McCarthy used to have a pretty good conservative rep, but when he got involved with the leadership he became just another establishment guy. Let's see how much weight the TP really has in the caucus for all you folks who think they run the show. So far Chafetz, who I grew a little disenchanted with in Utah, is what I guess you'd call the TP person in the race.
of frightened political figures in my lifetime. GOP politics has become a battle of witless dolts who pray for opportunities to compromise with an opposition party that is smart enough to know their competition are weak sisters. More than anything, I hope this finally pushes the electorate to reject the current GOP party orthodoxy of saying anything to get elected, then when elected scrambling to find the most squishy moderate position. More than any other time, the table is set for a big ideological shift... I think that shift will be toward a more decisive conservative (constitutional based -- not social) position, but it will have to come from the chaos that has been fueled by a couple of decades of fear and capitulation.
He seemed highly capable of giving his foot a home in his mouth.
Chafetz's handling of the Planned Parenthood hearing was close to world class incompetent, so I have no respect for him Who else is there that can get the needed number of votes of 218? Without a Speaker after Boehner retires, I wonder what happens on debt ceiling, shutting down government, etc.
McCarthy used to have a pretty good conservative rep, but when he got involved with the leadership he became just another establishment guy. Let's see how much weight the TP really has in the caucus for all you folks who think they run the show. So far Chafetz, who I grew a little disenchanted with in Utah, is what I guess you'd call the TP person in the race.
The same thing happened to my rep. He was Linders aide and when Linder retired, he was basically given the seat. Now he's a leadership toady. I'm not sure who will get the job, but I've heard a lot of people mention Daniel Webster.
The last 20 years, the GOP has been ruled by conservatives, both in the WH and Congress.
I think it's cute conservatives try to rewrite history, as if the continued GOP failures are due to anything but strict application of conservative values.
The last 20 years, the GOP has been ruled by conservatives, both in the WH and Congress.
I think it's cute conservatives try to rewrite history, as if the continued GOP failures are due to anything but strict application of conservative values.
It's the moderates fault. Sure.
This is the mindnumbingly stupid part that I can't wrap my head around
If the GOP would embrace a moderate take on social issues, they'd win the POTUS general going away.
The last 20 years, the GOP has been ruled by conservatives, both in the WH and Congress.
I think it's cute conservatives try to rewrite history, as if the continued GOP failures are due to anything but strict application of conservative values.
It's the moderates fault. Sure.
This is the mindnumbingly stupid part that I can't wrap my head around
If the GOP would embrace a moderate take on social issues, they'd win the POTUS general going away.
Alas.....
Yea, unfortunately they go for the guy that is conservative social issues and moderate fiscal issues (Bush). They need to flip their thinking!
I am surprised I haven't seen Trey Gowdy's name mentioned yet
He likes power. Or there is always Cathy McMorris Rodgers, who has more support among the Tea Party folks and is already Chair of the House Republican Conference
The last 20 years, the GOP has been ruled by conservatives, both in the WH and Congress.
I think it's cute conservatives try to rewrite history, as if the continued GOP failures are due to anything but strict application of conservative values.
It's the moderates fault. Sure.
This is the mindnumbingly stupid part that I can't wrap my head around
If the GOP would embrace a moderate take on social issues, they'd win the POTUS general going away.
Alas.....
I don't know if I agree, but I think it all depends on what your end goal is. I think I share some of their values but not all and even some that I share I don't think I am as inflexible or extreme, however...at my core I believe a person has the right to believe what they want to believe, that their beliefs have no less (or more) legitimacy than anyone else's, and that nobody should change them just for expediency's sake.
So, yeah, maybe by tempering them or rejecting them they would go further in terms of political power, but I think that there is something to respect in a person holding onto their won principles, especially at a cost.
The last 20 years, the GOP has been ruled by conservatives, both in the WH and Congress.
I think it's cute conservatives try to rewrite history, as if the continued GOP failures are due to anything but strict application of conservative values.
It's the moderates fault. Sure.
This is the mindnumbingly stupid part that I can't wrap my head around
If the GOP would embrace a moderate take on social issues, they'd win the POTUS general going away.
If you only listen to what he says and not what he does, you might think so. Also, referring to conservatives as whackos and jackasses is not helpful.
He didn't call conservatives wackos. He called the Rejectionist Wing wackos.
Yes, they rejected the establishment. In case you haven't heard, the Republican establishment has been play fast and loose with their base. They campaign on one platform and do the opposite when they get into DC. Sure, they make a lot of noise and show votes, but they go along with what DC wants. The GOP base has caught on. Apparently the liberals haven't.
Because they would hemorrhage support from their existing voters while likely only picking up a trickle of new supporters to replace them. You're suggesting that there is a vast pool of potential voters who simply won't vote Republican because of what...abortion? Do you really think there are many Democrat voters who'd flip if the GOP would only embrace abortion?
Since Presidential elections only come down now to a few counties in a few states, I'm not sure that argument holds much water.
When independents can tip the scales in either direction, it absolutely matters.
The present GOP gets a pretty big hunk of their electoral support from Bible-Belt types. Take those planks out of the platform, and those voters either stay home or support somebody like a Carson or a Huckabee on a 3rd-party run.
The problem is not conservative vs liberal. The problem is an inability to compromise. By your logic, the conservatives have to vote purely to the right and the liberals to teh left. When the hell is anything going to get done if one side doesn't acknowledge, much less respect, the other side. It can't be my way or the highway or nothing good will get done. This argument with the GOP is about not recognizing the other and willing to do damage to the country to get their way.
What I've learned over the years is people vote for Party regardless of who the Party nominates. They say they will keep an open mind, but they really don't.
Are there really any independents? Or is that a self-described designation that makes one feel above messy Party politics?
I suspect "independents" tend to vote for one party over another too.
Because they would hemorrhage support from their existing voters while likely only picking up a trickle of new supporters to replace them. You're suggesting that there is a vast pool of potential voters who simply won't vote Republican because of what...abortion? Do you really think there are many Democrat voters who'd flip if the GOP would only embrace abortion?
Exactly, it's the same thing with pandering to Hispanics by being pro-immigration. For every one hispanic vote you might pick up, you will lose 10 of your base. It's not worth it.
I don't care about gay marriage or abortion. But I know that for the most part, these are settled so it doesn't matter to me what a candidates stance is. There is little or nothing a President can do on these issues and most of them know it.
Give me a fucking break. Obama says he's all for compromise except when it means he has to be the one to give something up. He's terrible at working with Congress, even with his own party (see TPP).
Since Presidential elections only come down now to a few counties in a few states, I'm not sure that argument holds much water.
Presidential elections come down to swinging more independents than your opponent. The base is going to vote for you regardless. As candidates like Nader and Perot proved, you are cutting off your nose to spite your face by voting for a third party or sitting home completely. The problem with the Republicans is that they have not put together a ticket that can attract independents away form the Democrats. Running a more moderate ticket would force the Democrats to really have to defend states like Pennsylvania, Ohio and Michigan. That then forces them to take resources from Virginia, Florida and the mountain west. Moreover, younger Republicans are becoming more socially moderate, especially on issues like immigration and same sex marriage. Hispanics tend to be quite conservative in their religious and fiscal views, but Republicans are jeopardizing that avenue by their immigration stance and swinging them to the Democrats even though on the majority of issues they more align with the Republicans.
you do not have to be a member of congress to be speaker?
You don't have to be a member. But Cantor, for those with my viewpoint, is no better than McCarthy. And the way he spoke of the fiscal crisis vote back under Bush was on a par with McCarthy and Benghazi. Saying the R's were going to vote against it because he didn't like something Nancy Pelosi had said, iirc.
Because they would hemorrhage support from their existing voters while likely only picking up a trickle of new supporters to replace them. You're suggesting that there is a vast pool of potential voters who simply won't vote Republican because of what...abortion? Do you really think there are many Democrat voters who'd flip if the GOP would only embrace abortion?
I do. And I know a lot of them.
Plenty of registered Dems out there that are as disillusioned with their party as conservatives are with the GOP. There's a lot of people waiting for that candidate with the right blend of fiscal conservatism, socially liberal tendencies.
And are we really suggesting that conservatives are gonna spite their nose and stay home to let a democrat win because the GOP is moderate?
If that's the state of the GOP, then they're even more lost than I accuse them of being.
The problem is not conservative vs liberal. The problem is an inability to compromise. By your logic, the conservatives have to vote purely to the right and the liberals to teh left. When the hell is anything going to get done if one side doesn't acknowledge, much less respect, the other side. It can't be my way or the highway or nothing good will get done. This argument with the GOP and Demcs is about not recognizing the other and willing to do damage to the country to get their way.
I don't think HRC is positioning herself LEFT of Sanders. I think she's positioning herself of the WH (Biden). Sanders doesn't scare her, but Biden probably does.
Buried in the press yesterday was the revelation that the FBI has seized the State Department servers. Of course, it might be too late depending on how much was erased/wiped. But that's a huge development.
You can't be this full of it. A group that will shut down the government because of this Planned Parenthood bullshit is serious in compromising. Obama, for sure, has his faults in governance but it's fly speck compared to this stuff. The last shutdown cost the US over $2 billion and resulted in a credit downgrade. The rest of the world is building high speed rail, infrastructure, internet, etc and they want to shut down the government over a bullshit video and you find equivalence with Obama. That's insane.
The same thing can be said of President Obama and Harry Reid.
Not even close.....
Not the very same thing can be said about President Obama and Harry Reid.
The Dem's aren't perfect by any means, but there are many of them who are willing to compromise on most Issues.
Also, they aren't really into brinkmanship politics.
WTF? Really? Obama loves to spike the ball anytime he can.
We are not talking about spiking the ball. Everyone spike the ball, hence McCarthy's comments on Hannity. We are talking about compromising through the legislative process.
You can't sit here & tell me that Obama hasn't tried to compromise with most of the legislation during his 2 terms.
I don't think HRC is positioning herself LEFT of Sanders. I think she's positioning herself of the WH (Biden). Sanders doesn't scare her, but Biden probably does.
Biden can't come out opposing TPP.
Hillary boxed herself because of the a Keystone statement. SHe has to get the union vote back, especially since two of them deserted her after she made her keystone remark. And then the next problem is how to take back everything positive she said about trade before she was against it.
You can't be this full of it. A group that will shut down the government because of this Planned Parenthood bullshit is serious in compromising. Obama, for sure, has his faults in governance but it's fly speck compared to this stuff. The last shutdown cost the US over $2 billion and resulted in a credit downgrade. The rest of the world is building high speed rail, infrastructure, internet, etc and they want to shut down the government over a bullshit video and you find equivalence with Obama. That's insane.
Sam, you only see it from one side. It takes two to shutdown the government. I could argue, "Really, the President wants to shut down the government because of PP?" See how that works?
Obama loves the shutdown threats. For one, he could give a fuck about the national debt. Secondly, it makes the Republicans look bad.
Both sides are doing it, but you can't see it because of your party loyalty.
You can't be this full of it. A group that will shut down the government because of this Planned Parenthood bullshit is serious in compromising. Obama, for sure, has his faults in governance but it's fly speck compared to this stuff. The last shutdown cost the US over $2 billion and resulted in a credit downgrade. The rest of the world is building high speed rail, infrastructure, internet, etc and they want to shut down the government over a bullshit video and you find equivalence with Obama. That's insane.
The other side could have moved on PP and whatever it was in the actual sequester. The shutdown wasn't because those things existed but a failure of both sides to move.
You can't be this full of it. A group that will shut down the government because of this Planned Parenthood bullshit is serious in compromising. Obama, for sure, has his faults in governance but it's fly speck compared to this stuff. The last shutdown cost the US over $2 billion and resulted in a credit downgrade. The rest of the world is building high speed rail, infrastructure, internet, etc and they want to shut down the government over a bullshit video and you find equivalence with Obama. That's insane.
The other side could have moved on PP and whatever it was in the actual sequester. The shutdown wasn't because those things existed but a failure of both sides to move.
Precisely. SHutdown only happens when two sides say that their stance is inviolate.
This has nothing to do with them at the moment. They are eating popcorn as I type.
This has everything to do with a Republican Party that is in shambles because they catered to the Radical Tea Party to win elections but was never Interested in meeting their demands.
This has nothing to do with them at the moment. They are eating popcorn as I type.
This has everything to do with a Republican Party that is in shambles because they catered to the Radical Tea Party to win elections but was never Interested in meeting their demands.
So now the Inmates are running the asylum.
Why is the Tea Party radical? The Tea Party is simply an anti-establishment reaction to a Republican Party that seems to have lost its way.
The same thing can be said of President Obama and Harry Reid.
Not even close.....
Not the very same thing can be said about President Obama and Harry Reid.
The Dem's aren't perfect by any means, but there are many of them who are willing to compromise on most Issues.
Also, they aren't really into brinkmanship politics.
No they're not. They even said they wouldn't compromise on certain issues like Planned Parenthood. Since MSM is vastly liberal, they get the message out to the masses that the Democrats are willing to compromise but it is further from the truth. Obama begins each new topic with a threat of veto power. That's not exactly compromising is it?
Because they would hemorrhage support from their existing voters while likely only picking up a trickle of new supporters to replace them. You're suggesting that there is a vast pool of potential voters who simply won't vote Republican because of what...abortion? Do you really think there are many Democrat voters who'd flip if the GOP would only embrace abortion?
If they abandoned the social issues, I think they'd have broader appeal. I think they worry about the social conservatives staying home, however.
Sure I can tell you Obama hasn't tried to compromise. He hates working with Congress and he usually doesn't.
Obama may not be a "Making Sausage With Congress Guy", but that is his way with both parties. That has nothing to do with the Democratic Party as a whole as far as compromise goes.
This has nothing to do with them at the moment. They are eating popcorn as I type.
This has everything to do with a Republican Party that is in shambles because they catered to the Radical Tea Party to win elections but was never Interested in meeting their demands.
You can't be this full of it. A group that will shut down the government because of this Planned Parenthood bullshit is serious in compromising. Obama, for sure, has his faults in governance but it's fly speck compared to this stuff. The last shutdown cost the US over $2 billion and resulted in a credit downgrade. The rest of the world is building high speed rail, infrastructure, internet, etc and they want to shut down the government over a bullshit video and you find equivalence with Obama. That's insane.
Sam, you only see it from one side. It takes two to shutdown the government. I could argue, "Really, the President wants to shut down the government because of PP?" See how that works?
Obama loves the shutdown threats. For one, he could give a fuck about the national debt. Secondly, it makes the Republicans look bad.
Both sides are doing it, but you can't see it because of your party loyalty.
Honestly, Eric, you probably don't know what you are talking about when you say "Obama loves the shutdown" or Obama "could give a fuck about the National debt." Both comments suggest clairvoyance.
You only imagine and project what you think about how Obama percieves these issues.
This idea of liberal vs conservative I believe is flawed too
I know plenty of what I call crazy conservatives. People to the Hard right. Obama has destroyed this country. He is coming for your guns etc....
I don't know any liberals that are similar.
Talk radio is about 90% conservative and full of shit. I listen every once in a while out of curiosity. Its really bad, biased, always misleading and misinforming.
We know just based on policy that the Republican party has moved hard right ie taxes, ACA etc....
I actually think much of the country is simply in the middle but the middle is now called the left.
So the outspoken Right gets characterized as crazy and I would venture 40-50% of people see it that way. Social issues are a big part of it. Also the hypocrisy on issues is a problem for the conservatives too because it is applied only when they want so it is phony.
Sure I can tell you Obama hasn't tried to compromise. He hates working with Congress and he usually doesn't.
Obama may not be a "Making Sausage With Congress Guy", but that is his way with both parties. That has nothing to do with the Democratic Party as a whole as far as compromise goes.
So I have this straight. when you talk about specific Republicans, you're really talking about the whole party. When you're talking about specific Democrats, you're only talking about those individuals. Do I have that correct?
The Republican party decided from day one they were not going to compromise on ANYTHING. This is a fact.
So what the hell are some of you talking about? You should be asking yourselves how those words are coming out of your mouths knowing that this was the Republican position from day one.
If the GOP would embrace a moderate take on social issues, they'd win the POTUS general going away.
Not even remotely close to being true
Why?
Yeah, why?
I can't speak for everyone of my political leaning, but I can easily see myself supporting and voting for a Republican candidate who is more moderate on social issues. Such a person would probably impress me more than the average Dem politician, to be honest -- it would indicate that though they may have their own positions on various issues divined from their religion or upbringing, they don't feel as though they can inflict such positions on others without a logical justification.
The Republican party decided from day one they were not going to compromise on ANYTHING. This is a fact.
