during the debates. the dems are blameless, perfect and without sin, hence why they can throw all the stones...

[red states rule]

exactly, they made promises and did not keep them. even hillary blamed bush during the debates. the dems are blameless, perfect and without sin, hence why they can throw all the stones...

Now the Dems have no excuses. Pelosi changed the rules where the only thing the Republicnas can do is breath

Dems need only 1 or 2 Republican votes to shut off debate (McCain and Snow will probably be the votes)

But now, Dems are already covering their asses by saying how rotten things are, and how we should not expect to much from them any time soon

[moderate democrat]

really.....name three pieces of legislation the dems tried to pass that were killed by filibuster......and for extra credit name three that were vetoed by bush......

what the dems did was nothing for two years but bitch about how evil bush and the pubs were ..... they got their man in power .... party over country .... well done .... now we shall see .....

http://www.ourfuture.org/obstruction

[red states rule]

http://www.ourfuture.org/obstruction

I remember well in 1993 Dems screamed about the rights of the minority and demanded a "power sharing" arrangement

Now Pelosi is drunk with power

House Democrats Change Rules to Silence GOP
Citizen Link ^ | 1-7-09 | Jennifer Mesko

Posted on Thursday, January 08, 2009 6:00:18 AM by Sopater

Shift could create 'the most closed Congress in history.'

U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., has brought back archaic procedures in order to silence conservatives.

On Tuesday, the full House passed the Rules Package for the 111th Congress, 242-181. The changes limit the GOP's ability to use procedural rules like the Motion to Recommit, which is the last opportunity for the minority party to amend a bill before it passes.

“The new rules consolidate power in the hands of a few and attempt to silence Republican input on key policy debates, in addition to making a mockery of the Democratic leaders' promises of presiding over an open Congress," Rep. Roy Blunt, R-Mo., said in a statement.

In the last Congress, Republicans were able to block some of the Democrats’ tax increases using a Motion to Recommit.

California Rep. David Dreier, ranking Republican on the House Rules Committee, called Pelosi's changes an "act of pure cynicism," according to The Washington Times. He said the changes will create "the most closed Congress in history."

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2160879/posts


You and your party now have no excuses if you do not deliver. Or will you fall back on the Dems most used excuse : "It's Bush's fault!"?

[moderate democrat]

without 60 seats in the senate, democrats still have the potential obstacle of cloture... but methinks that Snowe and Collins and Specter, to name a few, will be loathe to stop the will of the people on too many occasions.

[red states rule]

without 60 seats in the senate, democrats still have the potential obstacle of cloture... but methinks that Snowe and Collins and Specter, to name a few, will be loathe to stop the will of the people on too many occasions.

Which is what we have been telling you - you are your party have NO EXCUSES this time

Except the old standby - It's Bush's fault

Pelosi has silenced Republicans in the House in a typical example of Democrat bipartisanship

[moderate democrat]

Which is what we have been telling you - you are your party have NO EXCUSES this time

Except the old standby - It's Bush's fault

Pelosi has silenced Republicans in the House in a typical example of Democrat bipartisanship


it remains to be seen how many times the republican minority in the senate will flex their muscles. Like I said, if we had 60, we could do anything and everything....but without them, we face potential roadblocks.

[red states rule]

it remains to be seen how many times the republican minority in the senate will flex their muscles. Like I said, if we had 60, we could do anything and everything....but without them, we face potential roadblocks.

You know damn well you have 60 with McCain, Snow, and other RINO's

Sounds like your party is already looking for excuses :laugh2:

[moderate democrat]

You know damn well you have 60 with McCain, Snow, and other RINO's

Sounds like your party is already looking for excuses :laugh2:

like I said, it remains to be seen how effective senate republicans can be in blocking legislation. If McCain, Snowe, Collins, and others abandon their party on cloture votes, you are absolutely right. If not, and if republicans can stop key legislation in the senate, that will be a different story altogether. time will tell.

[red states rule]

like I said, it remains to be seen how effective senate republicans can be in blocking legislation. If McCain, Snowe, Collins, and others abandon their party on cloture votes, you are absolutely right. If not, and if republicans can stop key legislation in the senate, that will be a different story altogether. time will tell.

You mean abondon common sense, go along with massive pork spending, and say nothing in opposition

[moderate democrat]

You mean abondon common sense, go along with massive pork spending, and say nothing in opposition

call it what you like... the fact remains that IF republicans stop key legislation in the Senate, then the democrats WILL have someone to blame other than themselves. Obama cannot sign legislation that never makes it to his desk.

[red states rule]

call it what you like... the fact remains that IF republicans stop key legislation in the Senate, then the democrats WILL have someone to blame other than themselves. Obama cannot sign legislation that never makes it to his desk.

It is pork that they are trying to pass

On another thread I laid out how very little is going to fix the "crumbling roads and bridges" Dems said that needed fixed

I am still waiting for you or any other lib to try and spin how it will "save the economy"

[moderate democrat]

It is pork that they are trying to pass

On another thread I laid out how very little is going to fix the "crumbling roads and bridges" Dems said that needed fixed

I am still waiting for you or any other lib to try and spin how it will "save the economy"


all pork ends up creating jobs...

and I am glad you acknowledge the fact that democrats will be able to legitimately and effectively blame senate republicans if they stop legislation in that chamber.

[red states rule]

all pork ends up creating jobs...

and I am glad you acknowledge the fact that democrats will be able to legitimately and effectively blame senate republicans if they stop legislation in that chamber.

Please explain how this pork will do so on this thread - and why our tax dollars should pay for such bullshit

http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?t=21066&page=3

[moderate democrat]

Please explain how this pork will do so on this thread - and why our tax dollars should pay for such bullshit

http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?t=21066&page=3

if you appropriate millions of dollars to lay fresh sod on the national mall, you will create jobs for the guys who lay the sod and you will create business opportunities for the business that supplies the sod, and when those wages are spent in the market place, at stores and restaurants and gas stations, you will create economic activity for those businesses as well.

[red states rule]

if you appropriate millions of dollars to lay fresh sod on the national mall, you will create jobs for the guys who lay the sod and you will create business opportunities for the business that supplies the sod, and when those wages are spent in the market place, at stores and restaurants and gas stations, you will create economic activity for those businesses as well.

and then once the work is done? What do we do? More pork? More tax increases to cover it? More added to the deficit?

Seems to be what Jimmy Carter tried when he had an all Dem Cingress - and we all know what a great economy we had then

Oh and wiring homes to the internet, and a $35 million to the music hall of fame in Florissant, Missouri is a real economy builder there MD

[moderate democrat]

and then once the work is done? What do we do? More pork? More tax increases to cover it? More added to the deficit?

Seems to be what Jimmy Carter tried when he had an all Dem Cingress - and we all know what a great economy we had then

Oh and wiring homes to the internet, and a $35 million to the music hall of fame in Florissant, Missouri is a real economy builder there MD

any stimulus package assumes that the economy will start holding its own at some point.

and if Obama does no better than Carter, he will deserve to lose his mandate.

[red states rule]

any stimulus package assumes that the economy will start holding its own at some point.

and if Obama does no better than Carter, he will deserve to lose his mandate.

According t Obama, Reid, and Pelosi the economy stinks and will stink for years to come

They have said nothing postive about the future - only the usual doom and floom

[moderate democrat]

According t Obama, Reid, and Pelosi the economy stinks and will stink for years to come

They have said nothing postive about the future - only the usual doom and floom

I think that Americans know that it took us a while to get into this mess and it will take us a while to get out of it. I certainly do not expect miracles... only measurable, incremental improvement. I think that is all any of us ought to expect.

[red states rule]

I think that Americans know that it took us a while to get into this mess and it will take us a while to get out of it. I certainly do not expect miracles... only measurable, incremental improvement. I think that is all any of us ought to expect.

That is not what Obama ran on - or the Dems - or the "reporting" of the liberal media

[Yurt]

http://www.ourfuture.org/obstruction

lol, you couldn't name 3 pieces of legislation nor 3 vetos by bush...

IOW, manu stopped your bs cold

[manu1959]

http://www.ourfuture.org/obstruction

so no bush vetos.....and no legislation that a majority of congress could get behind even with the dems holding a majority.....and not one fillibuster in the bunch......

[red states rule]

so no bush vetos.....and no legislation that a majority of congress could get behind even with the dems holding a majority.....and not one fillibuster in the bunch......

Now some on the left want Harry Ried to do away with the fillibuster.

I am sure Moderate Democrat would love to see it since his party is in charge now


Should the Senate Democrats Eliminate the Filibuster and End GOP Obstructionism?
Submitted by BuzzFlash on Mon, 01/26/2009 - 10:35am. Alerts
A BUZZFLASH NEWS ALERT
by Christine Bowman

Remember 2005 when the Bill Frist'sGOP majority threatened "the nuclear option"? And then they built a coalition with a few Blue Dog Democrats to "work together" to enact a conservative agenda? That was the infamous Gang of 14. Remember the GOP shutting out the Democrats from helping to craft legislation when they were the majority in Congress?

Now the GOP legislators appear eager to be obstructionists, and they're going after the all-important stimulus plan. Yes, that plan, the one that attempts to avert a worse meltdown of the American economy than the Great Depression.

John McCain, of all people, is the current lead voice in the Senate trying to put on the brakes and block Obama's combination of infrastructure investment and tax cuts. That's right -- McCain -- the guy who as a presidential candidate was so eager to take quick action that he wanted to cancel the candidate debates and rush to DC (first detouring by the NBC studios) to fix the economy.

In less than a week since Obama took office, the GOP legislators have just about convinced themselves that they still are powerful. Isn't the time right for the Democrats to just eliminate the filibuster and really get a new New Deal rolled out exeditiously?

Instead of allowing a long drawn out tug-of-war by eliminating the filibuster and taking the heat, they could just get the new New Deal done. Why let the minority GOP in the Senate make Obama look like he can't accomplish anything and must settle for watered down and delayed proposals to placate a small minority of obstructionists who care about greed more than their country and working men and women?

Just eliminate the filibuster, and the GOP will be defanged. The Senate is where the Republicans used just the THREAT of a filibuster to scare Harry Reid into withdrawing bills from a vote.


A BUZZFLASH NEWS ALERT

http://www.buzzflash.com/articles/alerts/567

[moderate democrat]

so no bush vetos.....and no legislation that a majority of congress could get behind even with the dems holding a majority.....and not one fillibuster in the bunch......

we didn't have 60 votes... there were plenty of cloture invocations.

[moderate democrat]

Now some on the left want Harry Ried to do away with the fillibuster.

I am sure Moderate Democrat would love to see it since his party is in charge now




You are wrong. I would vehemently oppose the elimination of the filibuster as a legislative tool for the minority.

[red states rule]

You are wrong. I would vehemently oppose the elimination of the filibuster as a legislative tool for the minority.

Somehow I doubt it if Reid brings it to the Senate floor. After all, it would help YOUR party and do to Republicans in the Senate what Pelosi did to Republicans in the House

[moderate democrat]

Somehow I doubt it if Reid brings it to the enate floor. After all, it would help YOUR party and do to Republicans in the Senate what Pelosi did to Republicans in the House

I seriously doubt that Reid would be so foolish as to eliminate the filibuster... and, as I said above, I would vehemently oppose such a boneheaded move if he were to attempt it.

[manu1959]

we didn't have 60 votes... there were plenty of cloture invocations.

you had the wrong legislation .....

no bush vetos though .....

funny thing ....when the pubs had a majority legislation passed.....and legislation didn't pass.....

it is called building concensus....the dems don't play that way.....

[red states rule]

I seriously doubt that Reid would be so foolish as to eliminate the filibuster... and, as I said above, I would vehemently oppose such a boneheaded move if he were to attempt it.

Pelosi shut down Republicans by changuing the rules Republicans put in place to accommodate Dems when they took over in 1995

The left cheered, and the liberal media yawned

When Dems go mad with power, it is to benefit the common good

[moderate democrat]

Pelosi shut down Republicans by changuing the rules Republicans put in place to accommodate Dems when they took over in 1995

The left cheered, and the liberal media yawned

When Dems go mad with power, it is to benefit the common good

as I said, I would oppose Reid trying to eliminate the filibuster.

[red states rule]

as I said, I would oppose Reid trying to eliminate the filibuster.

So you are opposed to what Pelosi did in the House?

[Yurt]

we didn't have 60 votes... there were plenty of cloture invocations.

where are the bush vetos you claimed taht bush was an obstructionist on???

[moderate democrat]

So you are opposed to what Pelosi did in the House?

do you have a link from a non-partisan site that would discuss the rules that she changed? I am not sure I understand what you are referring to.

[moderate democrat]

where are the bush vetos you claimed taht bush was an obstructionist on???

I don't think I ever claimed any veto, did I?

[red states rule]

do you have a link from a non-partisan site that would discuss the rules that she changed? I am not sure I understand what you are referring to.

Funny, after this post you made on another board, I would think you would love the fillibuster to be done away with


you don't need to roll over....just bend over.

we won and we'll do things the way we want for the next two years whether you like it or not!