So what the hell are some of you talking about? You should be asking yourselves how those words are coming out of your mouths knowing that this was the Republican position from day one.
Can you give examples of Obama compromising?
Pick on of the times that sequester occurred or was threatened
Can you tell me where a compromise was offered and can you tell me where there was movement form the left (including the President)? Let's use examples and then maybe we can focus our discussion a little bit.
You and others don't even see their own biases..."radical" or "extreme" right. What is that? Those are very loaded terms that suggests those who are using them thinking those elements are "crazy" - as you just said.
The problem is you can't or refuse to accept the fact that half the country is too "radically right"...it's not a small minority. You just don't like their views.
Sure I can tell you Obama hasn't tried to compromise. He hates working with Congress and he usually doesn't.
Obama may not be a "Making Sausage With Congress Guy", but that is his way with both parties. That has nothing to do with the Democratic Party as a whole as far as compromise goes.
So I have this straight. when you talk about specific Republicans, you're really talking about the whole party. When you're talking about specific Democrats, you're only talking about those individuals. Do I have that correct?
I'm talking about both parties in General, but people keep sliding Obama and Clinton into this.
There are hardcore people on both sides, but the Dem's usually are the ones giving in for the sake of compromise....on most, not all issues.
The same thing can be said of President Obama and Harry Reid.
Not even close.....
Not the very same thing can be said about President Obama and Harry Reid.
The Dem's aren't perfect by any means, but there are many of them who are willing to compromise on most Issues.
Also, they aren't really into brinkmanship politics.
WTF? Really? Obama loves to spike the ball anytime he can.
We are not talking about spiking the ball. Everyone spike the ball, hence McCarthy's comments on Hannity. We are talking about compromising through the legislative process.
You can't sit here & tell me that Obama hasn't tried to compromise with most of the legislation during his 2 terms.
Because they would hemorrhage support from their existing voters while likely only picking up a trickle of new supporters to replace them. You're suggesting that there is a vast pool of potential voters who simply won't vote Republican because of what...abortion? Do you really think there are many Democrat voters who'd flip if the GOP would only embrace abortion?
Probably not, but I don't the abortion position as something so a la carte as that. His position on abortion would just be representative of a different-from-average way of thinking for a conservative.
Because they would hemorrhage support from their existing voters while likely only picking up a trickle of new supporters to replace them. You're suggesting that there is a vast pool of potential voters who simply won't vote Republican because of what...abortion? Do you really think there are many Democrat voters who'd flip if the GOP would only embrace abortion?
Probably not, but I don't the abortion position as something so a la carte as that. His position on abortion would just be representative of a different-from-average way of thinking for a conservative.
I dont understand this? Is your point that HRC would never tell the truth, or that she would not make a mistake like McCarthy and let the cat out of the bag on the political charade that has been the 8th congressional investigation of Benghazi?
The interesting thing on the Democratic side is Obama has HRC by the balls (so to speak). He now possesses the power to bury her and get Biden nominated if he chooses.
So the question is: Does he still owe the Clintons for 2012? Or is the tension/dislike there too great?
If they abandoned the social issues, I think they'd have broader appeal. I think they worry about the social conservatives staying home, however.
They wouldn't have broader appeal, they'd just appeal to different people. They'd lose their base. If you want fiscal conservatives/social liberals, you should be looking at Libertarians, not Republicans
The interesting thing on the Democratic side is Obama has HRC by the balls (so to speak). He now possesses the power to bury her and get Biden nominated if he chooses.
So the question is: Does he still owe the Clintons for 2012? Or is the tension/dislike there too great?
My guess is that what Biden does will be the clue as to what Obama is thinking. If he goes, it's only because he has the Blessing. And then the FBI (et al) punches the clock.
Actually I think you refuse to believe what is going on. Only 26% of people identify themselves as Republicans.
Yes, it is extreme right. From Guns to Abortion, Climate Change, Environmental issues, Religion in schools, to constant misinformation from a party that said from day one there would be no compromise and they were out to kill everything that Obama put forward. That was their stated goal. That isn't extreme?
One review of my facebook feed shows me plenty of extreme right wing views. Bat shit crazy. I never see bat shit crazy left views. Can you even tell me what they would be?
Giving rich people's money to the poor? I don't see anyone saying that. what is the lefts positions that are radical?
the Wild Card too is who is the post-Administration face of the Democratic Party...will the Obamas or Clintons being running the show? That could factor into the decision.
You can't be this full of it. A group that will shut down the government because of this Planned Parenthood bullshit is serious in compromising. Obama, for sure, has his faults in governance but it's fly speck compared to this stuff. The last shutdown cost the US over $2 billion and resulted in a credit downgrade. The rest of the world is building high speed rail, infrastructure, internet, etc and they want to shut down the government over a bullshit video and you find equivalence with Obama. That's insane.
The other side could have moved on PP and whatever it was in the actual sequester. The shutdown wasn't because those things existed but a failure of both sides to move.
The real problem is the way the spending bills are done. There is not supposed to be one huge spending bill. They do not follow regular order and rely on continuing resolutions.
And are we really suggesting that conservatives are gonna spite their nose and stay home to let a democrat win because the GOP is moderate?
Absolutely. It already started in 2012. What the hell is the point of the GOP if it is nothing more than Dem Lite? If I wanted to vote for a Democrat, I'd vote for a fucking Democrat, not a Dem-in-elephant-clothing. Now, my perspective is a bit different in that I'm not a socon, rather a libertarian (or, at least, libertarian-leaning), but I'm through with the boogeyman scenarios. I'd vote for a few specific Republicans who actually do more than just flap their gums about individual liberty, but the rest of them? Piss on em all.....I'm through with lesser-of-two-evils craps. Both party establishments are rent-seeking scum to their core.
Harry Reid is about consolidating and expanding state power. Weepy Boehner is about consolidating and expanding state power. Pelosi is about consolidating and expanding state power. Hillary, Mitch McConnell, Jeb Bush, Joe Biden, Marco Rubio....the differences between them all are largely window dressing. Fuck em all.
RE: This idea of liberal vs conservative I believe is flawed too
Actually I think you refuse to believe what is going on. Only 26% of people identify themselves as Republicans.
Yes, it is extreme right. From Guns to Abortion, Climate Change, Environmental issues, Religion in schools, to constant misinformation from a party that said from day one there would be no compromise and they were out to kill everything that Obama put forward. That was their stated goal. That isn't extreme?
One review of my facebook feed shows me plenty of extreme right wing views. Bat shit crazy. I never see bat shit crazy left views. Can you even tell me what they would be?
Giving rich people's money to the poor? I don't see anyone saying that. what is the lefts positions that are radical?
You don't see people saying give rich people's money to the poor?
I think you might have a fb issue more than anything else.
The interesting thing on the Democratic side is Obama has HRC by the balls (so to speak). He now possesses the power to bury her and get Biden nominated if he chooses.
So the question is: Does he still owe the Clintons for 2012? Or is the tension/dislike there too great?
I think that is why she is now trying to distance herself more from him because it is a lost cause. Biden is running at this point and the WH will be firmly behind him. Everyone knows this so why even pretend anymore. Other than saying I'm a woman so that makes me an outsider too, what big difference was Hillary going to offer from a Biden candidacy?
that conservatives are going to just say fuck it, stay home, and let a dem win? Or fuck it, lets vote for this third party guy who has no chance, split our own party, and again let a dem win easily?
Half the country is conservative. 26 percent? The Republicans would be a fringe party and would have no shot at the WH, let alone control of both houses.
Debating this stuff with you becomes pointless if you simply throw out wild statements like that.
Because they would hemorrhage support from their existing voters while likely only picking up a trickle of new supporters to replace them. You're suggesting that there is a vast pool of potential voters who simply won't vote Republican because of what...abortion? Do you really think there are many Democrat voters who'd flip if the GOP would only embrace abortion?
If they abandoned the social issues, I think they'd have broader appeal. I think they worry about the social conservatives staying home, however.
No they wouldn't. Romney, McCain and Dole proved that.
I dont understand this? Is your point that HRC would never tell the truth, or that she would not make a mistake like McCarthy and let the cat out of the bag on the political charade that has been the 8th congressional investigation of Benghazi?
You can't be this full of it. A group that will shut down the government because of this Planned Parenthood bullshit is serious in compromising. Obama, for sure, has his faults in governance but it's fly speck compared to this stuff. The last shutdown cost the US over $2 billion and resulted in a credit downgrade. The rest of the world is building high speed rail, infrastructure, internet, etc and they want to shut down the government over a bullshit video and you find equivalence with Obama. That's insane.
Sam, you only see it from one side. It takes two to shutdown the government. I could argue, "Really, the President wants to shut down the government because of PP?" See how that works?
Obama loves the shutdown threats. For one, he could give a fuck about the national debt. Secondly, it makes the Republicans look bad.
Both sides are doing it, but you can't see it because of your party loyalty.
Honestly, Eric, you probably don't know what you are talking about when you say "Obama loves the shutdown" or Obama "could give a fuck about the National debt." Both comments suggest clairvoyance.
You only imagine and project what you think about how Obama percieves these issues.
He is very transparent. Although not in the way he promised to be. Do you think he cares about the National Debt? He pretended to when he was a Senator and said that Bush was 'unpatriotic' for have the debt at half of what it is now.
extreme. They tried to strong-arm politicians into taking a pledge to NEVER raise taxes. Good, reasonable politicians lost races because they wouldn't take that dumb pledge. If that's not extreme then I don't know what is.
You know whats funny. You are so stupid that you not only keep putting the naked shorts stuff out there but you don't even realize that I was right about what I said and it is still being proven today. Even one of the idiots on real housewives just went to jail for a number of years for it.
And it is also believed by many to be a big cause of the volatility in foreign markets which then directly impacts and causes high volatility in ours...
Sure I can tell you Obama hasn't tried to compromise. He hates working with Congress and he usually doesn't.
Obama may not be a "Making Sausage With Congress Guy", but that is his way with both parties. That has nothing to do with the Democratic Party as a whole as far as compromise goes.
So I have this straight. when you talk about specific Republicans, you're really talking about the whole party. When you're talking about specific Democrats, you're only talking about those individuals. Do I have that correct?
I'm talking about both parties in General, but people keep sliding Obama and Clinton into this.
There are hardcore people on both sides, but the Dem's usually are the ones giving in for the sake of compromise....on most, not all issues.
Please give examples.
RE: This idea of liberal vs conservative I believe is flawed too
I know plenty of what I call crazy conservatives. People to the Hard right. Obama has destroyed this country. He is coming for your guns etc....
I don't know any liberals that are similar.
I do. Where I live they're actually quite common, and super annoying.
An asshole as he may be, Bill Maher addresses and details their existence pretty regularly and accurately. Sure, usually it's in the defensive, retaliatory context of, "These stupid liberals all freaked out about something I said about Muslims!" But filter a bit of the vitriol out and his points stand -- there are quite a few liberals whose positions seem to be more of a knee-jerk anti status quo reflex than anything else.
I don't see it. I have 5 AM radio stations at any given time saying the opposite.
And control of their Uterus is not a extreme left viewpoint. It is the current law.
Almost tax we have is built on that foundation. The ACA is built upon it. Almost every proposed tax plan, save maybe Carson's, says that. In the more extreme positions, people like DiBlasio have labeled surtax proposals that say that.
that conservatives are going to just say fuck it, stay home, and let a dem win? Or fuck it, lets vote for this third party guy who has no chance, split our own party, and again let a dem win easily?
How self immolating would that be?
It's not self-immolating if you feel the party no longer represents you at all, which is happening more and more every day.
The election is a binary choice at this point. Not sure how you don't get that. But only 26% of associate as part of the Republican brand. Democrats is about 50% higher then that.
The party is disjointed, and hypocritical. It is why Kasich is at the bottom and he is the best candidate you have and Trump and Carson are at the top.
The interesting thing on the Democratic side is Obama has HRC by the balls (so to speak). He now possesses the power to bury her and get Biden nominated if he chooses.
So the question is: Does he still owe the Clintons for 2012? Or is the tension/dislike there too great?
Supposedly there was a deal that Bill Clinton supported Obama in 2012 (he made a speech at the convention) and Obama was supposed to support Hillary in 2016. But there is no love lost between the Obama's and the Clintons. Did you read 'Blood Fued'? very interesting book.
What I've learned over the years is people vote for Party regardless of who the Party nominates. They say they will keep an open mind, but they really don't.
Are there really any independents? Or is that a self-described designation that makes one feel above messy Party politics?
I think about 10% of the electorate are true independents. I think there are another 10% that vote predominantly for 1 party but, based on specific issues, could switch their vote (i.e. Democrats who voted for Nixon in '72 based on economics or Republicans in '04 who voted for Kerry based on opposition to Iraq). The other 80% are about as locked in as you can get.
RE: RE: Again, can people really say with a straight face
that conservatives are going to just say fuck it, stay home, and let a dem win? Or fuck it, lets vote for this third party guy who has no chance, split our own party, and again let a dem win easily?
How self immolating would that be?
It's not self-immolating if you feel the party no longer represents you at all, which is happening more and more every day.
And are we really suggesting that conservatives are gonna spite their nose and stay home to let a democrat win because the GOP is moderate?
Absolutely. It already started in 2012. What the hell is the point of the GOP if it is nothing more than Dem Lite? If I wanted to vote for a Democrat, I'd vote for a fucking Democrat, not a Dem-in-elephant-clothing. Now, my perspective is a bit different in that I'm not a socon, rather a libertarian (or, at least, libertarian-leaning), but I'm through with the boogeyman scenarios. I'd vote for a few specific Republicans who actually do more than just flap their gums about individual liberty, but the rest of them? Piss on em all.....I'm through with lesser-of-two-evils craps. Both party establishments are rent-seeking scum to their core.
Harry Reid is about consolidating and expanding state power. Weepy Boehner is about consolidating and expanding state power. Pelosi is about consolidating and expanding state power. Hillary, Mitch McConnell, Jeb Bush, Joe Biden, Marco Rubio....the differences between them all are largely window dressing. Fuck em all.
And are we really suggesting that conservatives are gonna spite their nose and stay home to let a democrat win because the GOP is moderate?
Absolutely. It already started in 2012. What the hell is the point of the GOP if it is nothing more than Dem Lite? If I wanted to vote for a Democrat, I'd vote for a fucking Democrat, not a Dem-in-elephant-clothing. Now, my perspective is a bit different in that I'm not a socon, rather a libertarian (or, at least, libertarian-leaning), but I'm through with the boogeyman scenarios. I'd vote for a few specific Republicans who actually do more than just flap their gums about individual liberty, but the rest of them? Piss on em all.....I'm through with lesser-of-two-evils craps. Both party establishments are rent-seeking scum to their core.
Harry Reid is about consolidating and expanding state power. Weepy Boehner is about consolidating and expanding state power. Pelosi is about consolidating and expanding state power. Hillary, Mitch McConnell, Jeb Bush, Joe Biden, Marco Rubio....the differences between them all are largely window dressing. Fuck em all.
The election is a binary choice at this point. Not sure how you don't get that. But only 26% of associate as part of the Republican brand. Democrats is about 50% higher then that.
The party is disjointed, and hypocritical. It is why Kasich is at the bottom and he is the best candidate you have and Trump and Carson are at the top.
None of that makes any sense. Starting with the results of the mid-terms and ending up with "best"candidate...defined only according to your standards.
Now you are full of it. A lot had to do with getting rid of the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest people. Again what would have been a far right position 20 years ago.
extreme. They tried to strong-arm politicians into taking a pledge to NEVER raise taxes. Good, reasonable politicians lost races because they wouldn't take that dumb pledge. If that's not extreme then I don't know what is.
I call that being terribly stubborn in sticking to one's outlined principals, but I wouldn't call it "extreme." How is pledging not to raise taxes extreme? (I personally think pledges like that are just for show and dumb).
"The Tea Party" is an umbrella handle...there are all kinds of people who are interested in all kinds of things in it...but the common themes are smaller government, fiscal responsibility, and a renewed adherence to the U.S. Constitution. Anti-illegal immigration has seeped into it now, but there are a lot of blue collar Democrats who are anti-illegal immigration too.
All the more reason to stop playing the game. If the American people are hellbent on an ever-expanding, unsustainable welfare state, who am I to oppose that? Long live the voice of the people.
RE: Again, can people really say with a straight face
that conservatives are going to just say fuck it, stay home, and let a dem win? Or fuck it, lets vote for this third party guy who has no chance, split our own party, and again let a dem win easily?
How self immolating would that be?
Well voting for RINOs hasn't done the country any good. Bush spent almost as much as OBama.