Here is the story you requested


Pelosi’s power move leaves House Republicans fuming
By Molly K. Hooper
Posted: 01/05/09 08:10 PM [ET]

House Democrats are poised to approve new rules that will significantly increase their authority while taking the bullets out of the few legislative weapons Republicans have in the lower chamber.

Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) has approved the changes from the last Congress, when House GOP members frustrated their Democratic counterparts by winning over two dozen amendment battles on the floor.

Pelosi’s move has set up a divisive mood on the first day of the 111th Congress, which Republicans say runs counter to the tone set by President-elect Obama.

Republican leaders intend to fight the rules changes, which would curtail their ability to delay legislation by forcing Democrats to take politically difficult votes.

“This is not the kind of openness and transparency that President-elect Obama promised,” the GOP leaders wrote Monday in a letter to Pelosi.

Republican leadership aides say the changes will make it easier for the Speaker to run the House and protect vulnerable House Democrats.

But Democratic leadership sources dispute the GOP characterizations, noting that Republicans will still have an opportunity to offer an amendment to bills on the floor, though they won’t have the ability to invoke an arcane rule that would in effect kill the entire underlying measure.

Democrats say GOP assertions that Republicans would not be able to offer a “motion to recommit” are false. They say they are removing the “Catch-22” that Republicans have exploited to force embarrassing votes on issues such as gun control and illegal immigration.

http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/pelosis-power-move-leaves-house-republicans-fuming-2009-01-05.html

[Yurt]

I don't think I ever claimed any veto, did I?

then how did bush obstruct?

[red states rule]

then how did bush obstruct?

To MD he was obstructing by breathing :laugh2:

[moderate democrat]

then how did bush obstruct?by ways other than vetoes. I did not claim anything about vetoes. you lied.

[Yurt]

To MD he was obstructing by breathing :laugh2:

yes.."MD"...but it really doesn't matter, we know who he is, no biggie and that he lied is expected...moving on


the congress of the past two years was hampered by a republican president and a filibuster-capable senate. I doubt that such will be the case going forward.

how did the president hamper? how did the republicans hamper?

fact is, the dems, with a majority couldn't govern, could not get anything done. they should all be fired.

[Yurt]

by ways other than vetoes. I did not claim anything about vetoes. you lied.

dipshit, i didn't say you said veto, i assumed you meant that...ho hum, the real you is coming out...

now what other ways did he obstruct?

[moderate democrat]

I was under the impression that you had said that she had already implemented those rule changes... and I still have not seen anything indicating that those rules were enacted by republicans in '95 in order to make concessions to minority democrats. Any chance of a link to that?

[Yurt]

its funny, even manu assumed you meant veto, but you go after dear ol' yurt and call him a liar....:laugh2:

[red states rule]

by ways other than vetoes. I did not claim anything about vetoes. you lied.

Any answer to post # 95?

BTW how about posting on my thread about Obama tax cheat he made to head up the IRS and US Treasury?

Would love to read your spin on that one :laugh2:

[moderate democrat]

dipshit, i didn't say you said veto, i assumed you meant that...ho hum, the real you is coming out...

now what other ways did he obstruct?

"where are the bush vetos you claimed taht bush was an obstructionist on???"

your words, not mine. As I said, I claimed nothing about vetoes. you lied about that.

[moderate democrat]

Any answer to post # 95?

BTW how about posting on my thread about Obama tax cheat he made to head up the IRS and US Treasury?

Would love to read your spin on that one :laugh2:

101 is my answer to 95.

I really am not all that interested in the treasury secretary. sorry.

[red states rule]

I was under the impression that you had said that she had already implemented those rule changes... and I still have not seen anything indicating that those rules were enacted by republicans in '95 in order to make concessions to minority democrats. Any chance of a link to that?

You are very bad at playing dumb :laugh2:

Or are you playing or just ducking the facts?

[Yurt]

"where are the bush vetos you claimed taht bush was an obstructionist on???"

your words, not mine. As I said, I claimed nothing about vetoes. you lied about that.

now why are you so obsessed with lying? i assumed you meant that and even manu did, and probaly everyone else, but you personally go after yurt...funny...and only proves me right.

i notice you still can't name anything else bush did to hamper....if you "truly" were not meaning vetos, what pray tell were you "truly" talking about....

i can't wait to hear this...

a president's greatest tool to hamper legislation is the veto, but you didn't mean that :laugh2:

[moderate democrat]

You are very bad at playing dumb :laugh2:

Or are you playing or just ducking the facts?

I am unaware of any concessions that republicans in the house made to the democrats in '95. If you could elighten me on that, that would be nice.

[red states rule]

I am unaware of any concessions that republicans in the house made to the democrats in '95. If you could elighten me on that, that would be nice.

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=30143#continueA

[moderate democrat]

now why are you so obsessed with lying? i assumed you meant that and even manu did, and probaly everyone else, but you personally go after yurt...funny...and only proves me right.

i notice you still can't name anything else bush did to hamper....if you "truly" were not meaning vetos, what pray tell were you "truly" talking about....

i can't wait to hear this...

a president's greatest tool to hamper legislation is the veto, but you didn't mean that :laugh2:


his bully pulpit and his ability to threaten vetoes and to marshall republican senators...

and I only called you a liar because you were the one who gave me my first and only reputation points... negative ones... and called me a liar in your comment when I clearly had not said anything that was not true.

[Yurt]

the congress of the past two years was hampered by a republican president and a filibuster-capable senate. I doubt that such will be the case going forward.


really.....name three pieces of legislation the dems tried to pass that were killed by filibuster......and for extra credit name three that were vetoed by bush......

what the dems did was nothing for two years but bitch about how evil bush and the pubs were ..... they got their man in power .... party over country .... well done .... now we shall see .....


http://www.ourfuture.org/obstruction

as can be seen, manu asked you for three that were vetoed by bush and you gave the above link....without clarifying that you did not mean veto...

too easy

[red states rule]

his bully pulpit and his ability to threaten vetoes and to marshall republican senators...

and I only called you a liar because you were the one who gave me my first and only reputation points... negative ones... and called me a liar in your comment when I clearly had not said anything that was not true.

But I thought you libs said Pres Bush was irrelevant

Of course you guys said the same thing about Rush - and Obama acts like he is worried about him speaking out :laugh2:

[Yurt]

his bully pulpit and his ability to threaten vetoes and to marshall republican senators...

and I only called you a liar because you were the one who gave me my first and only reputation points... negative ones... and called me a liar in your comment when I clearly had not said anything that was not true.

oooops, you are not supposed to make rep points public, against the rules naughty boy....and your post was a lie

and look, you now even concede that you were talking about vetoes :laugh2:

so vetoes were in fact apart of what you were thinking....dude...way too much fun, thank you.

[moderate democrat]

as can be seen, manu asked you for three that were vetoed by bush and you gave the above link....without clarifying that you did not mean veto...

too easy


the article did not mention any vetoes. It mentioned the overuse of cloture votes. I never mentioned vetoes. I never claimed that Bush had vetoed anything.

move on.

[moderate democrat]

the congress of the past two years was hampered by a republican president and a filibuster-capable senate. I doubt that such will be the case going forward.

this post is not a lie.

fact.

[red states rule]

this post is not a lie.

fact.

But I thought you libs said Pres Bush was irrelevant

Of course you guys said the same thing about Rush - and Obama acts like he is worried about him speaking out :laugh2:

[Yurt]

the article did not mention any vetoes. It mentioned the overuse of cloture votes. I never mentioned vetoes. I never claimed that Bush had vetoed anything.

move on.

but he could have threatened!!! lool, you were thinking about vetoes and you failed to mention that there were no vetoes, your ommission to correct manu is what really kills you and we all know that a president's ability to hamper legislation is through the veto...

you're making a mountain out of a mole hill just to personally attack my credibility.

[Yurt]

this post is not a lie.

fact.

it is a lie and you still haven't given any evidence to back it up...

does it bother you that someone calls you a liar?

[moderate democrat]

but he could have threatened!!! lool, you were thinking about vetoes and you failed to mention that there were no vetoes, your ommission to correct manu is what really kills you and we all know that a president's ability to hamper legislation is through the veto...

you're making a mountain out of a mole hill just to personally attack my credibility.

I claimed nothing about vetoes. you said I had. I corrected you. let's move on.

[Yurt]

I claimed nothing about vetoes. you said I had. I corrected you. let's move on.

yet YOU keep talking about it....why this personal vendetta? you were talking about vetoes or the power of the veto, same thing, you failed to correct manu and you gave a link when manu asked you to show 3 vetoes...

[manu1959]

I claimed nothing about vetoes. you said I had. I corrected you. let's move on.

how did bush obstruct the dems then....because you did say that bush obstructed them....

further....if some one does not agree with what another group is it not their patriotic duty to exercise their free speech and attmept to stop that person.....

i mean that is why i voted for who i voted for and what i am esentially paying them to do....stop the other side from doing what they want.....

[moderate democrat]

how did bush obstruct the dems then....because you did say that bush obstructed them....

further....if some one does not agree with what another group is it not their patriotic duty to exercise their free speech and attmept to stop that person.....

i mean that is why i voted for who i voted for and what i am esentially paying them to do....stop the other side from doing what they want.....

I think he used his bully pulpit to obstruct the democrat's legislative agenda. I think he used the threat of vetoes to obstruct their legislative agenda. I think he used the power of his office to corral republican senators in order to prevent legislation from moving on to passage. I think you should do all in your power to obstruct Obama and his agenda. I understand that that is your right to do just that. I also happen to believe that if republicans play that game at this juncture, they will further banish themselves to the wilderness of long term minority status... but, by all means, you must follow ytour conscience and do what you feel is correct... and I will never ever question your patriotism if you do so.

[Yurt]

so no bush vetos.....and no legislation that a majority of congress could get behind even with the dems holding a majority.....and not one fillibuster in the bunch......


we didn't have 60 votes... there were plenty of cloture invocations.

you, again, fail to correct manu regarding vetoes....imagine that! and you wonder why people thought you were talking about vetos

[red states rule]

I think he used his bully pulpit to obstruct the democrat's legislative agenda. I think he used the threat of vetoes to obstruct their legislative agenda. I think he used the power of his office to corral republican senators in order to prevent legislation from moving on to passage. I think you should do all in your power to obstruct Obama and his agenda. I understand that that is your right to do just that. I also happen to believe that if republicans play that game at this juncture, they will further banish themselves to the wilderness of long term minority status... but, by all means, you must follow ytour conscience and do what you feel is correct... and I will never ever question your patriotism if you do so.

MD, what happened to the talking points that Pres Bush was a lame duck after he lost the Congress?

[moderate democrat]

you, again, fail to correct manu regarding vetoes....imagine that! and you wonder why people thought you were talking about vetos

again... I really don't care what you thought, I care about what you said about me that was incorrect...and I corrected you on it.

please move on. the horse is dead.

[manu1959]

I think he used his bully pulpit to obstruct the democrat's legislative agenda. I think he used the threat of vetoes to obstruct their legislative agenda. I think he used the power of his office to corral republican senators in order to prevent legislation from moving on to passage. I think you should do all in your power to obstruct Obama and his agenda. I understand that that is your right to do just that. I also happen to believe that if republicans play that game at this juncture, they will further banish themselves to the wilderness of long term minority status... but, by all means, you must follow ytour conscience and do what you feel is correct... and I will never ever question your patriotism if you do so.

both sides play this game......

but are you telling me that the simple fear that bush would veto something got the dems knickers all in a twist and they just gave up .....

or that the pubs in congress were simply better politicians thean the dems and used the rules of the game to prevent a majority of politicians from building a consensus around a piece of legislation and the dems....who we all know are smarter could not figure out how to sway a bunch of mouth breathing right wingers to their point of view .....

seems to me the left elected bad politicians ......

[moderate democrat]

MD, what happened to the talking points that Pres Bush was a lame duck after he lost the Congress?

I don't think he became a lame duck until the presidential primary season got into full swing. and again... with only 49 democratic senators in the last congress, the D's hardly had much effective power in that chamber.

[Yurt]

again... I really don't care what you thought, I care about what you said about me that was incorrect...and I corrected you on it.

please move on. the horse is dead.

then why do you keep talking about it? do you love beating dead horses?

[red states rule]

both sides play this game......

but are you telling me that the simple fear that bush would veto something got the dems knickers all in a twist and they just gave up .....

or that the pubs in congress were simply better politicians thean the dems and used the rules of the game to prevent a majority of politicians from building a consensus around a piece of legislation and the dems....who we all know are smarter could not figure out how to sway a bunch of mouth breathing right wingers to their point of view .....

seems to me the left elected bad politicians ......

and Obama's new Chief of Staff sent dead fish to his political opponents - and MD says when Pres Bush tries to sway votes is a bad thing?

[Yurt]

and Obama's new Chief of Staff sent dead fish to his political opponents - and MD says when Pres Bush tries to sway votes is a bad thing?

i forgot about that...thats funny

love that uniter spirit of obama...

"i won!!....that trumps you..."

[moderate democrat]

both sides play this game......

but are you telling me that the simple fear that bush would veto something got the dems knickers all in a twist and they just gave up .....

or that the pubs in congress were simply better politicians thean the dems and used the rules of the game to prevent a majority of politicians from building a consensus around a piece of legislation and the dems....who we all know are smarter could not figure out how to sway a bunch of mouth breathing right wingers to their point of view .....

seems to me the left elected bad politicians ......