It's fun listening to liberal leaning people talk about conservatives. You just don't get it. The GOP has burned its bridges with a lot of its base by not doing what they were elected to do. People are angry and frustrated. That is why Trump and Carson and Fiorina are doing so well. The establishment GOP is dead. They were just democrats lite anyway.
Now you are full of it. A lot had to do with getting rid of the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest people. Again what would have been a far right position 20 years ago.
A progressive tax is redistributive. So, maybe your fb friends are too busy putting up pictures of the meal they had last night rather than talking.
It makes 100% sense. The idea that"How can only 26% identify themselves as Republicans when they get 50% of the vote"
Is a foolish statement and one you have now doubled down on. Fortunately for most people the election is a binary choice. Red or Blue. Independents may be a majority by now. Many are one issue voters or hold their nose voters...etc...
Doesn't mean anything of their support for one party. Even on this thread people like myself say they could consider a conservative except for their stance on social issues.
The Tea Party could have been a much more potent phenomenon had it maintained some level of focus on what it was supposed to be about, which was fiscal responsibility. Instead, it became bloated with the usual socon silliness, which neutered the idea that it was a non-partisan movement and turned it into just a GOP interest group by another name.
Again missing the point. Let me bring you back to the question which was about compromise. DUring the stimulus discussions Obama wanted to get rid of the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest people noting (CORRECTLY) that they did not need them and were not going to help grow the economy.
He eventually COMPROMISED (which you say he never did) to ensure that some stimulus went through,,,
but you're of the belief that government should play as limited a role as humanly possible and in a country as large, diverse, and free as ours, the government absolutely has to oversee A LOT.
Them's the breaks.
You need to get involved and support a libertarian party if you'd like to actually be represented.
As it stands, the GOP was never a strictly libertarian party.
Because they would hemorrhage support from their existing voters while likely only picking up a trickle of new supporters to replace them. You're suggesting that there is a vast pool of potential voters who simply won't vote Republican because of what...abortion? Do you really think there are many Democrat voters who'd flip if the GOP would only embrace abortion?
If they abandoned the social issues, I think they'd have broader appeal. I think they worry about the social conservatives staying home, however.
No they wouldn't. Romney, McCain and Dole proved that.
Romney supported outlawing all abortions. McCain was in favor of prosecuting doctors who had performed abortions. They both are against gay marriage. To most of America these are very conservative stances.
extreme. They tried to strong-arm politicians into taking a pledge to NEVER raise taxes. Good, reasonable politicians lost races because they wouldn't take that dumb pledge. If that's not extreme then I don't know what is.
Obama has lost more congressional seats than any other President. Because of his disastrous policies. Why Dem voters don't also hold him accountable, I have no idea.
It is leading in the government and will likely be the elected. Maybe voting for Trump or Carson or Fiorina is some kind of picket sign you all are putting up but when one of them is not the candidate will you admit that the establishment is alive and well?
Again missing the point. Let me bring you back to the question which was about compromise. DUring the stimulus discussions Obama wanted to get rid of the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest people noting (CORRECTLY) that they did not need them and were not going to help grow the economy.
He eventually COMPROMISED (which you say he never did) to ensure that some stimulus went through,,,
The point was that you said only repubs talk about positions and that your lib friends do not. You specifically said they do not espouse taking money from the rich and giving it to the poor. My point is that if they mention taxes or tax cuts that are not across the board or do not flatten the tax rates, they actually are.
how do you not see the inherent contradiction between this:
that conservatives are going to just say fuck it, stay home, and let a dem win? Or fuck it, lets vote for this third party guy who has no chance, split our own party, and again let a dem win easily?
How self immolating would that be?
Well voting for RINOs hasn't done the country any good. Bush spent almost as much as OBama.
It's fun listening to liberal leaning people talk about conservatives. You just don't get it. The GOP has burned its bridges with a lot of its base by not doing what they were elected to do. People are angry and frustrated. That is why Trump and Carson and Fiorina are doing so well. The establishment GOP is dead. They were just democrats lite anyway.
You say and think I lean liberal but my comments never support that.
that conservatives are going to just say fuck it, stay home, and let a dem win? Or fuck it, lets vote for this third party guy who has no chance, split our own party, and again let a dem win easily?
How self immolating would that be?
It's not self-immolating if you feel the party no longer represents you at all, which is happening more and more every day.
Got some bad news for you, Greg
They never did represent you.
Yes, we know that. But what is funny is that people are still questioning why people who have voted republican are now rebelling.
Do you think the Democrats represent you? I used to think they represented the working man, but not anymore.
RE: RE: RE: Again, can people really say with a straight face
that conservatives are going to just say fuck it, stay home, and let a dem win? Or fuck it, lets vote for this third party guy who has no chance, split our own party, and again let a dem win easily?
How self immolating would that be?
Well voting for RINOs hasn't done the country any good. Bush spent almost as much as OBama.
It's fun listening to liberal leaning people talk about conservatives. You just don't get it. The GOP has burned its bridges with a lot of its base by not doing what they were elected to do. People are angry and frustrated. That is why Trump and Carson and Fiorina are doing so well. The establishment GOP is dead. They were just democrats lite anyway.
You say and think I lean liberal but my comments never support that.
I agree completely. I have to say that, more than anyone else, I have a hard time in determining which side LTS is. SO I just assume...vapid?
but you're of the belief that government should play as limited a role as humanly possible and in a country as large, diverse, and free as ours, the government absolutely has to oversee A LOT.
Them's the breaks.
You need to get involved and support a libertarian party if you'd like to actually be represented.
As it stands, the GOP was never a strictly libertarian party.
They should oversee a lot. But it has to be within what is the purview of the federal government. Most of what they do now is not. That's not libertarian, that is how the government was set up.
The question was about what has Obama compromised on of which there are many examples but that was the first one that come to mind which made sense because it was an obvious example. It also showed a lot about the Republican party at the time of need in the country.
Regarding the left, I just don't see it and my FB friends or anywhere else don't compare to the vitriol and far right views. And factually incorrect views. Anything and everything that comes out they grasp on too. You can send them the link to Snopes where it showed they were 100% wrong and they ignore it.
And the funny part is that it has been that way from the very beginning. Remember Obama was going to have camps and all this other crazy shit....It was from the beginning and it never stopped.
That the Republican Party adopted the Southern Strategy of the last 40 years and didn't even try to cater to Black, Latino, or Asian groups like they did with the "Far Right Evangelists" and Nationalist groups and every other majority white group out there.....
And it's nothing wrong with catering to those groups, but at the expense of alienating all other groups at the same time is finally biting them in the ass.....And all they can do is blame Obama.
You have to admit at this point in time, they have no capability to govern.
RE: RE: RE: RE: Again, can people really say with a straight face
that conservatives are going to just say fuck it, stay home, and let a dem win? Or fuck it, lets vote for this third party guy who has no chance, split our own party, and again let a dem win easily?
How self immolating would that be?
It's not self-immolating if you feel the party no longer represents you at all, which is happening more and more every day.
Got some bad news for you, Greg
They never did represent you.
Yes, we know that. But what is funny is that people are still questioning why people who have voted republican are now rebelling.
Do you think the Democrats represent you? I used to think they represented the working man, but not anymore.
No, democrats don't represent me at all. Nor do republicans.
Hence why I'm not affiliated.
I don't question why conservatives are disappointed with their party fwiw.
It is leading in the government and will likely be the elected. Maybe voting for Trump or Carson or Fiorina is some kind of picket sign you all are putting up but when one of them is not the candidate will you admit that the establishment is alive and well?
Sorry if I don't take your opinion as any value. If A Bush is nominated he will not win and then what with the establishment do? They are just a bunch of sad old men trying to stay in power while sucking up all the money from voters and donors. They remind me of Eldrich Palmer in the Strain.
All of the problems in Washington are due to Republicans. The President and the Democrats in Congress have nothing or very little to do with the problems.
This despite the fact that the Democrats controlled both Houses for two years, only lost the Senate recently, and the Executive Branch has never been stronger, the Legislative Branch more impotent, and a Judicial Branch willing to legislate on behalf of the White House.
that conservatives are going to just say fuck it, stay home, and let a dem win? Or fuck it, lets vote for this third party guy who has no chance, split our own party, and again let a dem win easily?
How self immolating would that be?
Well voting for RINOs hasn't done the country any good. Bush spent almost as much as OBama.
It's fun listening to liberal leaning people talk about conservatives. You just don't get it. The GOP has burned its bridges with a lot of its base by not doing what they were elected to do. People are angry and frustrated. That is why Trump and Carson and Fiorina are doing so well. The establishment GOP is dead. They were just democrats lite anyway.
You say and think I lean liberal but my comments never support that.
I agree completely. I have to say that, more than anyone else, I have a hard time in determining which side LTS is. SO I just assume...vapid?
I appreciate that. I'm on side America. It feels quite lonely sometimes.
Ultimately, I've accepted that, at this time, libertarianism has no chance of being a credible player in national politics because the American public believes they can have their cake and eat it. Actually, this is why I've started to come around on the idea of shrugging at tax increases - you motherfuckers want Uncle Sugar to wrap you in his warm embrace? Then let's pay for it, and see how they like it. I'd love nothing more to call the bluff of the tax-the-rich crowd. They will never be able to collect enough from only the very rich to fund their utopia. Inevitably, everyone's going to have to take a haircut, probably a big one, and even then it may not be enough to pay for the leviathan. I'd prefer unpleasant honesty to reassuring fiction.
I am not liberal. I am a true moderate independent. I could like Kasich, I could like Rand friggin Paul.
I don't love Obama but think he did a good job overall with what he had to work with. I don't like Hillary. I always like Biden though. Not sure about Sanders but he might be right when everything is considered.
I am very pro gay rights, pro abortion rights, pro-gun, tend to be economically conservative although I cant stand the handouts to the rich when people focus on much smaller handouts to the poor. I would have made a fine fiscal conservative 20 years ago.
That the Republican Party adopted the Southern Strategy of the last 40 years and didn't even try to cater to Black, Latino, or Asian groups like they did with the "Far Right Evangelists" and Nationalist groups and every other majority white group out there.....
And it's nothing wrong with catering to those groups, but at the expense of alienating all other groups at the same time is finally biting them in the ass.....And all they can do is blame Obama.
You have to admit at this point in time, they have no capability to govern.
I would argue that Republican state governors have been taking Democrat state governors to the wood shed in recent years.
No, I am saying the Republican party is out of date, and crazy to the right. It is not the same party from 20 years ago. What is right now is far right then. What is left now is moderate then.
I am not saying it is all the Republicans fault but much of it is. And to be on the side of Womens rights, Gay rights, People's rights over corporations rights is not such a radical concept.
That the Republican Party adopted the Southern Strategy of the last 40 years and didn't even try to cater to Black, Latino, or Asian groups like they did with the "Far Right Evangelists" and Nationalist groups and every other majority white group out there.....
And it's nothing wrong with catering to those groups, but at the expense of alienating all other groups at the same time is finally biting them in the ass.....And all they can do is blame Obama.
You have to admit at this point in time, they have no capability to govern.
I would argue that Republican state governors have been taking Democrat state governors to the wood shed in recent years.
Agree on governorship but much of that is based on real dollars. Conservative spending. Now people are seeing their school budgets slashed and their property taxes going up.
There is a simple concept which I heard some time ago and makes sense and that is that the Republicans really don't like government and really aren't very good at it either for the same reason.
Listening is not compromising. Gates is not compromising.
Fiscal cliff and budget? Slowing the rate of growth is not the same thing as an actual cut.
Look, I tried to give you some examples on very short notice, apparently it's your party that is in dismay right now and you keep using Obama as a scapegoat for their inability to govern.
This is nothing new, as they have blamed Obama for pretty much everything that goes wrong.
Just look at the results in the past 7 years. After the Republicans took took control of the house in 2010, it's been a quagmire all over again & again.
People should use Obamacare to cure that Obama Derangement Syndrome.
That the Republican Party adopted the Southern Strategy of the last 40 years and didn't even try to cater to Black, Latino, or Asian groups like they did with the "Far Right Evangelists" and Nationalist groups and every other majority white group out there.....
And it's nothing wrong with catering to those groups, but at the expense of alienating all other groups at the same time is finally biting them in the ass.....And all they can do is blame Obama.
You have to admit at this point in time, they have no capability to govern.
Let's see, the dems 'cater' to blacs and latinos? How is that working out for the blacks and latinos? Unemployment for those groups is sky high, they've lost economic progress that they gained over the past 20 years, blacks did better under Reagan than Obama, and he does deserve blame for that. The cities they live in are a mess, being run by democrats for decades. And look at the current candidates. Dems are all old white people. The Republicans have a black man, two Hispanics and an Asian.
Also, there are plenty of black evangelists. I'm not sure what 'Nationalists' or 'White Majority' groups you think the Republicans have catered to. The Dems have pretty much alienated whites, men in particular and now even women. And it remains to be seen if the black vote comes out if Obama is not on the ticket.
The same thing can be said of President Obama and Harry Reid.
.
the difference is obama/reid do not want govt to fail or default on its obligations.
The US will not default. That is a huge red herring. When there is a shut down, both sides are involved, not just one
Nice talking point but no cigar. Your threating to shutdown the government if Planned Parenthood isn't defunded, where is the compromise in that? The only reason this stunt is being pulled is because it can't pass as a stand alone.
So opponents should give in to childish tantrums when polls show a majority of Americans don't want funding eliminated:
"At a time when Republicans have been calling for cutting off federal funding to Planned Parenthood and threatening to shut down the government to do so, the new poll found that a strong majority of Americans 61% oppose eliminating funding, while 35% support a funding cut off."
Even people in favor of defunding don't want the gov't shut down because of this issue. Yes, the American public is more responsible than Republican Members of the House:
"But even among people who want to cut off funding to Planned Parenthood, only 27% favored forcing a government shutdown to accomplish the goal."
If this happens, this is going to be very difficult for the American public to understand, said GOP pollster Bill McInturff, who helped conduct the survey"
No witch hunt here with Obama (even though I don't like him).
I'm merely responding to the claim that the Republicans are the roadblock and the Democrats aren't.
Both sides are the problem.
The few examples you gave me are not compelling. Republicans gave Obama TPP, but they wanted it. That doesn't mean they are willing compromisers either, but they are clearly willing to vote with the President if it serves their interests.
Ultimately, I've accepted that, at this time, libertarianism has no chance of being a credible player in national politics because the American public believes they can have their cake and eat it. Actually, this is why I've started to come around on the idea of shrugging at tax increases - you motherfuckers want Uncle Sugar to wrap you in his warm embrace? Then let's pay for it, and see how they like it. I'd love nothing more to call the bluff of the tax-the-rich crowd. They will never be able to collect enough from only the very rich to fund their utopia. Inevitably, everyone's going to have to take a haircut, probably a big one, and even then it may not be enough to pay for the leviathan. I'd prefer unpleasant honesty to reassuring fiction.
I don't have much to add here. You're last sentence says it all.
That the Republican Party adopted the Southern Strategy of the last 40 years and didn't even try to cater to Black, Latino, or Asian groups like they did with the "Far Right Evangelists" and Nationalist groups and every other majority white group out there.....
And it's nothing wrong with catering to those groups, but at the expense of alienating all other groups at the same time is finally biting them in the ass.....And all they can do is blame Obama.
You have to admit at this point in time, they have no capability to govern.
Let's see, the dems 'cater' to blacs and latinos? How is that working out for the blacks and latinos?
Terribly, thus highlighting the ridiculousness of the democratic party as well. They offer these blocs bread crumbs then they go jerk themselves off.
That the Republican Party adopted the Southern Strategy of the last 40 years and didn't even try to cater to Black, Latino, or Asian groups like they did with the "Far Right Evangelists" and Nationalist groups and every other majority white group out there.....
And it's nothing wrong with catering to those groups, but at the expense of alienating all other groups at the same time is finally biting them in the ass.....And all they can do is blame Obama.
You have to admit at this point in time, they have no capability to govern.
Let's see, the dems 'cater' to blacs and latinos? How is that working out for the blacks and latinos? Unemployment for those groups is sky high, they've lost economic progress that they gained over the past 20 years, blacks did better under Reagan than Obama, and he does deserve blame for that. The cities they live in are a mess, being run by democrats for decades. And look at the current candidates. Dems are all old white people. The Republicans have a black man, two Hispanics and an Asian.
Also, there are plenty of black evangelists. I'm not sure what 'Nationalists' or 'White Majority' groups you think the Republicans have catered to. The Dems have pretty much alienated whites, men in particular and now even women. And it remains to be seen if the black vote comes out if Obama is not on the ticket.
Ask Steve Scalise about Nationalists. Do you really think he is the only one? Why is he still in leadership? Hell, he just might run fors peaker. And do not act like you never heard of the Southern Strategy before.
Black & Latinos are actually doing better than they were 30 years ago and definitely better than in 2007-2008. Maybe you can ask one for yourself as I have heard that lame argument before.
You talk as if there was some golden age for Blacks & latinos of Yesteryear....Gimme a break.
I don't think most on the left want big spending and raises in taxes either. I think there are some taxes that can be raised and some spending that should occur. Infrastructure in this country needs major repair. Even Trump says he will raise the taxes on some wealthy people and they can afford it. not sure how viable his plan is but it is not purely a left idea.
99% of the wealth is owned by what 1% of the people? There is a huge disparity in the country, middle class is deteriorating. Education is stupid expensive. One in 5 kids is born in poverty
That the Republican Party adopted the Southern Strategy of the last 40 years and didn't even try to cater to Black, Latino, or Asian groups like they did with the "Far Right Evangelists" and Nationalist groups and every other majority white group out there.....
And it's nothing wrong with catering to those groups, but at the expense of alienating all other groups at the same time is finally biting them in the ass.....And all they can do is blame Obama.
You have to admit at this point in time, they have no capability to govern.
Let's see, the dems 'cater' to blacs and latinos? How is that working out for the blacks and latinos?
Terribly, thus highlighting the ridiculousness of the democratic party as well. They offer these blocs bread crumbs then they go jerk themselves off.
You know, sometimes you have to take the breadcrumbs from one party if the other party is handing out dog shit.
I'll keep posting this every time. Eventually, someone might actually read it. Link - ( New Window )
I have read that a while ago, But the Southern Strategy does in fact exist & still being used by Republicans. It may have been used by Dem's as well before the 60's, But it exist is my point and still in play.
So for many Blacks & Latinos, it about the lesser of the 2 evils.
Gotta Choose One.
Let's Make It The Less Racist One.
RE: the Southern Strategy myth will never die, apparently
I'll keep posting this every time. Eventually, someone might actually read it. Link - ( New Window )
The last line of the article reads
"The development of the Southern GOP was a slow-moving, gradual process that lasted over a century, and is just being completed today."
now McCarthy should be investigated for admitting to abuse of power.
But if this opens the door for Chaffetz, then we are all the big losers in this. After the way he handled the Planned Parenthood hearing, it is clear that he is incompetent and either a scumbag or a lunatic for trying to make Planned Parenthood feel guilty for his parents cancer-caused deaths.
Melts - What I meant was that you have faith that the instutions aren't themselves inherently corrupting. You believe that there can be some kind of "good government"
Melts - What I meant was that you have faith that the instutions aren't themselves inherently corrupting. You believe that there can be some kind of "good government"
I wasn't retreating.
I was merely thanking you for the link. It more or less proved My point.
Not even a tiny bit. It directly contradicts your point.
It contradicts My point that it exist? Because that was My point, is that it does exist an being used today.
Are you saying it doesn't exist?
In case you didn't want to hear the audio of Lee Atwater, here is what he said.
Quote:
You start out in 1954 by saying, Nigger, nigger, nigger. By 1968 you can't say nigger that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states' rights and all that stuff. You're getting so abstract now [that] you're talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you're talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites.
And subconsciously maybe that is part of it. I'm not saying that. But I'm saying that if it is getting that abstract, and that coded, that we are doing away with the racial problem one way or the other. You follow me because obviously sitting around saying, We want to cut this, is much more abstract than even the busing thing, and a hell of a lot more abstract than Nigger, nigger.
Do these statements sound familiar?
Do you think Black & Latinos can't this connection?
Melts - What I meant was that you have faith that the instutions aren't themselves inherently corrupting. You believe that there can be some kind of "good government"
Got it. Well I do believe there *can* be good government but the nature of our democracy right now? Yea the system is thoroughly corruptible for even the most well intentioned people.
I have some ideas for how to fix that but alas, I gotta focus on my own responsibilities first.
That the Republican Party adopted the Southern Strategy of the last 40 years and didn't even try to cater to Black, Latino, or Asian groups like they did with the "Far Right Evangelists" and Nationalist groups and every other majority white group out there.....
And it's nothing wrong with catering to those groups, but at the expense of alienating all other groups at the same time is finally biting them in the ass.....And all they can do is blame Obama.
You have to admit at this point in time, they have no capability to govern.
I would argue that Republican state governors have been taking Democrat state governors to the wood shed in recent years.
How is Kansas doing nowadays?
Brownback was cited as a real conservative. A great candidate for president from the our party's nominee is not conservative enough crowd. Now, I'm sure they don't want anyone to look.
That the Republican Party adopted the Southern Strategy of the last 40 years and didn't even try to cater to Black, Latino, or Asian groups like they did with the "Far Right Evangelists" and Nationalist groups and every other majority white group out there.....
And it's nothing wrong with catering to those groups, but at the expense of alienating all other groups at the same time is finally biting them in the ass.....And all they can do is blame Obama.
You have to admit at this point in time, they have no capability to govern.
I would argue that Republican state governors have been taking Democrat state governors to the wood shed in recent years.
How is Kansas doing nowadays?
Brownback was cited as a real conservative. A great candidate for president from the our party's nominee is not conservative enough crowd. Now, I'm sure they don't want anyone to look.
As someone who leans Left, I always thought that John Huntsman or maybe Kasich would be OK as a consolation if a D lost, but they just do not have a chance in hell, because they are deemed too moderate.
But I wouldn't poop my pants if they were elected.
I thought Jon Huntsman would be a great candidate.
Rumor has it this was the guy the Obama team was most concerned. But early primary voters don't even look at him because OMG he was Obama Ambassador to China.
so I will repeat what I have said in the past. Behavior by state and local public employee unions give Republicans a massive advantage at the state and local level. Too many states and cities are going into crisis mode over pensions. Too many civil service unions obstruct beneficial change, and punishment of their worst/least competent members. On top of that, some of the worst, most wasteful state and local programs are defended and protected by Democrats.
Until that changes, which it probably won't any time soon, Republicans will have a massive advantage at the state and local level. There is good news and bad news in that--the bad news coming on social issues, and on unwillingness to spend on infrastructure projects and maintenance. Nevertheless, it is what it is, and I don;t see it changing any time soon.
And yes, in some state dominated by Republicans, governing has gotten really crazy. Kansas/Brownback is the worst example of that.
At the Federal level, some of the same issues exist, but they aren't as egregious or important, imo. At the same time, some of the major social issues play out on a leveraged basis at the Federal level, and that helps keep Democrats in the game, and probably with a significant advantage, in national elections. The other advantage Democrats have at the Federal level, imo, is the strong believe in the Tea Party crowd that compromise, or even governing/government, is a bad idea.
As a consequence, there is a substantial dichotomy between party affiliation at the state and local level and at the Federal level.
This is reflected in the proportion of independents. I don't knwo where the idea comes from that there aren't a lot of independents. In a Gallup survey earlier this year, 43% identified as political independents. Are they all lying? Doubtful.
Which, not coincidentally, is largely why Huntsman and Kasich are always being mentioned by lefties as the Republicans they like.
That's generally considered to be a poor strategy in the pursuit of elected office, going out of your way to anger the people you want to vote for you.
I'm not saying that just because he's a Black Republican.
You just can't say those things and expect to get any respect from the black community.
MIchael Steele & J. C. Watts are Republicans who I disagree with most of the time, but these are things they probably don't agree with and things they would never say as a matter of opinion or policy.
I'm not saying that just because he's a Black Republican.
You just can't say those things and expect to get any respect from the black community.
MIchael Steele & J. C. Watts are Republicans who I disagree with most of the time, but these are things they probably don't agree with and things they would never say as a matter of opinion or policy.
I forgot to say I respect Michael Steele, J. C. Watts & Tim Scott, and other black R's who I forget at this time who don't say outlandish things to simply to appease others in the party.
A liberal professor at the University of Pennsylvania just called Ben Carson a "coon" and she still has her job.
If that had been a conservative professor?
Apparently (or arguably? -- I didnt know this) that term has a very different definition within the black community, and the professor in question is black.
Because they would hemorrhage support from their existing voters while likely only picking up a trickle of new supporters to replace them. You're suggesting that there is a vast pool of potential voters who simply won't vote Republican because of what...abortion? Do you really think there are many Democrat voters who'd flip if the GOP would only embrace abortion?
Probably not, but I don't the abortion position as something so a la carte as that. His position on abortion would just be representative of a different-from-average way of thinking for a conservative.
WHo are you speaking about?
It was a hypothetical "His..." no one specific and I probably should have said their.
Aren't African Americans less tolerant of gay marriage?
There is a war on women?
Many black Republicans have pointed out that nearly 50 years of "Great Society" policies designed to level the playing field seemed to have had the opposite effect (education, crime/drug use, poverty, unemployment, social welfare dependency). Not sure what the answers are, but what's been tried has failed miserably.
Eric were you searching for a false equivalency again?
and was pretty bitter. Maybe I'm wrong but I think both speak more about what is possible and not so much as insulting. So the party is mad at "establishment" candidate's because they didnt do what was promised, but yet won't look at guys being realistic?
Know your a libertarian but sounds like your down on the Rep. Party. What's your take on Paul?
Those on the right search for something, usually far less in stature to something done on the left. You immediately went to "well what if a conservative did it"
The inability to see the false equivalency is ultimately what separates us between the left from the right
But he's a lousy retail politician and, though it isn't fair, he will always bear the burden of his father's nuttier beliefs. He tries to play the party game and still advance libertarian beliefs, but the problem is that the majority of libertarians are absolutists who make no exceptions. It's very difficult to walk that line. The good he could accomplish for liberty outweighs the concessions he has to make to be a viable candidate for the GOP, but a lot of people don't accept that. Foolish and shortsighted, but that's what it is. The internal purity test among LP types is ludicrously stringent, which is a major reason why they'll never advance beyond a tiny slice of the public.
He would absolutely be my preferred choice among this field, though.
Those on the right search for something, usually far less in stature to something done on the left. You immediately went to "well what if a conservative did it"
The inability to see the false equivalency is ultimately what separates us between the left from the right
You simply can't/won't admit your own biases. The fact that you label yourself as moderate independent is a joke. At least own up to who and what you are.
I do watch Fox news on occasion, listen to talk radio on occasion and it is the most misleading, misinforming nonsense. If that makes me biased somehow then I am fine with that. Except what is espoused on these outlets has become your party's platform.
Aren't African Americans less tolerant of gay marriage?
There is a war on women?
Many black Republicans have pointed out that nearly 50 years of "Great Society" policies designed to level the playing field seemed to have had the opposite effect (education, crime/drug use, poverty, unemployment, social welfare dependency). Not sure what the answers are, but what's been tried has failed miserably.
Eric I think the main thing is unemployment, but when you look at the disinvestment of Capital in the black communities, No Great Society program is gonna help when they are no jobs where there were jobs before.
I hear Conservatives talk about Baltimore, and other black majority cities, but look back to the 50's and 60's when these communities were thriving, but when you go to Baltimore now and see shell of factories from yesteryear, not only was there White Flight to the suburbs, there was capital flight from these same neighborhoods.
When my family used to drive to Baltimore from Landover MD as a kid, my grandmother used always say its a shame what they did to this city shipping all those jobs elsewhere, as we all gaze upon that abandoned Domino sugar factory.
when the White communities started to feel the pain as well.
But this disinvestment in capital started happening in the 60's before I was born and now everyone is starting to feel it as well, because this outsourcing is just not to other parts of the state or country anymore.
These jobs are going oversees.
R's & D's both played a heavy roles in this.
The Great Society is a scapegoat and has really helped people alot all these years.
If anything, Defense Contractors & Big Corporations are the biggest and laziest welfare queens ever.
I haven't made myself out to be unbiased or a moderate independent. Years ago I was a liberal Democrat. Now a Tea Party conservative.
I'm not pretending to be something I'm not.
I'm merely pointing out that you simply refuse to accept the lenses in which you see the world. You see bias on FOX (which obviously exists) but can't see the same bias in other media outlets (did you happen to miss NBC's week of Hilliary promotion?). You see obstinate Republican Congressmen, but don't see the same on the Democratic side.
GMenLTS sounds like an independent because he sees the problems and hypocrisy with both sides.
Right-wing media - both TV and especially radio - but there is dissent. Look at McCarthy. He's been vilified harshly on the right, especially on radio. Trump? There are people on FOX who blow smoke up his ass while others who say he is a running joke.
Boehner just announced that he will remain until a new Speaker is chosen. That reduces the risks of a full-blown crisis, but leaves more contentious issues, like funding of the Federal Highway Trust Fund, up in the air.
I can easily envision a situation where no one that's left can get the requisite 218 votes, and Boehner remains until the presidential election or he gets sick of it all, whichever comes first.
But in order to increase investment in these states and cities, you have to put in policies that are pro-business. That's the lesson many mayors and governors have learned. Look at South Carolina. They've done a great job of expanding job growth in that state.
Billions have been spent on Baltimore and it gets worse and worse. Dumping tax payer money on the problem isn't fixing it.
Whether or not you agree with the things Huntsman said, I think we can all disagree that deliberately antagonizing your voters is not a path to electoral success. It fed the image that he was more interested in being popular with the media and the Democrats (but I repeat myself) than anything else.
LBJ's policies were nothing short of horrid and have had nothing but horrible consequences. Thomas Sowell and many others have written extensively on this and I can't find anything with their analysis that would lead me to disagree.
I'm not saying that just because he's a Black Republican.
You just can't say those things and expect to get any respect from the black community.
MIchael Steele & J. C. Watts are Republicans who I disagree with most of the time, but these are things they probably don't agree with and things they would never say as a matter of opinion or policy.
So calling another black person a coon gets you respect from the black community?
I dont know if you were reading something into my post that wasnt there, but I wasnt being snarky. Huntsman was an odd bird candidate. Had real disdain for a big segment of the base. Now I share that disdain, but Im also probably not going to run for the GOP presidential nomination.
I've heard slight rumblings about a Clinton-Huntsman ticket. I dont buy it, since it would seriously piss off most Clinton voters if Huntsman ended up having to actually do his job and take over the presidency. But I've heard it suggested.
But in order to increase investment in these states and cities, you have to put in policies that are pro-business. That's the lesson many mayors and governors have learned. Look at South Carolina. They've done a great job of expanding job growth in that state.
Billions have been spent on Baltimore and it gets worse and worse. Dumping tax payer money on the problem isn't fixing it.
You have to fix the economy.
Yes, More jobs, less welfare programs. I just hope that these Multinational Corporations agree as well. I know most US based businesses will agree.
The problem is that some previously US based are now Multinational. And thats a problem.
and was pretty bitter. Maybe I'm wrong but I think both speak more about what is possible and not so much as insulting. So the party is mad at "establishment" candidate's because they didnt do what was promised, but yet won't look at guys being realistic?
Know your a libertarian but sounds like your down on the Rep. Party. What's your take on Paul?
Well you might consider Kasich realistic, but I don't. The guy was just saying that we have to expand Medicare because of the bible. If Carson or Cruz wanted to base policy on the Bible, people would be freaking out over it. Besides the fact that charity, as represented in Christianity, is not about taking someone else's money and giving it away, it's about giving your own money.
I'm not saying that just because he's a Black Republican.
You just can't say those things and expect to get any respect from the black community.
MIchael Steele & J. C. Watts are Republicans who I disagree with most of the time, but these are things they probably don't agree with and things they would never say as a matter of opinion or policy.
So calling another black person a coon gets you respect from the black community?
99% of Blacks do not go around looking for respect from other Blacks....Respect is generally given initially, like other humans you know.
Thats kinda of a weird question.
Carson had the upmost respect from everyone especially from the AA community. But when you start saying a health care law compares to SLAVERY, what in the fuck are AA supposed to think?
You tell me, Buford. What is a person to think of that statement?
of alienating the base talking about how he would have to 'lose the primary to win the General'. Don't these guys know that everything they say is broadcast all over the world?
Boehner just announced that he will remain until a new Speaker is chosen. That reduces the risks of a full-blown crisis, but leaves more contentious issues, like funding of the Federal Highway Trust Fund, up in the air.
I can easily envision a situation where no one that's left can get the requisite 218 votes, and Boehner remains until the presidential election or he gets sick of it all, whichever comes first.
Also today, Ryan has once again says he's not a candidate.
RE: RE: RE: Personally, as a AA, I do Think Ben Carson...
I'm not saying that just because he's a Black Republican.
You just can't say those things and expect to get any respect from the black community.