I am saying that a president who can rally public opinion around a position can put pressure on legislators from the opposing party. And the republicans in the senate didn't have to all that savvy as politicians... they just needed to count to some number bigger than 40.

And I would not expect you to like democratic politicians...

[red states rule]

i forgot about that...thats funny

love that uniter spirit of obama...

"i won!!....that trumps you..."

Or when he picked up a steak knife at a party after Clinton won, read names of Republicans - then plunged the knife into the table while yelling "Dead!"

Yep, Dems are so lovable when they are in power :laugh2:

[manu1959]

I am saying that a president who can rally public opinion around a position can put pressure on legislators from the opposing party. And the republicans in the senate didn't have to all that savvy as politicians... they just needed to count to some number bigger than 40.

And I would not expect you to like democratic politicians...

so now bush is a smart politician that can rally a minorit to block a majority .....

as for liking or disliking democrate politicians ..... neither ..... i simply stated that based on their lack of results they are bad politicians ..... it is like most on that side of an argument .... they simply state their posistion and expect people to agree with it .... and if you don't you are called stupid, ignorant, blah blah till you agree with them .... i live in california .... every dinner party i go to it is the same .... concensus building through volume and intimidation ..... but you all may get lucky ... obama is a good politician and if you all listen to him you may actually get something done .....

you see ..... you need to be nice to people and listen to them and make them feel like they are being heard and have input and are contributing ....or the will simply block you at every turn because people don't like to help rude people ..... harry and nancy do not understand this .... they never have ...

[moderate democrat]

so now bush is a smart politician that can rally a minorit to block a majority .....

I didn't say that... you don't have to be too smart to count to 41.


as for liking or disliking democrate politicians ..... neither ..... i simply stated that based on their lack of results they are bad politicians ..... it is like most on that side of an argument .... they simply state their posistion and expect people to agree with it .... and if you don't you are called stupid, ignorant, blah blah till you agree with them .... i live in california .... every dinner party i go to it is the same .... concensus building through volume and intimidation ..... but you all may get lucky ... obama is a good politician and if you all listen to him you may actually get something done .....

you see ..... you need to be nice to people and listen to them and make them feel like they are being heard and have input and are contributing ....or the will simply block you at every turn because people don't like to help rude people ..... harry and nancy do not understand this .... they never have ...

I agree that you get more with sugar than with vinegar.

[manu1959]

I didn't say that... you don't have to be too smart to count to 41.

I agree that you get more with sugar than with vinegar.

counting to 41 and convincing 41 people to agree with your point of view are two differnt things .....

seems the dems have not yet figured that out ....

[moderate democrat]

counting to 41 and convincing 41 people to agree with your point of view are two differnt things .....

seems the dems have not yet figured that out ....
bush and mcconnell never had much of a problem in keeping the republicans in the senate in line.

[red states rule]

bush and mcconnell never had much of a problem in keeping the republicans in the senate in line.

and they did it without mailing them a dead fish :laugh2:

[manu1959]

bush and mcconnell never had much of a problem in keeping the republicans in the senate in line.

how do you you think a lame duck president with horrible approval ratings and a minority in congress were tricked into marching in lockstep with bush....

why was the dem majority unable to sway anyone to their side.....

could it be they had bad ides......or were bad politicians....or both.....

but they would never come to that conclusion they only possible reason for their failure would have to be.....

it is someone elses fault......

yep .... they want a welfare program for their inability to get votes ..... i am surprised they have not filed a discrimination suit to creat an affirmitave action program for inept dem politicians .....

[moderate democrat]

how do you you think a lame duck president with horrible approval ratings and a minority in congress were tricked into marching in lockstep with bush....

why was the dem majority unable to sway anyone to their side.....

could it be they had bad ides......or were bad politicians....or both.....

but they would never come to that conclusion they only possible reason for their failure would have to be.....

it is someone elses fault......

yep .... they want a welfare program for their inability to get votes ..... i am surprised they have not filed a discrimination suit to creat an affirmitave action program for inept dem politicians .....

it could be that they had bad ideas. It cold be that they were bad politicians. It could be that the other party knew that without 60 votes, they were powerless to enact their agenda and used the power of the minority effectively.

[manu1959]

it could be that they had bad ideas. It cold be that they were bad politicians. It could be that the other party knew that without 60 votes, they were powerless to enact their agenda and used the power of the minority effectively.

explain how the pub congress with clinton in power got legislation approved .... they didn't have 60 votes ...... same under carter .....

the current crop of dems play the game badly .... if they are not careful they are going to blow this for obama ..... this could go down as the most squanderd opportunity in history ..... but as i said obama is a sharp politician ..... just now on the radio he complimented the pubs and their ideas with respect to the financial package .... harry and nancy are out matched ...

[moderate democrat]

explain how the pub congress with clinton in power got legislation approved .... they didn't have 60 votes ...... same under carter .....

the current crop of dems play the game badly .... if they are not careful they are going to blow this for obama ..... this could go down as the most squanderd opportunity in history ..... but as i said obama is a sharp politician ..... just now on the radio he complimented the pubs and their ideas with respect to the financial package .... harry and nancy are out matched ...

the democrats were more cooperative that the republicans. I agree with you that the democrats in congress would be better served with a more conciliatory approach.

[Yurt]

so no bush vetos.....and no legislation that a majority of congress could get behind even with the dems holding a majority.....and not one fillibuster in the bunch......


how do you you think a lame duck president with horrible approval ratings and a minority in congress were tricked into marching in lockstep with bush....

why was the dem majority unable to sway anyone to their side.....

could it be they had bad ides......or were bad politicians....or both.....

but they would never come to that conclusion they only possible reason for their failure would have to be.....

it is someone elses fault......

yep .... they want a welfare program for their inability to get votes ..... i am surprised they have not filed a discrimination suit to creat an affirmitave action program for inept dem politicians .....

you mean...special needs politicians :cool:

[Yurt]

the democrats were more cooperative that the republicans. I agree with you that the democrats in congress would be better served with a more conciliatory approach.

:lol:

more truthiness

[red states rule]

it could be that they had bad ideas. It cold be that they were bad politicians. It could be that the other party knew that without 60 votes, they were powerless to enact their agenda and used the power of the minority effectively.

Looking at the pork fest Dems are wanting to pass - they are the ones wiht bad ideas

All the while demanding we fork over more of our money to them in higher taxes

[manu1959]

the democrats were more cooperative that the republicans. I agree with you that the democrats in congress would be better served with a more conciliatory approach.

so let me see....

when the dems fail ...... it is the pubs fault

and

when the pubs succeed .... it is because of the dems .....