MIchael Steele & J. C. Watts are Republicans who I disagree with most of the time, but these are things they probably don't agree with and things they would never say as a matter of opinion or policy.
So calling another black person a coon gets you respect from the black community?
99% of Blacks do not go around looking for respect from other Blacks....Respect is generally given initially, like other humans you know.
Thats kinda of a weird question.
Carson had the upmost respect from everyone especially from the AA community. But when you start saying a health care law compares to SLAVERY, what in the fuck are AA supposed to think?
You tell me, Buford. What is a person to think of that statement?
What he means is that you lose control of your healthcare. He's making an analogy.
Really, to get your panties in a wad about a statement like that is absurd. I think you are just looking for excuses to not like him because he's a black conservative.
As far as the respect question, you were the one who saidthat you 'can't expect to get any respect from the black community by saying certain things'. I was simply asking if that extended to using a racist term against another African American.
RE: RE: Personally, as a AA, I do Think Ben Carson...
I'm not saying that just because he's a Black Republican.
You just can't say those things and expect to get any respect from the black community.
MIchael Steele & J. C. Watts are Republicans who I disagree with most of the time, but these are things they probably don't agree with and things they would never say as a matter of opinion or policy.
So calling another black person a coon gets you respect from the black community?
Buford.
I ask you, do these things compare at all.
when the White communities started to feel the pain as well.
But this disinvestment in capital started happening in the 60's before I was born and now everyone is starting to feel it as well, because this outsourcing is just not to other parts of the state or country anymore.
These jobs are going oversees.
R's & D's both played a heavy roles in this.
The Great Society is a scapegoat and has really helped people alot all these years.
If anything, Defense Contractors & Big Corporations are the biggest and laziest welfare queens ever.
Fact. In 2012 a person making 50k gave $36 a year to people on food stamps and $870 in direct subsidies and grants to corporations. Treasury lost $181 billion dollars in corporate subsidies that year.
As they say, when you walk down the middle of the street you get hit on both sides. Libertarians call him a sellout, conservatives say he's an isolationist, a nave pacifist, soft on crime, a libertine who only cares about legalizing drugs, etc.
RE: RE: RE: RE: Personally, as a AA, I do Think Ben Carson...
I'm not saying that just because he's a Black Republican.
You just can't say those things and expect to get any respect from the black community.
MIchael Steele & J. C. Watts are Republicans who I disagree with most of the time, but these are things they probably don't agree with and things they would never say as a matter of opinion or policy.
So calling another black person a coon gets you respect from the black community?
99% of Blacks do not go around looking for respect from other Blacks....Respect is generally given initially, like other humans you know.
Thats kinda of a weird question.
Carson had the upmost respect from everyone especially from the AA community. But when you start saying a health care law compares to SLAVERY, what in the fuck are AA supposed to think?
You tell me, Buford. What is a person to think of that statement?
What he means is that you lose control of your healthcare. He's making an analogy.
Really, to get your panties in a wad about a statement like that is absurd. I think you are just looking for excuses to not like him because he's a black conservative.
As far as the respect question, you were the one who saidthat you 'can't expect to get any respect from the black community by saying certain things'. I was simply asking if that extended to using a racist term against another African American.
Have you seen my earlier posts?
I like Michael Steele, JC Watts, Colon Powell, Tim Scott, who are conservatives, but they will not say stupid shit like that, especially running for president......
Dude, Slavery was much more than losing your choice in healthcare providers. Slavery was losing your freedom of doing anything of choice. It meant having a child and never seeing them again after a couple of weeks or days.
It's the worst analogy you can give, quite frankly.
everything - he wants to regulate virtually every aspect of your existence. What's more, he's insufferably smug about it, just oozing paternalistic disdain for the idea that free people should be able to run their own damned lives and eat, drink, smoke, etc whatever they choose. He was also a big proponent of public surveillance cameras, stop and frisk, and a number of other infringements on civil liberty.
I can't think of anything redeeming about him from my point of view.
told a group of African Americans that the republicans were going to 'put you all back in chains'?
I was pretty miffed at that as well.
I was actually angrier at Trent Lott for saying
"I want to say this about my state: When Strom Thurmond ran for president, we voted for him. We're proud of it. And if the rest of the country had followed our lead we wouldn't have had all these problems over all these years either."
You see Buford, We can all pick stupid thing that different Pol's have said over the years, but we are talking about Ben Carson, so stay on topic.
Maybe some think it's tit for tat, but I personally feel that people get in a snit over something people say if they don't like that person. And the media blows it out of proportion. Like they did when Carson said he if faced with a gunman, he would try to stop him.
I don't agree with everything Carson says and I don't know if I would vote for him. But I don't think he deserves a lot of the vitriol he gets. And I'm sure it's because he's a black conservative who is not afraid of speaking his mind and doesn't back down. And like Trump, he's not politically correct. I prefer plain speak, even if I don't agree with the person.
Was the slavery comment stupid, yes. But I understood what he meant by that. People make stupid comments all the time. But I don't see Carson being deliberately mean or abusive to anyone. And I don't think he deserves to be called a Coon or any other derogatory name. No one does.
Or when Hilliary said the Republicans were going to use cattle cars to send the illegals back?
Hasn't the current leader in the Republican primary suggested doing something similar to this?
I don't believe the term 'cattle cars' was used by Trump. It was deportation, which is how illegal aliens are supposed to be sent back.
Can we just agree that all people say stupid things and making huge political decisions based on one comment is ridiculous? Nine times out of ten the comments are taken out of context and skewed by what your political view is.
but Carson's history of ridiculous remarks goes above and beyond a slip up here or there. I've detailed them in the past -- see link. Link - ( New Window )
But I have criticized the Republican Party plenty on this site, including the Republican Congress. It's why I align myself with the "vote the bums out" crowd.
But I have criticized the Republican Party plenty on this site, including the Republican Congress. It's why I align myself with the "vote the bums out" crowd.
Yeah but you attack them from the right and dont criticize the one sided right wing narrative. You said your problem was with one-sided narratives, when it is abundantly clear that your problem is with just one side's "one-sided narratives".
and was pretty bitter. Maybe I'm wrong but I think both speak more about what is possible and not so much as insulting. So the party is mad at "establishment" candidate's because they didnt do what was promised, but yet won't look at guys being realistic?
Know your a libertarian but sounds like your down on the Rep. Party. What's your take on Paul?
Well you might consider Kasich realistic, but I don't. The guy was just saying that we have to expand Medicare because of the bible. If Carson or Cruz wanted to base policy on the Bible, people would be freaking out over it. Besides the fact that charity, as represented in Christianity, is not about taking someone else's money and giving it away, it's about giving your own money.
Imo, this was an effort to reach out to the base through their shared Christian values. What's wrong with that? You don't think helping the poor and sick should be a value we share as a nation?
But the attached link is what Kasich said in an interview with Laura Ingraham in 2013. Accepted Medicaid expansion in order to address problems which in the long run will save money as well as help people live health productive lives.
As far as realistic, less overselling and promising things that probably will not happen or at least to extent extreme elements want. So what do you want? Candidates that tell you exactly what you want to hear or candidates that speak about what is possible? Honestly did you really think Obamacare was going to be repealed, all illegals thrown out, no more abortions, tax cuts were going to create millions of jobs?
Eric: You absolutely have a right to your opinion and you have a
to express it. I for one, however, do not believe it makes sound business sense for a business owner to mix their politics with their business. Those who disagree with your politics may take their business elsewhere.
We all see the world through out own filters, largely created by environment and experiences.
It's a false assumption to say that FOX or right-wing media "brainwashes" people to thinking a certain way. Those media are so successful because they attract people who already relate to those views.
For example, as I've stated before, I grew up in a very liberal household where those views were reinforced by the media of the day and my college professors. By the time I graduated from school, I was a product of the system. Not only did I support Democratic candidates, but I involved myself in activities that were considered "more liberal" (i.e., I was heavily involved in homeless activities including participating in marches and working/sleeping in shelters, volunteering for NOW, protesting).
But as I got older, my life experiences changed my views and the way I perceived the world. Whether you agree or not, I began to believe that smaller government was better, that we were spending beyond our means, that a nanny state was doing more harm than good, capitalism is a good thing that creates wealth for all, that power had shifted too far to the Federal government, that there really are good and bad international actors, etc.). I wasn't even really aware of these changes as they were ongoing. But it started to dawn on me that those college professor didn't really understand the way the world really works. They lived in a fairy tale world.
This was pre-conservative media days. There was no brain-washing.
The people on the Right think that people on the Left "don't get it." And people on the Left think people on the Right "don't get it." Nothing we say to each other really is going to change our opinions. We're all just venting or patting ourselves on the back for making what we think are valid points.
RE: Eric: You absolutely have a right to your opinion and you have a
to express it. I for one, however, do not believe it makes sound business sense for a business owner to mix their politics with their business. Those who disagree with your politics may take their business elsewhere.
You are 100 percent correct there. My wife tells me that all of the time!
Did McCarty drop out because he's been fucking Rep. Renee Ellmers (R-NC) after Rep. Walter Jones (R-NC) sent a letter to McMorris Rodgers talking about skeletons in the closet, Newt and Livingston, and then saying that anyone running for GOP leadership who has any "misdeeds since joining Congress that will embarrass himself, the Republican Conference, and the House of Representatives if they become public"? Jones Letter - ( New Window )
One, there are rumors that he had one or more jumbo skeletons that would come out of the closet if he ran. I have no idea if that is any more than a rumor.
Two, which seems more likely to me, is that after the Hillary/Benghazi screw-up, when they counted heads in the room, they couldn't get to 218. It's just a guess, but makes some sense. There are 247 total Republicans, and certainly at least 40 in the Tea Party or aligned with it. Without any of those votes, he was 11 short even if he held everyone else, which presumes that none of the others were supporting the other candidates.
That he had said that he had the votes isn't really relevant. He may have been trying to generate a self-fulfilling prophesy, and dropped out when he failed.
Benghazi gaffe. He was only installed as majority leader because Cantor lost his election. 77% of Republicans polled wanted a new speaker in the House and Senate Leader. I don't think people would be happy with the next in line. K-Street must be freaking out.
is not interested. Don't blame him, it will be a circus and why would he want to get muddied up in that. He is still young and may make a legitimate run at POTUS in the future.
Benghazi gaffe. He was only installed as majority leader because Cantor lost his election. 77% of Republicans polled wanted a new speaker in the House and Senate Leader. I don't think people would be happy with the next in line. K-Street must be freaking out.
I guess these fools will never learn about using voters, Cantor got his, was funny driving through his territory looking at the candidate that beat him. GOP can't get out of their own way...They have gotten so entitled, but the voters that have helped them twice claiming the house and senate want to be repaid, or it will be them next.
Regarding the left, I just don't see it and my FB friends or anywhere else don't compare to the vitriol and far right views. And factually incorrect views. Anything and everything that comes out they grasp on too. You can send them the link to Snopes where it showed they were 100% wrong and they ignore it.
That's funny. Its the exact same thing I'm seeing on my FB page. I try to ignore most of it ... crazy shit like Obama is not only a Muslim, but he's on the payroll of the Muslim Brotherhood and they have assigned him to destroy America. Stuff that's just so far out you can't even argue it. When I correct some facts or provide a link to Snopes or Fact Check, never get any response. They don't seem to care about facts, its more comfortable to accept stories that fit your beliefs, no matter how wacky
Nevermind that since 2010, when the GOP won legislatives from coast to coast, there have been countless # of bills introduced in the states to restrict women's right to choose. Or that the GOP threatened to shutdown the government over Planned Parenthood, an organization many poor women depend on for health services.
But no, there's no 'war on women'. Republicans love women.
I'm Pro Choice, but because someone is Pro Life does not mean they hate women. In fact, if you bother to pay attention, millions of women are Pro Life.
Planned Parenthood...I'm sure many people want it shut down because they are Pro Life. But much of the opposition has nothing to do with the abortion issue per se but the selling of baby body parts.
You don't see it that way.
But that hardly means it's a war on women. PP is not the only healthcare center that treats women. And no one has talked about cutting funding to centers far less controversial (rather, they have talked about expanding funding to those at the expense of PP). But somehow PP has become some sort of golden symbol to the left, for whatever reason.
Another issue? A federally funded organization like PP should not be making political donations.
Is that good enough for you?
RE: RE: Eric: You absolutely have a right to your opinion and you have a
to express it. I for one, however, do not believe it makes sound business sense for a business owner to mix their politics with their business. Those who disagree with your politics may take their business elsewhere.
You are 100 percent correct there. My wife tells me that all of the time!
Certainly made the difference for me this time around.
The dems are still pushing the income equality (while Hillary pays female staffers less than male staffers and Gwenth Paltrow is complaining that she makes less than Robert Downey Jr in the Iron Man films...)
The dems are blocking republican bills that would allow birth control pills to be OTC. Why? Because they want women to be dependent on either government or insurance to get birth control.
As far as abortion goes, more women support a 20 week limit than men do. So isn't it a war on those women to vote against it?
Like blacks and hispanics, women are treated as victims by democrats. They have to drill the victim message constantly, otherwise people might wake up and find that the dems really have not done much for them. And in fact, have spent away their future and made it impossible for them to get ahead.
Hillary is losing votes from women, that should tell you something. Maybe they have figured out what is going on.
he posts on football threads, why can't he post on NFTs? I'm sure if he posted in lockstep to what you believe in, it would be fine and you wouldn't say anything.
Regarding the left, I just don't see it and my FB friends or anywhere else don't compare to the vitriol and far right views. And factually incorrect views. Anything and everything that comes out they grasp on too. You can send them the link to Snopes where it showed they were 100% wrong and they ignore it.
That's funny. Its the exact same thing I'm seeing on my FB page. I try to ignore most of it ... crazy shit like Obama is not only a Muslim, but he's on the payroll of the Muslim Brotherhood and they have assigned him to destroy America. Stuff that's just so far out you can't even argue it. When I correct some facts or provide a link to Snopes or Fact Check, never get any response. They don't seem to care about facts, its more comfortable to accept stories that fit your beliefs, no matter how wacky
Unfortunately this is true for too many. The FB stuff I often see from the far right is often bazarre.
Regarding the left, I just don't see it and my FB friends or anywhere else don't compare to the vitriol and far right views. And factually incorrect views. Anything and everything that comes out they grasp on too. You can send them the link to Snopes where it showed they were 100% wrong and they ignore it.
That's funny. Its the exact same thing I'm seeing on my FB page. I try to ignore most of it ... crazy shit like Obama is not only a Muslim, but he's on the payroll of the Muslim Brotherhood and they have assigned him to destroy America. Stuff that's just so far out you can't even argue it. When I correct some facts or provide a link to Snopes or Fact Check, never get any response. They don't seem to care about facts, its more comfortable to accept stories that fit your beliefs, no matter how wacky
Unfortunately this is true for too many. The FB stuff I often see from the far right is often bazarre.
Any of the far left/right stuff is bizarre. I've seen plenty of stuff from the left that is flat out wrong and really inflammatory.
& it's amazing that PP-again, an agency that maybe devotes 3 or 4% of their services to abortion-is being called for stripping their public funding. PP is a godsend for many women, especially the poor.
The Lilly Ledbetter was passed with bipartisan support...
All that bill did is extend the amount of time you could sue. It doesn't guarantee anything. Typical lip service legislation from the Dems. Also a big payout to trial lawyers, the dems favorite donor base.
& it's amazing that PP-again, an agency that maybe devotes 3 or 4% of their services to abortion-is being called for stripping their public funding. PP is a godsend for many women, especially the poor.
Regarding the left, I just don't see it and my FB friends or anywhere else don't compare to the vitriol and far right views. And factually incorrect views. Anything and everything that comes out they grasp on too. You can send them the link to Snopes where it showed they were 100% wrong and they ignore it.
That's funny. Its the exact same thing I'm seeing on my FB page. I try to ignore most of it ... crazy shit like Obama is not only a Muslim, but he's on the payroll of the Muslim Brotherhood and they have assigned him to destroy America. Stuff that's just so far out you can't even argue it. When I correct some facts or provide a link to Snopes or Fact Check, never get any response. They don't seem to care about facts, its more comfortable to accept stories that fit your beliefs, no matter how wacky
Unfortunately this is true for too many. The FB stuff I often see from the far right is often bazarre.
Any of the far left/right stuff is bizarre. I've seen plenty of stuff from the left that is flat out wrong and really inflammatory.
I see crazy from both sides but the amount of crazy from the far right greatly exceeds far left on the stuff I get on my page.
I'm Pro Choice, but because someone is Pro Life does not mean they hate women. In fact, if you bother to pay attention, millions of women are Pro Life.
Planned Parenthood...I'm sure many people want it shut down because they are Pro Life. But much of the opposition has nothing to do with the abortion issue per se but the selling of baby body parts.
You don't see it that way.
But that hardly means it's a war on women. PP is not the only healthcare center that treats women. And no one has talked about cutting funding to centers far less controversial (rather, they have talked about expanding funding to those at the expense of PP). But somehow PP has become some sort of golden symbol to the left, for whatever reason.
Another issue? A federally funded organization like PP should not be making political donations.
Is that good enough for you?
What a filthy, disgusting slander by you. You should be ashamed of yourself for perpetuating characterization of PP making tissue available at BELOW THEIR COST as "the selling of baby body parts".
And before you resort to your normal bullshit about questions and whatnot, I think that if you make a charge like that, you should have the facts first. Facts first.
Regarding the left, I just don't see it and my FB friends or anywhere else don't compare to the vitriol and far right views. And factually incorrect views. Anything and everything that comes out they grasp on too. You can send them the link to Snopes where it showed they were 100% wrong and they ignore it.
That's funny. Its the exact same thing I'm seeing on my FB page. I try to ignore most of it ... crazy shit like Obama is not only a Muslim, but he's on the payroll of the Muslim Brotherhood and they have assigned him to destroy America. Stuff that's just so far out you can't even argue it. When I correct some facts or provide a link to Snopes or Fact Check, never get any response. They don't seem to care about facts, its more comfortable to accept stories that fit your beliefs, no matter how wacky
Unfortunately this is true for too many. The FB stuff I often see from the far right is often bazarre.
Any of the far left/right stuff is bizarre. I've seen plenty of stuff from the left that is flat out wrong and really inflammatory.
Wrong is one thing, as is inflammatory, but totally batshit crazy is something I see coming only from the right on my FB page. And I do mean crazy. I disagree with many right wing posters here, but I've never seen any posts that I regarded as batshit crazy. I have little doubt that the right wing posters here would also regard those FB items as crazy, not merely wrong or inflammatory.
SanFran said there was clearly a war on women because of PP.
I don't see how that is a war on women. You honestly think those mean conservative men are sitting around thinking, "Hey, how can will hurt women today?"
It's a talking point. And it certainly isn't conducive dialogue when you accuse the other side of hating women, blacks, Hispanics, puppies, unicorns, etc.
There are many moderate and liberal women who believe the GOP's evangelical base wants to strip women of hard earned rights. You can disagree all you want but the perception is real and isn't baseless.
In the hours before House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) abruptly withdrew his candidacy to be the next speaker of the House, he was sent an email from a conservative activist threatening to expose an alleged affair with a colleague. The subject line: Kevin, why not resign like Bob Livingston?
The email, sent just after 8 a.m. on Thursday, came from Steve Baer, a Chicago-based GOP donor known for mass-emailing conservative figures and Republican lawmakers. It was addressed to McCarthy and numerous others, including the personal account of Rep. Renee Ellmers (R-N.C.), who conservative media sites have suggested is tied romantically to McCarthy. Link - ( New Window )
SanFran said there was clearly a war on women because of PP.
I don't see how that is a war on women. You honestly think those mean conservative men are sitting around thinking, "Hey, how can will hurt women today?"
It's a talking point. And it certainly isn't conducive dialogue when you accuse the other side of hating women, blacks, Hispanics, puppies, unicorns, etc.
Eric it is the usual fear mongering the Democratic Party is famous for and engages in.
How do you put words into someone's mouth? The PP officials said what they said. The tapes weren't dubbed.
You dont get it because EVERY TIME someone explains it to you, you pretend like you're hearing it for the first time.
The videos were edited so that you heard what sounded like a haggling over price. They were selectively edited to suggest that this was a profit center for PP. Thus GOPers immediately charged that PP was profiting from the sale of baby body parts. What was clipped was the person explaining that PP was not looking to make money, just recover costs so they didnt lose money. And experts say that at the reimbursement levels discussed, PP is absolutely losing money. Link - ( New Window )
I don't think conservatives are sitting around thinking 'How can we screw women today?' But their policies-from health services to pay- are effectively a war on women.
How do you put words into someone's mouth? The PP officials said what they said. The tapes weren't dubbed.
You dont get it because EVERY TIME someone explains it to you, you pretend like you're hearing it for the first time.
The videos were edited so that you heard what sounded like a haggling over price. They were selectively edited to suggest that this was a profit center for PP. Thus GOPers immediately charged that PP was profiting from the sale of baby body parts. What was clipped was the person explaining that PP was not looking to make money, just recover costs so they didnt lose money. And experts say that at the reimbursement levels discussed, PP is absolutely losing money. Link - ( New Window )
You hit the nail on the head. How many times has this been explained to Eric in multiple threads and his response is the same every single time.
Tolerance is irrelevant. I dont need to be tolerant of deceitful descriptions. If made up some fact about you and posted it here, would you have to be tolerant of that? Teach the controversy and other such nonsense?
In the hours before House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) abruptly withdrew his candidacy to be the next speaker of the House, he was sent an email from a conservative activist threatening to expose an alleged affair with a colleague. The subject line: Kevin, why not resign like Bob Livingston?
The email, sent just after 8 a.m. on Thursday, came from Steve Baer, a Chicago-based GOP donor known for mass-emailing conservative figures and Republican lawmakers. It was addressed to McCarthy and numerous others, including the personal account of Rep. Renee Ellmers (R-N.C.), who conservative media sites have suggested is tied romantically to McCarthy. Link - ( New Window )
You dont have your lawyers write a cease and desist for nothin: Link - ( New Window )
An investigation will determine one way or the other. If there is nothing wrong, then there is nothing to fear.
I still find the casual nature of the discussion of transaction of baby body parts over wine disturbing...but that's me.
But again, not a war on women. I didn't raise PP...San Fran did as "evidence" of a war on women.
If there is a war on women, half the women in this country must be pretty stupid for voting for the wrong Party.
Maybe when the Democrats next control a house of Congress they should investigate every Republican because if they did nothing wrong they have nothing to fear. I want my elected officials to work to find solutions to the problems our country faces rather than conducting these "investigations" to score political points.
Nowhere on this thread did I say they were definitely doing it for profit. But that's the question. If Deej is correct, then there is no illegal activity. But they are still selling parts.
An investigation will determine one way or the other. If there is nothing wrong, then there is nothing to fear.
I still find the casual nature of the discussion of transaction of baby body parts over wine disturbing...but that's me.
But again, not a war on women. I didn't raise PP...San Fran did as "evidence" of a war on women.
If there is a war on women, half the women in this country must be pretty stupid for voting for the wrong Party.
What a crock of shit man. You level a false charge about selling body parts and when pushed on it you say there will be "an investigation". I thought there was already a hearing about PP and the GOP took a pass on this nonsense?
There are many moderate and liberal women who believe the GOP's evangelical base wants to strip women of hard earned rights. You can disagree all you want but the perception is real and isn't baseless.
Yet watching morning Joe, it seems that the polls show that the "war on women" is starting to become a loser for Clinton.
Glass ceiling is all but gone, pay equity has really shrunk, and that evangelical base is made up of women who have excelled in their public and private lives and would disagree with you that they are for many things. One of which is not restricting or stripping women's rights.
The country is split damn near 50/50 on the abortion issue with the most like me. I am anti abortion but could never fathom telling someone what to do or how to feel on such a personal decision. So I am pro choice for everyone except me.
How do you put words into someone's mouth? The PP officials said what they said. The tapes weren't dubbed.
You dont get it because EVERY TIME someone explains it to you, you pretend like you're hearing it for the first time.
The videos were edited so that you heard what sounded like a haggling over price. They were selectively edited to suggest that this was a profit center for PP. Thus GOPers immediately charged that PP was profiting from the sale of baby body parts. What was clipped was the person explaining that PP was not looking to make money, just recover costs so they didnt lose money. And experts say that at the reimbursement levels discussed, PP is absolutely losing money. Link - ( New Window )
If the videos were so deceptively edited, why did the PP President apologize for them?
There was an independent audit of the videos that said they were not significantly edited except to remove tape with no dialogue on it.
I don't think conservatives are sitting around thinking 'How can we screw women today?' But their policies-from health services to pay- are effectively a war on women.
To be honest, I find the whole concept kind of offensive. It's one of those things that I never really thought about...what happened to the body tissue of aborted babies? It never dawned on me that transactions too place. It doesn't sit right with me. And I'm not a religious person.
Slander seems an accurate term. Although I think slander is spoken, not written.
They receive reimbursement for organs from aborted fetuses. I don't think saying they sell baby parts is slander. I think many liberals have blinders on about what exactly goes on which is why they use terms like fetus and tissue. They are harvesting full organs, preferably from later term abortions so the organs are more fully formed. It's quite clear what is going on.
Nowhere on this thread did I say they were definitely doing it for profit. But that's the question. If Deej is correct, then there is no illegal activity. But they are still selling parts.
In the hours before House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) abruptly withdrew his candidacy to be the next speaker of the House, he was sent an email from a conservative activist threatening to expose an alleged affair with a colleague. The subject line: Kevin, why not resign like Bob Livingston?
The email, sent just after 8 a.m. on Thursday, came from Steve Baer, a Chicago-based GOP donor known for mass-emailing conservative figures and Republican lawmakers. It was addressed to McCarthy and numerous others, including the personal account of Rep. Renee Ellmers (R-N.C.), who conservative media sites have suggested is tied romantically to McCarthy. Link - ( New Window )
You dont have your lawyers write a cease and desist for nothin: Link - ( New Window )
Damn it man. Office sex a thing of the past.
Glad I'm retired.
Now I get to hit on the Florida trailer park honey's who husbands have passed.
Nowhere on this thread did I say they were definitely doing it for profit. But that's the question. If Deej is correct, then there is no illegal activity. But they are still selling parts.
They're selling fetal tissue.
Or baby organs.....why do you have to sanitize it? If you support what they do, then support it. Here are some facts, abortion is ending a human life, willfully. The 'fetus' is a baby that if it stayed in the uterus a few more weeks would survive to be a person. Sometimes the aborted fetuses are born alive and left to die in a metal bowl (which was shown in the video that Fiorina referenced). I believe that women have a right to end a pregnancy, up to a point. Many European countries have 16 and 20 week limits. The US has the most liberal abortion laws in the world.
Bloombergs Mark Halperin seemed to allude to them during an MSNBC appearance, noting theres a lot of speculation that McCarthys decision had more to do with things outside of his professional life.
A couple hours later, Halperin cryptically tweeted:
That time everyone in politics & journalism knew what happened and readers/viewers/listeners were left in the dark.
Richards apologized only for the tone of the woman's statements, not the content or practices.
As for "independent audit", it was an commissioned by the group that shot the videos. I have no idea why you'd label that as an independent audit. PP's report, preparred by a company headed by a former WSJ investigative reporter, came to the opposite conclusion. Per the WSJ:
Quote:
A report by outside analysts commissioned by Planned Parenthood concluded the videos contained major gaps and were so altered that they couldnt be used as legal evidence.
Nowhere on this thread did I say they were definitely doing it for profit. But that's the question. If Deej is correct, then there is no illegal activity. But they are still selling parts.
They're selling fetal tissue.
Or baby organs.....why do you have to sanitize it? If you support what they do, then support it. Here are some facts, abortion is ending a human life, willfully. The 'fetus' is a baby that if it stayed in the uterus a few more weeks would survive to be a person. Sometimes the aborted fetuses are born alive and left to die in a metal bowl (which was shown in the video that Fiorina referenced). I believe that women have a right to end a pregnancy, up to a point. Many European countries have 16 and 20 week limits. The US has the most liberal abortion laws in the world.
Because I wouldn't call an embryo a baby. Being incorrect for the sake of connotations, not interested.
Bloombergs Mark Halperin seemed to allude to them during an MSNBC appearance, noting theres a lot of speculation that McCarthys decision had more to do with things outside of his professional life.
A couple hours later, Halperin cryptically tweeted:
That time everyone in politics & journalism knew what happened and readers/viewers/listeners were left in the dark. Link - ( New Window )
Mark Halperin is probably my least favorite journalist ever. All he reports on is the horse race. The guy literally thinks his job is to snow the public and be liked by the cool kids in power. I mean, this is him literally bragging about not telling the public what is really going on.
To be honest, I find the whole concept kind of offensive. It's one of those things that I never really thought about...what happened to the body tissue of aborted babies? It never dawned on me that transactions too place. It doesn't sit right with me. And I'm not a religious person.
But again...not a war on women.
You're right Eric, I agree that the concept is kind of gruesome whether they give away body parts or sell them to cover their expenses. You're not wrong there.
But it's done for a very good reason - not just for the fun of shipping fetal organs. It's done because it helps us develop cures for some very awful things - not because PP gets a kick out of chopping up fetuses. If they are able to use this research to develop a cure for Alzheimers or paralysis wouldn't you want to be able to be cured of those things if they happened to you? Or you family members. Or your kids?
I don't like abortions or the idea of transferring fetal organs any more than you do - but it's a hell of a lot better than just throwing fetuses in the garbage. No fetuses are being killed for medical research - these are women that were going to have abortions anyway. So why not make the best of an awful situation?
Put it another way - would anyone here be willing to sign a pledge that they are wiling to forego the possible benefits of any cures they develop using fetal body parts? If not then none of us can honestly complain about the practice without being hypocrites.
Nowhere on this thread did I say they were definitely doing it for profit. But that's the question. If Deej is correct, then there is no illegal activity. But they are still selling parts.
They're selling fetal tissue.
Or baby organs.....why do you have to sanitize it? If you support what they do, then support it. Here are some facts, abortion is ending a human life, willfully. The 'fetus' is a baby that if it stayed in the uterus a few more weeks would survive to be a person. Sometimes the aborted fetuses are born alive and left to die in a metal bowl (which was shown in the video that Fiorina referenced). I believe that women have a right to end a pregnancy, up to a point. Many European countries have 16 and 20 week limits. The US has the most liberal abortion laws in the world.
Because I wouldn't call an embryo a baby. Being incorrect for the sake of connotations, not interested.
Nowhere on this thread did I say they were definitely doing it for profit. But that's the question. If Deej is correct, then there is no illegal activity. But they are still selling parts.
They're selling fetal tissue.
Or baby organs.....why do you have to sanitize it? If you support what they do, then support it. Here are some facts, abortion is ending a human life, willfully. The 'fetus' is a baby that if it stayed in the uterus a few more weeks would survive to be a person. Sometimes the aborted fetuses are born alive and left to die in a metal bowl (which was shown in the video that Fiorina referenced). I believe that women have a right to end a pregnancy, up to a point. Many European countries have 16 and 20 week limits. The US has the most liberal abortion laws in the world.
Because I wouldn't call an embryo a baby. Being incorrect for the sake of connotations, not interested.
A nineteen week old fetus is not an embryo.
And no one said it was.
Buford and Eric are calling embryos babies, however.
To be honest, I find the whole concept kind of offensive. It's one of those things that I never really thought about...what happened to the body tissue of aborted babies? It never dawned on me that transactions too place. It doesn't sit right with me. And I'm not a religious person.
But again...not a war on women.
You're right Eric, I agree that the concept is kind of gruesome whether they give away body parts or sell them to cover their expenses. You're not wrong there.
But it's done for a very good reason - not just for the fun of shipping fetal organs. It's done because it helps us develop cures for some very awful things - not because PP gets a kick out of chopping up fetuses. If they are able to use this research to develop a cure for Alzheimers or paralysis wouldn't you want to be able to be cured of those things if they happened to you? Or you family members. Or your kids?
I don't like abortions or the idea of transferring fetal organs any more than you do - but it's a hell of a lot better than just throwing fetuses in the garbage. No fetuses are being killed for medical research - these are women that were going to have abortions anyway. So why not make the best of an awful situation?
Put it another way - would anyone here be willing to sign a pledge that they are wiling to forego the possible benefits of any cures they develop using fetal body parts? If not then none of us can honestly complain about the practice without being hypocrites.
Top House Democrats are accusing the chairman of the House Oversight Committee of refusing to share the unedited footage from the recent undercover videos targeting Planned Parenthood.
Oversight Committee Chairman Jason Chaffetz has in his possession right now, a computer hard drive that contains videos produced by David Daleiden, the head of the group that tried to entrap Planned Parenthood, Rep. Louise Slaughter (D-N.Y.) declared from the House floor, interrupting the chambers debate on legislation expanding the investigation into Planned Parenthood.
Chaffetz, who is running for House Speaker, received a copy of the videos on Sept. 25, and has since declined to share a copy with the Democrats, according to a Democratic committee aide.