[5stringJeff]

You know damn well you have 60 with McCain, Snow, and other RINO's

Sounds like your party is already looking for excuses :laugh2:

Didn't you vote for that "RINO," McCain?

[red states rule]

Didn't you vote for that "RINO," McCain?

My vote was for Palin. Right now I could not care less about McCain. I hope the voters in AZ do not care about him as well

[5stringJeff]

My vote was for Palin.

And since McCain's name was right next to Palin's, then you also voted for McCain. It's not like the vote counters got to your ballot and said, "Oh, wait, this guy only meant to vote for Sarah!"

[red states rule]

And since McCain's name was right next to Palin's, then you also voted for McCain. It's not like the vote counters got to your ballot and said, "Oh, wait, this guy only meant to vote for Sarah!"

Been over this Jeff - you because your guy got 497,392 votes is no reason to blame me

[5stringJeff]

Been over this Jeff - you because your guy got 497,392 votes is no reason to blame me

It's not sour grapes. I just find it interesting that you complain about McCain being a "RINO," yet you voted for him. And don't equivocate about 'voting for Palin.' If the mark on your ballot was next to Palin's name, it was next to McCain's as well.

[red states rule]

It's not sour grapes. I just find it interesting that you complain about McCain being a "RINO," yet you voted for him. And don't equivocate about 'voting for Palin.' If the mark on your ballot was next to Palin's name, it was next to McCain's as well.

What other choice did I have? Flush my vote down the john by voting for Barr or some other person who did nto have a chance?

Now we have a far left lib, with a far left Congress

[manu1959]

It's not sour grapes. I just find it interesting that you complain about McCain being a "RINO," yet you voted for him. And don't equivocate about 'voting for Palin.' If the mark on your ballot was next to Palin's name, it was next to McCain's as well.

not if you wrote in palin's name....not that i did......i wrote mine in....:poke:

[5stringJeff]

What other choice did I have? Flush my vote down the john by voting for Barr or some other person who did nto have a chance?

Well, you flushed your vote away with McCain too, didn't you? At the very least, you could have voted on principle for someone who held values closer to your own than McCain. Chuck Baldwin of the Constitution Party was a very conservative candidate - why didn't you vote for him, if you dislike McCain so much?

[red states rule]

Well, you flushed your vote away with McCain too, didn't you? At the very least, you could have voted on principle for someone who held values closer to your own than McCain. Chuck Baldwin of the Constitution Party was a very conservative candidate - why didn't you vote for him, if you dislike McCain so much?

McCain had a much better chance of winning then Barr and Baldwin.

[Gaffer]

Like me RSR voted to try to prevent the messiah from taking over. Mccain was a lousy choice but had a chance, and being old it was very likely Palin would have been running in 12 as an incumbent. You all who voted your principles can now sit back on em and watch the country deteriorate and your freedoms trashed. You really think the messiah and dems are going to let you have a say in things in future elections? One party rule has arrived.

[red states rule]

Like me RSR voted to try to prevent the messiah from taking over. Mccain was a lousy choice but had a chance, and being old it was very likely Palin would have been running in 12 as an incumbent. You all who voted your principles can now sit back on em and watch the country deteriorate and your freedoms trashed. You really think the messiah and dems are going to let you have a say in things in future elections? One party rule has arrived.

What good is voting for your principals when the candidate you support does not have a chance in hall of winning?

Winning is the only way to get what you belive in passed into law

[moderate democrat]

What good is voting for your principals when the candidate you support does not have a chance in hall of winning?

Winning is the only way to get what you belive in passed into law

my, how stories change...:poke:

http://www.debatepolicy.com/showpost.php?p=225222&postcount=108

[red states rule]

my, how stories change...:poke:

http://www.debatepolicy.com/showpost.php?p=225222&postcount=108

Oh so now you admit your are MFM

I guess it is true V -"The truth will set your free!"

I mad it clear, Palion/McCain was the only choice. Now we have the mega pork fest that will do nothing but make policital payoffs and do nothing to creat jobs

[moderate democrat]

Oh so now you admit your are MFM

I guess it is true V -"The truth will set your free!"

I mad it clear, Palion/McCain was the only choice. Now we have the mega pork fest that will do nothing but make policital payoffs and do nothing to creat jobs

not at all...I was merely looking back at some old threads about the campaign to gain some insight as to how this debate here had progressed. I found it interesting that you had previously castigated democrats for stating that they would do what you now admit to doing yourself. You stated early on, it seems, that you would not vote for a candidate that did not share your principles, and denigrated those who said they would... and now, you admit that you did exactly that. I call that hypocrisy. How will YOU spin it?

[red states rule]

not at all...I was merely looking back at some old threads about the campaign to gain some insight as to how this debate here had progressed. I found it interesting that you had previously castigated democrats for stating that they would do what you now admit to doing yourself. You stated early on, it seems, that you would not vote for a candidate that did not share your principles, and denigrated those who said they would... and now, you admit that you did exactly that. I call that hypocrisy. How will YOU spin it?

Right

Sure

:laugh2::laugh2::laugh2:

[moderate democrat]

rsr today:

What good is voting for your principals when the candidate you support does not have a chance in hall of winning?

Winning is the only way to get what you belive in passed into law

rsr last april:


How many times do I have to tell you - I will not vote for McCain

Unlike you, I put principals ahead of political gains.

[red states rule]

rsr today:


rsr last april:

Hey V, he had this debate on many other threads

I voted for Gov Palin

Now, can we talk about current events. There are many threads about things going on today - or are you unable to try and defend your parties pork fest as the details leak out?

Or how your party wants to censor a private citizen from speaking out?

[moderate democrat]

Hey V, he had this debate on many other threads

I voted for Gov Palin

Now, can we talk about current events. There are many threads about things going on today - or are you unable to try and defend your parties pork fest as the details leak out?

Or how your party wants to censor a private citizen from speaking out?

Palin was not on the ballot for president. You voted for McCain after you said you wouldn't.

You abandoned your principles for political gain after proclaiming loudly that you would NOT do so.

you can run from that all you want, but you cannot hide.

and my name is not V... :poke:

[red states rule]

Palin was not on the ballot for president. You voted for McCain after you said you wouldn't.

You abandoned your principles for political gain after proclaiming loudly that you would NOT do so.

you can run from that all you want, but you cannot hide.

and my name is not V... :poke:

Same lame garbage as you posted under Manfrom main. Keep beating the dead horse Virgil, and do not move on to more current issues

Perhaps you do not want to talk about what the Dem Congress is trying to pass today in the House - or their attempts to censor a privte citizen

[moderate democrat]

Same lame garbage as you posted under Manfrom main. Keep beating the dead horse Virgil, and do not move on to more current issues

Perhaps you do not want to talk about what the Dem Congress is trying to pass today in the House - or their attempts to censor a privte citizen


it is obvious that you refuse to admit your own hypocrisy... even when it is clearly displayed for all to see.