Instead, Chaffetz has said he will set up a viewing room for Democratic members and staff to view the videos. Republicans have not yet hosted a screening, the aide said, calling the move a "direct violation" of the Democrats' recent subpoena of Daleiden's unedited footage.
A Republican committee aide confirmed that the viewing sessions haven't been scheduled, but added that Republicans haven't watched the footage yet, either.
The committee does plan to watch that footage, as well as the footage recently unlocked by a court order, with Democrats over the next few weeks, the aide said.
Democrats have repeatedly asked for copies of unedited footage from the secretly recorded meetings with Planned Parenthood officials and an anti-abortion group. That group, The Center for Medical Progress, has released 10 videos, each about 10 minutes long, which appear to show Planned Parenthood officials discussing the price of fetal tissue.
It's unclear if the footage given to Republicans last week is the full unedited footage that has been requested by Democrats, because Daleiden has been blocked from releasing at least some of the footage per a court order. That order was lifted Tuesday night.
"We dont know what the videos are because, despite the fact that the videos were delivered two weeks ago, the Republicans have yet to set up their 'viewing room,'" the aide said.
Both parties acknowledge that the videos posted on YouTube are highly edited, and Democrats believe that the full footage will disprove allegations against Planned Parenthood.
Those videos are the property of the committee, but [Chaffetz] is refusing to give the Democratic members a copy of those videos, Slaughter said. Those tapes are being hidden away. It appears that the Republicans dont want the Democrats to be able to see those videos.
The new criticism against Chaffetz and the Oversight Committee came during debate over a House bill to establish a select committee to investigate Planned Parenthood in the wake of the videos. That bill is expected to pass, largely on party lines.
So you decided not to support BBI - a sports site - because you disagree with the politics of the owner?
No. Because the owner, for many years, has held this sort of NON-SPORTS activity in pretty reasonable check. Now the owner is a primary instigator of fruitless ideological bickering. Outside the football season, I don't really care. During the season, I do.
So you decided not to support BBI - a sports site - because you disagree with the politics of the owner?
No. Because the owner, for many years, has held this sort of NON-SPORTS activity in pretty reasonable check. Now the owner is a primary instigator of fruitless ideological bickering. Outside the football season, I don't really care. During the season, I do.
Well then maybe you should leave the site. I have learned a lot of politics from both Eric and the opposite viewpoint. And never has it gotten to the point where it's personal. You dont agree with him? Fine.
But what you just posted is a total dick move. You dont like it? Leave. Pretty simple if you ask me.
So you decided not to support BBI - a sports site - because you disagree with the politics of the owner?
No. Because the owner, for many years, has held this sort of NON-SPORTS activity in pretty reasonable check. Now the owner is a primary instigator of fruitless ideological bickering. Outside the football season, I don't really care. During the season, I do.
I've just been watching here...But agree 100% with this.
Buford and Eric are calling embryos babies, however.
How old do you think the fetuses are in these videos? Many are 18 weeks or more. Those are not embryos. The embryo stage is about 10 weeks. Then it's a fetus.
RE: Eric is the site founder, but he's also a poster
he posts on football threads, why can't he post on NFTs? I'm sure if he posted in lockstep to what you believe in, it would be fine and you wouldn't say anything.
Buford, you don't have enough synapses firing to understand the issue.
Go back to complaining about all your physical issues; you play the martyr very well.
So you decided not to support BBI - a sports site - because you disagree with the politics of the owner?
No. Because the owner, for many years, has held this sort of NON-SPORTS activity in pretty reasonable check. Now the owner is a primary instigator of fruitless ideological bickering. Outside the football season, I don't really care. During the season, I do.
Well then maybe you should leave the site. I have learned a lot of politics from both Eric and the opposite viewpoint. And never has it gotten to the point where it's personal. You dont agree with him? Fine.
But what you just posted is a total dick move. You dont like it? Leave. Pretty simple if you ask me.
So you decided not to support BBI - a sports site - because you disagree with the politics of the owner?
No. Because the owner, for many years, has held this sort of NON-SPORTS activity in pretty reasonable check. Now the owner is a primary instigator of fruitless ideological bickering. Outside the football season, I don't really care. During the season, I do.
Well then maybe you should leave the site. I have learned a lot of politics from both Eric and the opposite viewpoint. And never has it gotten to the point where it's personal. You dont agree with him? Fine.
But what you just posted is a total dick move. You dont like it? Leave. Pretty simple if you ask me.
SMD.
No thanks. Sorry I said it was a dick move, its more like you are a total bitch.
So you decided not to support BBI - a sports site - because you disagree with the politics of the owner?
No. Because the owner, for many years, has held this sort of NON-SPORTS activity in pretty reasonable check. Now the owner is a primary instigator of fruitless ideological bickering. Outside the football season, I don't really care. During the season, I do.
Well then maybe you should leave the site. I have learned a lot of politics from both Eric and the opposite viewpoint. And never has it gotten to the point where it's personal. You dont agree with him? Fine.
But what you just posted is a total dick move. You dont like it? Leave. Pretty simple if you ask me.
SMD.
No thanks. Sorry I said it was a dick move, its more like you are a total bitch.
Nowhere on this thread did I say they were definitely doing it for profit. But that's the question. If Deej is correct, then there is no illegal activity. But they are still selling parts.
They're selling fetal tissue.
What a relief. That's nothing at all like body parts, that's like Kleenex
Buford and Eric are calling embryos babies, however.
How old do you think the fetuses are in these videos? Many are 18 weeks or more. Those are not embryos. The embryo stage is about 10 weeks. Then it's a fetus.
You need to call the fetal tissue they're selling babies. That's on you.
It must play better, lumping embryos and fetuses in with babies.
...made an observation that Eric, as a businessman, wasa making a chancy move by becoming embroiled in ideological battles on here, perhaps to his detriment.
Eric responds that his wife has said the same thing to him.
This poster, who has supported the site, sometimes with double payments, agreed and stated that this did, indeed make a difference this year.
Said poster gets attacked for providing honest feedback to the site owner.
Some of the usual suspects start foaming at the mouth, as if some apostasy had been committed. Truly, these same usual suspects fear that these extraordinarily divisive and unproductive topics may disappear, making their existence here moot, since many don't post at all on football threads.
Then one famous female schmuck makes a disparaging comment using female genitals. It's surreal.
Nowhere on this thread did I say they were definitely doing it for profit. But that's the question. If Deej is correct, then there is no illegal activity. But they are still selling parts.
They're selling fetal tissue.
What a relief. That's nothing at all like body parts, that's like Kleenex
It's actually just like body parts.
So the sale of body parts is the issue? Strange how it keeps changing.
Buford and Eric are calling embryos babies, however.
How old do you think the fetuses are in these videos? Many are 18 weeks or more. Those are not embryos. The embryo stage is about 10 weeks. Then it's a fetus.
You need to call the fetal tissue they're selling babies. That's on you.
It must play better, lumping embryos and fetuses in with babies.
You are the one doing the lumping. As I said, the organs (not tissue) are harvested from fetuses above a certain age. Not embryos. And in a few weeks those fetuses would be babies that could survive outside the womb. You are the one who has to use sanitized terminology to make it more palatable for you to accept.
...made an observation that Eric, as a businessman, wasa making a chancy move by becoming embroiled in ideological battles on here, perhaps to his detriment.
Eric responds that his wife has said the same thing to him.
This poster, who has supported the site, sometimes with double payments, agreed and stated that this did, indeed make a difference this year.
Said poster gets attacked for providing honest feedback to the site owner.
Some of the usual suspects start foaming at the mouth, as if some apostasy had been committed. Truly, these same usual suspects fear that these extraordinarily divisive and unproductive topics may disappear, making their existence here moot, since many don't post at all on football threads.
Then one famous female schmuck makes a disparaging comment using female genitals. It's surreal.
Aww, I made a disparaging comment. WHHHAAA! I had no idea you were such a shrinking violet. Too bad it doesn't stop you from dishing it out.
...made an observation that Eric, as a businessman, wasa making a chancy move by becoming embroiled in ideological battles on here, perhaps to his detriment.
Eric responds that his wife has said the same thing to him.
This poster, who has supported the site, sometimes with double payments, agreed and stated that this did, indeed make a difference this year.
Said poster gets attacked for providing honest feedback to the site owner.
Some of the usual suspects start foaming at the mouth, as if some apostasy had been committed. Truly, these same usual suspects fear that these extraordinarily divisive and unproductive topics may disappear, making their existence here moot, since many don't post at all on football threads.
Then one famous female schmuck makes a disparaging comment using female genitals. It's surreal.
Aww, I made a disparaging comment. WHHHAAA! I had no idea you were such a shrinking violet. Too bad it doesn't stop you from dishing it out.
You like to act like you have a set of balls, Buford. Is that actually true?
...made an observation that Eric, as a businessman, wasa making a chancy move by becoming embroiled in ideological battles on here, perhaps to his detriment.
Eric responds that his wife has said the same thing to him.
This poster, who has supported the site, sometimes with double payments, agreed and stated that this did, indeed make a difference this year.
Said poster gets attacked for providing honest feedback to the site owner.
Some of the usual suspects start foaming at the mouth, as if some apostasy had been committed. Truly, these same usual suspects fear that these extraordinarily divisive and unproductive topics may disappear, making their existence here moot, since many don't post at all on football threads.
Then one famous female schmuck makes a disparaging comment using female genitals. It's surreal.
Aww, I made a disparaging comment. WHHHAAA! I had no idea you were such a shrinking violet. Too bad it doesn't stop you from dishing it out.
You like to act like you have a set of balls, Buford. Is that actually true?
I really enjoy reading Eric's posts on these threads because he's obviously a very intelligent person and seems like a really good guy, so I'm curious to see why his positions are often (though not always) so different than my own on some of these issues.
People like buford really add nothing to these discussions (sorry, but it's true) but I hope Eric keeps allowing these threads and keeps contributing to them.
RE: RE: RE: RE: Interersting how an astute poster...
...made an observation that Eric, as a businessman, wasa making a chancy move by becoming embroiled in ideological battles on here, perhaps to his detriment.
Eric responds that his wife has said the same thing to him.
This poster, who has supported the site, sometimes with double payments, agreed and stated that this did, indeed make a difference this year.
Said poster gets attacked for providing honest feedback to the site owner.
Some of the usual suspects start foaming at the mouth, as if some apostasy had been committed. Truly, these same usual suspects fear that these extraordinarily divisive and unproductive topics may disappear, making their existence here moot, since many don't post at all on football threads.
Then one famous female schmuck makes a disparaging comment using female genitals. It's surreal.
Aww, I made a disparaging comment. WHHHAAA! I had no idea you were such a shrinking violet. Too bad it doesn't stop you from dishing it out.
You like to act like you have a set of balls, Buford. Is that actually true?
Awfully sexist comment BMac.
The original comment from Buford is where you should be stating this. Once the door opens, one never knows what may enter. True statement, nonetheless.
Attacking a woman and insinuating she has testicles
Buford and Eric are calling embryos babies, however.
How old do you think the fetuses are in these videos? Many are 18 weeks or more. Those are not embryos. The embryo stage is about 10 weeks. Then it's a fetus.
You need to call the fetal tissue they're selling babies. That's on you.
It must play better, lumping embryos and fetuses in with babies.
You are the one doing the lumping. As I said, the organs (not tissue) are harvested from fetuses above a certain age. Not embryos. And in a few weeks those fetuses would be babies that could survive outside the womb. You are the one who has to use sanitized terminology to make it more palatable for you to accept.
I'd think you were kidding, but I fear you're not.
You can call fetuses and embryos toddlers, you'd be just as accurate.
RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: Attacking a woman and insinuating she has testicles
Attacking a man and insinuating he has a vagina (and a sandy one at that) just seems out of line. Double-standard much?
If the dumb fuck can't stand the heat, she needs to use the outhouse.
As a man, you are expected to be above that.
Horseshit, plain and simple. When were you born, 1920?
SMH. As long as things fit your anger pallet I guess it's ok.
You don't seem to understand that when someone repeatedly inserts themselves into these kind of threads and is exceptionally confrontational, and I'm referring to Buford in this case, that all bets are off.
Just because you want to keep women on a pedestal (or better yet, barefoot, pregnant, and in the kitchen) doesn't mean that anyone else feels that way.
Responses aren't made in a vacuum. If someone sticks their snout in the fire well, it's likely to get burned.
By the way, just what is an "anger pallet," or did you mean "palette?" In any case, it's a nonsensical statement.
a political think tank and actively promoted this bullshit during a season about the same timed he metamorphosed from a liberal Democrat into a Tea Party conservative.
Maybe it's as simple as the site needs more hits to attract more advertisers at higher rates.
RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: Attacking a woman and insinuating she has testicles
Attacking a man and insinuating he has a vagina (and a sandy one at that) just seems out of line. Double-standard much?
If the dumb fuck can't stand the heat, she needs to use the outhouse.
As a man, you are expected to be above that.
Horseshit, plain and simple. When were you born, 1920?
SMH. As long as things fit your anger pallet I guess it's ok.
You don't seem to understand that when someone repeatedly inserts themselves into these kind of threads and is exceptionally confrontational, and I'm referring to Buford in this case, that all bets are off.
Just because you want to keep women on a pedestal (or better yet, barefoot, pregnant, and in the kitchen) doesn't mean that anyone else feels that way.
Responses aren't made in a vacuum. If someone sticks their snout in the fire well, it's likely to get burned.
By the way, just what is an "anger pallet," or did you mean "palette?" In any case, it's a nonsensical statement.
Goodness... The anger from you. As a liberal, I'm shocked that you would not want to defend women! How on earth am I wanting to keep women "barefoot in the kitchen"??? You're the one that won't defend them! You are attacking a woman here just for her belief! Unacceptable!!!
RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: Attacking a woman and insinuating she has testicles
Attacking a man and insinuating he has a vagina (and a sandy one at that) just seems out of line. Double-standard much?
If the dumb fuck can't stand the heat, she needs to use the outhouse.
As a man, you are expected to be above that.
Horseshit, plain and simple. When were you born, 1920?
SMH. As long as things fit your anger pallet I guess it's ok.
You don't seem to understand that when someone repeatedly inserts themselves into these kind of threads and is exceptionally confrontational, and I'm referring to Buford in this case, that all bets are off.
Just because you want to keep women on a pedestal (or better yet, barefoot, pregnant, and in the kitchen) doesn't mean that anyone else feels that way.
Responses aren't made in a vacuum. If someone sticks their snout in the fire well, it's likely to get burned.
By the way, just what is an "anger pallet," or did you mean "palette?" In any case, it's a nonsensical statement.
Goodness... The anger from you. As a liberal, I'm shocked that you would not want to defend women! How on earth am I wanting to keep women "barefoot in the kitchen"??? You're the one that won't defend them! You are attacking a woman here just for her belief! Unacceptable!!!
You apparently are unable to follow a reasoned statement, nor can you form a cogent argument, so I'll waste no more time on you.
Those are some big buttons, though.
Nighty night. Don't let the bedbugs bite.
RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: Attacking a woman and insinuating she has testicles
Attacking a man and insinuating he has a vagina (and a sandy one at that) just seems out of line. Double-standard much?
If the dumb fuck can't stand the heat, she needs to use the outhouse.
As a man, you are expected to be above that.
Horseshit, plain and simple. When were you born, 1920?
SMH. As long as things fit your anger pallet I guess it's ok.
You don't seem to understand that when someone repeatedly inserts themselves into these kind of threads and is exceptionally confrontational, and I'm referring to Buford in this case, that all bets are off.
Just because you want to keep women on a pedestal (or better yet, barefoot, pregnant, and in the kitchen) doesn't mean that anyone else feels that way.
Responses aren't made in a vacuum. If someone sticks their snout in the fire well, it's likely to get burned.
By the way, just what is an "anger pallet," or did you mean "palette?" In any case, it's a nonsensical statement.
Goodness... The anger from you. As a liberal, I'm shocked that you would not want to defend women! How on earth am I wanting to keep women "barefoot in the kitchen"??? You're the one that won't defend them! You are attacking a woman here just for her belief! Unacceptable!!!
You apparently are unable to follow a reasoned statement, nor can you form a cogent argument, so I'll waste no more time on you.
When I joined I used to participate on these threads as they got to a point where the fact base and partisanship made mincemeat at what I thought were serious subjects actual citizens should be serious about. And at that time a lot of the discussion was about the ME ...A subject and area I had to visit often...or econ/finance ..so to me at that time policy ( an area I think should be discussed) and politics ( a circus designed to extract mental and financial rent from people who could be doing g better things) intermixed to a greater extent than they do now.