[red states rule]

it is obvious that you refuse to admit your own hypocrisy... even when it is clearly displayed for all to see.

No, what is clear you want to talk about the past, and ignore what is currently happening

Are you unable to because you do not want to - or are your writing your current "sermon"? :laugh2:

[moderate democrat]

No, what is clear you want to talk about the past, and ignore what is currently happening


I am optimistic about the beginnings of the Obama administration. I am glad to see that he is willing to negotiate on elements of the stimulus package. If House republicans want to be obstructionary, they run the risk of being on the wrong side of history if the package that passes with only democratic support ends up actually working.


but the fact DOES remain, RSR....you said one thing and did another. You should be gracious enough to admit that.

[red states rule]

I am optimistic about the beginnings of the Obama administration. I am glad to see that he is willing to negotiate on elements of the stimulus package. If House republicans want to be obstructionary, they run the risk of being on the wrong side of history if the package that passes with only democratic support ends up actually working.


but the fact DOES remain, RSR....you said one thing and did another. You should be gracious enough to admit that.

Well, please go to the correct thread and go into more detail

[moderate democrat]

Well, please go to the correct thread and go into more detail

admit your hypocrisy and I just might! :)

[Yurt]

virgil sure likes digging up people's history on this site, strange for such a "new" poster

[moderate democrat]

my name is not virgil, and I am merely trying to gain some context. I just thought that, for someone who seems hellbent on exposing democratic hypocrisy, RSR has an awful lot of it in his closet.

[Yurt]

my name is not virgil, and I am merely trying to gain some context. I just thought that, for someone who seems hellbent on exposing democratic hypocrisy, RSR has an awful lot of it in his closet.

just don't go stalking my personal information

[moderate democrat]

just don't go stalking my personal information

I wouldn't think of it.

[Yurt]

I wouldn't think of it.

you already have, searching out my birthdate and so forth...i have no doubt you have tried to google information on me regarding my time in the ME...

you're kinda creepy

[moderate democrat]

you already have, searching out my birthdate and so forth...i have no doubt you have tried to google information on me regarding my time in the ME...

you're kinda creepy

not at all. I simply noted your birthday - which was on your public profile here - and how it did not seem to make sense with you time in the middle east... but now that you have fixed that, I guess all is well.

[5stringJeff]

What good is voting for your principals when the candidate you support does not have a chance in hall of winning?

Ask the Founding Fathers.

[5stringJeff]

I mad it clear, Palion/McCain was the only choice. Now we have the mega pork fest that will do nothing but make policital payoffs and do nothing to creat jobs

McCain was no less of a big-government senator. He just flew under the other banner. But don't con yourself into thinking that McCain was the reincarnation of Reagan.

[OCA]

Ask the Founding Fathers.

:laugh2:

RSR cannot see the forest for the trees, he cannot see that he is the problem and not the solution.

[OCA]

McCain was no less of a big-government senator. He just flew under the other banner. But don't con yourself into thinking that McCain was the reincarnation of Reagan.

All RSR knew was that McCain had an (R) next to his name, he is an ignorant party hack.

[moderate democrat]

All RSR knew was that McCain had an (R) next to his name, he is an ignorant party hack.

and yet, this guy has the highest reputation on the entire site. What does THAT say about the republican clones who gather here?

[Yurt]

and yet, this guy has the highest reputation on the entire site. What does THAT say about the republican clones who gather here?

you're no moderate democrat, you're a partisan hack that is obsessed with reputation points. so because this guy has high points means there are republican clones here? you're stupid and creepy.

[moderate democrat]

he IS a partisan hack, and so are you, from what I have seen here. You are the guy who changed his birthdate and claimed to have climbed the pyramids... and claimed all sorts of goofy stuff about being in the middle east when anyone who has read any scholarly works on the area would know that you are full of shit.

[Kathianne]

I am optimistic about the beginnings of the Obama administration. I am glad to see that he is willing to negotiate on elements of the stimulus package. If House republicans want to be obstructionary, they run the risk of being on the wrong side of history if the package that passes with only democratic support ends up actually working.


but the fact DOES remain, RSR....you said one thing and did another. You should be gracious enough to admit that.

Why should he have to 'admit' anything, more so than yourself? Playing coward being false fronts?

[moderate democrat]

Why should he have to 'admit' anything, more so than yourself? Playing coward being false fronts?

he castigated democrats for being pragmatic, and promised he'd never compromise his principles, and then, seven months later, he broadcast about how he'd compromised his principles. I guess I am a not all that surprised that you would ignore such hypocrisy when it comes from your side of the aisle.

sad.

[BoogyMan]

I don't imagine you would see the hypocrisy in anything that Porkula does though MD, would you? Somehow the lobbyist promise that Obama made comes squelching to mind.

If you are going to throw rocks, you need to step outside of that glass house the democrats have erected.

[Yurt]

he IS a partisan hack, and so are you, from what I have seen here. You are the guy who changed his birthdate and claimed to have climbed the pyramids... and claimed all sorts of goofy stuff about being in the middle east when anyone who has read any scholarly works on the area would know that you are full of shit.

i never changed my birthday, stop lying about me. why are you calling me a liar about the ME? pray tell, what scholarly work on the area would show i am full of it? either link up or admit you lied. be graciousness about it now.

i can wait to see you preach to me about what scholarly works prove i don't know shit about the ME in this thread and what i told you about my time there. you think i am lying about the pyramids, being there in 81 with UN? lol, let's see this scholarly work. i can't wait.

[Yurt]

he castigated democrats for being pragmatic, and promised he'd never compromise his principles, and then, seven months later, he broadcast about how he'd compromised his principles. I guess I am a not all that surprised that you would ignore such hypocrisy when it comes from your side of the aisle.

sad.

obama wasn't even your first choice for president, yet YOU vote the party line...party over country :poke:

[moderate democrat]

i never changed my birthday, stop lying about me. why are you calling me a liar about the ME? pray tell, what scholarly work on the area would show i am full of it? either link up or admit you lied. be graciousness about it now.

i can wait to see you preach to me about what scholarly works prove i don't know shit about the ME in this thread and what i told you about my time there. you think i am lying about the pyramids, being there in 81 with UN? lol, let's see this scholarly work. i can't wait.

we both know you are being dishonest about this. we both know you DID change your birthday to make your timeline credible. It doesn't make any sense to continue this discussion under those circumstances. I'm sorry.

[moderate democrat]

obama wasn't even your first choice for president, yet YOU vote the party line...party over country :poke:who was YOUR first choice? who did YOU vote for?

I would never think of switching party affiliation and voting for a republican simply because my first choice was not nominated... unless the choice that WAS nominated vowed to NOT support the party's platform and agenda, because I know that any democrat will move this country in a better direction than any republican would want to.

The POINT of my comment was the FACT that red states rule had previously stated that he would NOT, under any circumstances, compromise his principles and vote for McCain..and then, seven months after making that pledge, he did exactly what he said he wouldn't do.

[Nukeman]

who was YOUR first choice? who did YOU vote for?

I would never think of switching party affiliation and voting for a republican simply because my first choice was not nominated... unless the choice that WAS nominated vowed to NOT support the party's platform and agenda, because I know that any democrat will move this country in a better direction than any republican would want to.

The POINT of my comment was the FACT that red states rule had previously stated that he would NOT, under any circumstances, compromise his principles and vote for McCain..and then, seven months after making that pledge, he did exactly what he said he wouldn't do.
Soo what I'm getting from this is that anyone who runs along the Democrat party line is "better" than any republican??

Your saying you would vote party instead of the best person for the job... How pathetic. I for one have NEVER voted party line I vote for the BEST candidate to do the job. I ersearch what their strengths and weakness's are. that way I can be INFORMED as to who is the BEST for the office not just some BS "party line" hack!!!!!

[red states rule]

Seems I have read the posts of moderate democrat before :laugh2:


http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?t=19986

[moderate democrat]

Soo what I'm getting from this is that anyone who runs along the Democrat party line is "better" than any republican??

Your saying you would vote party instead of the best person for the job... How pathetic. I for one have NEVER voted party line I vote for the BEST candidate to do the job. I ersearch what their strengths and weakness's are. that way I can be INFORMED as to who is the BEST for the office not just some BS "party line" hack!!!!!

I think that the direction a politician wants to move our country is the best indicator as to whether or not he or she is the best person for the job. I personally do not like the direction that the republican party wants to move America.

[moderate democrat]

Seems I have read the posts of moderate democrat before :laugh2:


http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?t=19986

I wasn't a member here when that thread was running, regardless of your weird theories to the contrary. Why not debate me and quit bringing up someone else?

[Nukeman]

I think that the direction a politician wants to move our country is the best indicator as to whether or not he or she is the best person for the job. I personally do not like the direction that the republican party wants to move America.WHY its not much different than the democrat!!!

What is really sooooo different between the parties other than a few points on personal responsibility. Yes most of their differnces can be laid solely at the feet of PERSONAL RESPONSIBLITY!!!!

[red states rule]

and yet, this guy has the highest reputation on the entire site. What does THAT say about the republican clones who gather here?

Whining about rep again? :laugh2:


You can count on one hand the number of RSR posts that have any original thought. And, like all the rest of the conservatives on here, you kiss his ass and jump on liberals like me without hesitation. I knew that when I came here.
I think it is really quite hilarious how you all are this mutual admiration club. A good indication is the number of liberals who are in the top ten for reputations...ZERO. You all go around patting each other on the back for your wisdom day in and day out...and the results are pretty evident, aren't they?


http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?t=13030&highlight=reputation&page=27

[moderate democrat]

WHY its not much different than the democrat!!!

What is really sooooo different between the parties other than a few points on personal responsibility. Yes most of their differnces can be laid solely at the feet of PERSONAL RESPONSIBLITY!!!!

I think that there are significant differences between the parties in areas such as taxes, education, welfare, environment, women's rights, gay rights, labor unions, to name a few.

[red states rule]

I think that there are significant differences between the parties in areas such as taxes, education, welfare, environment, women's rights, gay rights, labor unions, to name a few.

You have a history of whining about the rep system

so ... your explanation for the top ten reputation folks all being conservatives is simply because they are the top ten best posters? really?

http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?t=13030&highlight=reputation&page=27

[Yurt]

who was YOUR first choice? who did YOU vote for?

I would never think of switching party affiliation and voting for a republican simply because my first choice was not nominated... unless the choice that WAS nominated vowed to NOT support the party's platform and agenda, because I know that any democrat will move this country in a better direction than any republican would want to.

The POINT of my comment was the FACT that red states rule had previously stated that he would NOT, under any circumstances, compromise his principles and vote for McCain..and then, seven months after making that pledge, he did exactly what he said he wouldn't do.

i'm so shocked i knew that fact about you and so shocked of your answer that i knew you were going to repeat almost verbatim. why don't you just stop lying and be your true self. afraid of something?

[red states rule]

i'm so shocked i knew that fact about you and so shocked of your answer that i knew you were going to repeat almost verbatim. why don't you just stop lying and be your true self. afraid of something?

It it walks like a MFM, talks like a MFM, and acts like a MFM...............

[Yurt]

we both know you are being dishonest about this. we both know you DID change your birthday to make your timeline credible. It doesn't make any sense to continue this discussion under those circumstances. I'm sorry.

prove i changed my birthday

where is this scholarly work you said existed? hmmm....busted in another lie, pity.

[moderate democrat]

prove i changed my birthday

where is this scholarly work you said existed? hmmm....busted in another lie, pity.

we both know that you changed your birthday... given that, as I said before, it makes no sense to continue having a discussion on this topic. I am sorry.

[moderate democrat]

i'm so shocked i knew that fact about you and so shocked of your answer that i knew you were going to repeat almost verbatim. why don't you just stop lying and be your true self. afraid of something?

As I said, I am not this fellow manfrommaine.

get over it.

[actsnoblemartin]

pelosi has no weight in that grey matter between her ears :cheers2:

[red states rule]

As I said, I am not this fellow manfrommaine.

get over it.

Try looking in the mirror and you will know the truth.

Oh,.you already know the truth and are denying it

[actsnoblemartin]

Try looking in the mirror and you will know the truth.

Oh,.you already know the truth and are denying it



:popcorn:

[Yurt]

we both know that you changed your birthday... given that, as I said before, it makes no sense to continue having a discussion on this topic. I am sorry.

translation: i lied when i said i had scholary proof to show yurt lied.

you don't have squat and you know it


As I said, I am not this fellow manfrommaine.

get over it.

funny, no where in that post did i say you were manfrommaine...but yet you immediately jump to saying you aren't. got a guilty conscience?

as i said, i made a correct factual allegation about how you voted and i knew exactly what you would say...you proved me right, you are not who you say you are, you replied nearly verbatim as a former poster here. no one buys your bullshit, but i really don't care, i just think it is funny that you have to hide and lie about things.... post on dancer!