Now when I see political threads about parties or candidates) I see accidents on the highway. The log jam of people stopping annoys me but when I do wind up watching the source of fascination. Hypocritical I am sure.
I dunno how anyone can allow their self identity to be so wrapped up in this junk that they get upset about it. There is not a dimes worth of difference on the things and priorities that matter between almost all of them imho...and this comes from someone who used to be engaged and donate and I dunno...five degrees separated ( I try to stay seven degrees out now a days).
but to each his own...and this is where we differ. The site has always been and allowed discussions about a wide range of subjects. We win out most of the time because it is allowed to be more than a football site. Always has been that way. So it's nothing new. Used to be much more of a wild west show. Now much less so. So now Eric participates more on these threads. He always did on history threads ( where he is a great as in one of the top contributors on several subjects like Ww2) and econ threads and econ policy and foreign policy and trade policy ( where he again is an excellent contributor...As in one of the very best we have). To me. ..so what? I am not going to vote or not vote or be influenced by anyone who does not bring up fact intense and supported opinion....which I will merge with my own. I own my mind. Not any poster. So to me...I incorporate the best of what I read as from any other source and otherwise preserve brain cells...we only have so many...why burn a nerve on every days ticker tape of passing monkey chatter?
Emotion spent on this stuff is like measuring with a micrometer and missing by a mile. It's irrelevant ( or will be) to our lives. We are not given real choice so to me it's 99.5% exercise in pretend influence and control. So to me the practical response is a .5 effort on my part. Again imho.
No reply on this imho as it is not a debate nor personal between us. Take care.
I really enjoy reading Eric's posts on these threads because he's obviously a very intelligent person and seems like a really good guy, so I'm curious to see why his positions are often (though not always) so different than my own on some of these issues.
People like buford really add nothing to these discussions (sorry, but it's true) but I hope Eric keeps allowing these threads and keeps contributing to them.
THIS^^^^
RE: Attacking a woman and insinuating she has testicles
It's ok, I said he had a sandy vagina. While I don't have testicles, I don't whine like a bitch about everything and everyone. So yeah, I guess I am ballsy.
I really enjoy reading Eric's posts on these threads because he's obviously a very intelligent person and seems like a really good guy, so I'm curious to see why his positions are often (though not always) so different than my own on some of these issues.
People like buford really add nothing to these discussions (sorry, but it's true) but I hope Eric keeps allowing these threads and keeps contributing to them.
THIS^^^^
Except for the part about buford. What she may or may not "add to the discussions" is opinion. I thoroughly disagree with her, but she has as much right to post as anyone. She's no more disagreeable than most including me.
Buford and Eric are calling embryos babies, however.
How old do you think the fetuses are in these videos? Many are 18 weeks or more. Those are not embryos. The embryo stage is about 10 weeks. Then it's a fetus.
You need to call the fetal tissue they're selling babies. That's on you.
It must play better, lumping embryos and fetuses in with babies.
You are the one doing the lumping. As I said, the organs (not tissue) are harvested from fetuses above a certain age. Not embryos. And in a few weeks those fetuses would be babies that could survive outside the womb. You are the one who has to use sanitized terminology to make it more palatable for you to accept.
I'd think you were kidding, but I fear you're not.
You can call fetuses and embryos toddlers, you'd be just as accurate.
Like it or not, there are criteria for embryo, fetus and toddler. You have accepted the sanitized version of what is being done, most people do, I did before I watched the videos. It's how this gruesome practice continues. And to the poster who cited the research angle, the fetal cells can be replaced by adult stem cells. Link - ( New Window )
Boehner is acting like a dictator. He shut down the election for speaker until he can get a candidate that he (and K-Street) like. Ryan is a good guy, but he would be more of the same establishment and he doesn't want the job. Boehner needs to step aside and let the House decide. That is the main problem, he has been a dictator as speaker and that is what many members have rebelled against.
And while many of you may not agree with me on issues, you have to see that this situation is exactly what is wrong with DC today. Guys get into Congress, stay for decades, get into leadership, get rich from donors/lobbyists and land deals that they push legislation for, and then rule over the representatives that we elect. Our voices are being stifled by corporatist in both parties that put their personal advancement above their job to represent the people. Why are you calling people who are against that crazies? It's not just about social issues. The Freedom Caucus is fighting to have their voice heard, to have the voices of the people who elected them heard. Not to just be fodder for the DC machine.
I'll vote for someone who is against this, even if I disagree on certain issues. Someone who understands what the role of DC should be, not what it is now. Someone who will represent the people, not the donors or K street. Not someone who will flip flop on issues to be the flavor of the month. Someone who will stop the disastrous course we are on of increased taxing/spending/debt of endless regulation by agencies that are not elected. Someone who will stop the strangulation of business which could flourish and boost our economy so that we can solve some of our financial issues. But if you are happy with the status quo, and you think things are honky dorry, then keep voting for the usually DC politician. They are the ones who got us into this mess, what makes you think that they will even try to get us out of it?
Boehner is acting like a dictator. He shut down the election for speaker until he can get a candidate that he (and K-Street) like. Ryan is a good guy, but he would be more of the same establishment and he doesn't want the job. Boehner needs to step aside and let the House decide. That is the main problem, he has been a dictator as speaker and that is what many members have rebelled against.
And while many of you may not agree with me on issues, you have to see that this situation is exactly what is wrong with DC today. Guys get into Congress, stay for decades, get into leadership, get rich from donors/lobbyists and land deals that they push legislation for, and then rule over the representatives that we elect. Our voices are being stifled by corporatist in both parties that put their personal advancement above their job to represent the people. Why are you calling people who are against that crazies? It's not just about social issues. The Freedom Caucus is fighting to have their voice heard, to have the voices of the people who elected them heard. Not to just be fodder for the DC machine.
I'll vote for someone who is against this, even if I disagree on certain issues. Someone who understands what the role of DC should be, not what it is now. Someone who will represent the people, not the donors or K street. Not someone who will flip flop on issues to be the flavor of the month. Someone who will stop the disastrous course we are on of increased taxing/spending/debt of endless regulation by agencies that are not elected. Someone who will stop the strangulation of business which could flourish and boost our economy so that we can solve some of our financial issues. But if you are happy with the status quo, and you think things are honky dorry, then keep voting for the usually DC politician. They are the ones who got us into this mess, what makes you think that they will even try to get us out of it?
The Speaker is a dictator? Of course he is, that is his job. IMHO Boehner wasn't enough of a dictator. That is why Pelosi got stuff done. If you screwed with Pelosi, she cut your nuts off...
Boehner is acting like a dictator. He shut down the election for speaker until he can get a candidate that he (and K-Street) like. Ryan is a good guy, but he would be more of the same establishment and he doesn't want the job. Boehner needs to step aside and let the House decide. That is the main problem, he has been a dictator as speaker and that is what many members have rebelled against.
And while many of you may not agree with me on issues, you have to see that this situation is exactly what is wrong with DC today. Guys get into Congress, stay for decades, get into leadership, get rich from donors/lobbyists and land deals that they push legislation for, and then rule over the representatives that we elect. Our voices are being stifled by corporatist in both parties that put their personal advancement above their job to represent the people. Why are you calling people who are against that crazies? It's not just about social issues. The Freedom Caucus is fighting to have their voice heard, to have the voices of the people who elected them heard. Not to just be fodder for the DC machine.
I'll vote for someone who is against this, even if I disagree on certain issues. Someone who understands what the role of DC should be, not what it is now. Someone who will represent the people, not the donors or K street. Not someone who will flip flop on issues to be the flavor of the month. Someone who will stop the disastrous course we are on of increased taxing/spending/debt of endless regulation by agencies that are not elected. Someone who will stop the strangulation of business which could flourish and boost our economy so that we can solve some of our financial issues. But if you are happy with the status quo, and you think things are honky dorry, then keep voting for the usually DC politician. They are the ones who got us into this mess, what makes you think that they will even try to get us out of it?
The Speaker is a dictator? Of course he is, that is his job. IMHO Boehner wasn't enough of a dictator. That is why Pelosi got stuff done. If you screwed with Pelosi, she cut your nuts off...
Boehner is acting like a dictator. He shut down the election for speaker until he can get a candidate that he (and K-Street) like. Ryan is a good guy, but he would be more of the same establishment and he doesn't want the job. Boehner needs to step aside and let the House decide. That is the main problem, he has been a dictator as speaker and that is what many members have rebelled against.
And while many of you may not agree with me on issues, you have to see that this situation is exactly what is wrong with DC today. Guys get into Congress, stay for decades, get into leadership, get rich from donors/lobbyists and land deals that they push legislation for, and then rule over the representatives that we elect. Our voices are being stifled by corporatist in both parties that put their personal advancement above their job to represent the people. Why are you calling people who are against that crazies? It's not just about social issues. The Freedom Caucus is fighting to have their voice heard, to have the voices of the people who elected them heard. Not to just be fodder for the DC machine.
I'll vote for someone who is against this, even if I disagree on certain issues. Someone who understands what the role of DC should be, not what it is now. Someone who will represent the people, not the donors or K street. Not someone who will flip flop on issues to be the flavor of the month. Someone who will stop the disastrous course we are on of increased taxing/spending/debt of endless regulation by agencies that are not elected. Someone who will stop the strangulation of business which could flourish and boost our economy so that we can solve some of our financial issues. But if you are happy with the status quo, and you think things are honky dorry, then keep voting for the usually DC politician. They are the ones who got us into this mess, what makes you think that they will even try to get us out of it?
I actually agree with much of this post in principle. But
Quote:
Why are you calling people who are against that crazies? It's not just about social issues. The Freedom Caucus is fighting to have their voice heard, to have the voices of the people who elected them heard
those voices are just so wrong headed and some, yes, crazy IMHO.
Why are you calling people who are against that crazies? It's not just about social issues. The Freedom Caucus is fighting to have their voice heard, to have the voices of the people who elected them heard
those voices are just so wrong headed and some, yes, crazy IMHO.
Well I'm sure those people think your political positions are wrong too.
we always believe that we are in the right, that we are in the majority, that we are the center, when in truth we just have an opinion and view which has no less but no greater legitimacy than anyone else's. Failure to recognize this leads to intransigence and hostility.
Why are you calling people who are against that crazies? It's not just about social issues. The Freedom Caucus is fighting to have their voice heard, to have the voices of the people who elected them heard
those voices are just so wrong headed and some, yes, crazy IMHO.
Well I'm sure those people think your political positions are wrong too.
Obviously. And I'm not arrogant enough to think my ideas are absolutely correct, that's why I ended my post with "IMHO". I am willing to change my mind when presented with facts or experience, and I have.
You're dead wrong. Everyone showed up expecting Murphy to be selected. When he backed out, the candidates needed time for electioneering. There was no candidate standing that had a shot at half the caucus yesterday, let alone 218. It had nothing to do with Ryan, and everything to do with not racing through a process to pick the Speaker given a bizarre development.
Are you just making up this criticism? Did anyone in the room come out and complain that the vote was put off?
Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.), the former chairman of the House Oversight Committee, is considering a bid for Speaker, a source close to the congressman told The Hill.
Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.), the former chairman of the House Oversight Committee, is considering a bid for Speaker, a source close to the congressman told The Hill.
Issa would be a fiasco- Newt 2. Pass
RE: 15 percent of the Republican Caucus wants 100 percent of their agenda
passed or nothing gets done or they shut down the Government. So 9 percent of the House either gets what it wants or no soup for you
Or the democrats... or the republicans. Don't be obtuse. This all or nothing permeates the entire congress. I think Newt started it and Pelosi and Reid were just as bad.
Boehner is acting like a dictator? Really? How about needing to find a candidate that can get 218 votes? Buford, do you have such a candidate in mind. Certainly, if Boehner is handly this incorrectly, you must have an alternative in mind? No one from the right side of the party will get 100 votes, let alone 218.
So what the fuck do you propose that he do? He really doesn't want this assignment. Nor does he think that shutting down the government is a great idea for the party or the country, or defaulting on the debt, which would be an extraordinary disaster for both.
"McCarthy fell to a conservative coup." The House is in serious trouble, and thus Republican party is in trouble, and the country is in trouble, unless the non-Tea Party Republicans figure out a solution to this crisis, and soon. Note what the Tea Partiers in the House are demanding:
Quote:
Even if Ryan or another figure can temporarily unite the caucus, the conservatives demands will inevitably lead to chaos. As I wrote earlier this week, theyre seeking not just showdowns over spending but procedural changes that would bring anarchy, including unlimited freedom to amend legislation; a ban on legislation that doesnt have the support of a majority of GOP members; and a refusal to take up compromise legislation worked out by the Senate.
From the viewpoint of anyone who thinks we need to have a functioning government, these are scary times.
Again, Buford, if you don't want Boehner "acting like a dictator," you must have an alternative in mind. What is it? Link - ( New Window )
RE: buford, it's your strongly stated ignorance...
Boehner is acting like a dictator? Really? How about needing to find a candidate that can get 218 votes? Buford, do you have such a candidate in mind. Certainly, if Boehner is handly this incorrectly, you must have an alternative in mind? No one from the right side of the party will get 100 votes, let alone 218.
So what the fuck do you propose that he do? He really doesn't want this assignment. Nor does he think that shutting down the government is a great idea for the party or the country, or defaulting on the debt, which would be an extraordinary disaster for both.
to the Milbank column, Issa says that no one had anything close to the 200 votes that McCarthy had. (I still dont like Milbank from his days as a reporter)
Boehner is acting like a dictator. He shut down the election for speaker until he can get a candidate that he (and K-Street) like. Ryan is a good guy, but he would be more of the same establishment and he doesn't want the job. Boehner needs to step aside and let the House decide. That is the main problem, he has been a dictator as speaker and that is what many members have rebelled against.
And while many of you may not agree with me on issues, you have to see that this situation is exactly what is wrong with DC today. Guys get into Congress, stay for decades, get into leadership, get rich from donors/lobbyists and land deals that they push legislation for, and then rule over the representatives that we elect. Our voices are being stifled by corporatist in both parties that put their personal advancement above their job to represent the people. Why are you calling people who are against that crazies? It's not just about social issues. The Freedom Caucus is fighting to have their voice heard, to have the voices of the people who elected them heard. Not to just be fodder for the DC machine.
I'll vote for someone who is against this, even if I disagree on certain issues. Someone who understands what the role of DC should be, not what it is now. Someone who will represent the people, not the donors or K street. Not someone who will flip flop on issues to be the flavor of the month. Someone who will stop the disastrous course we are on of increased taxing/spending/debt of endless regulation by agencies that are not elected. Someone who will stop the strangulation of business which could flourish and boost our economy so that we can solve some of our financial issues. But if you are happy with the status quo, and you think things are honky dorry, then keep voting for the usually DC politician. They are the ones who got us into this mess, what makes you think that they will even try to get us out of it?
I actually agree with much of this post in principle. But
Quote:
Why are you calling people who are against that crazies? It's not just about social issues. The Freedom Caucus is fighting to have their voice heard, to have the voices of the people who elected them heard
those voices are just so wrong headed and some, yes, crazy IMHO.
Can you specify which ones and what they say that is crazy?
I get that he's a guy who could swing 220+ votes, and Boehner probably thinks that Ryan may be the only one who can do that. And Boehner mostly wants a replacement in place and to GTFO (prob with a preference for someone he gets along with should JB go into lobbying).
Putting aside my disagreements with Ryan's ideology, the guy is an ivory tower type, not a vote counter. There is no reason to think that he could ride herd over the GOP caucus. This is a problem that the Freedom Caucus folks dont seem to grasp -- the Speaker position is inherently political and not policy based. You need a Speaker who can move legislation and keep a coalition together. And Ryan to date has no experience doing that.
You're dead wrong. Everyone showed up expecting Murphy to be selected. When he backed out, the candidates needed time for electioneering. There was no candidate standing that had a shot at half the caucus yesterday, let alone 218. It had nothing to do with Ryan, and everything to do with not racing through a process to pick the Speaker given a bizarre development.
Are you just making up this criticism? Did anyone in the room come out and complain that the vote was put off?
No, McCarthy did not have the votes. So either he pulled out or he was told to pull out. There were a few others who were trying to get support and I don't have a problem with delaying the vote. But what Boehner is doing is trying to hand select his successor and since McCarthy put his foot in his mouth, they now want Paul Ryan. And Boehner says unless Ryan takes the job, he will stay. If that isn't being dictatorish or even royalty like, I don't know what is.
The House members complaints about Boehner wasn't just that he wasn't conservative in reality, it is that he did not allow for open debate and individual voices to be heard. This is just viewed as another extension of that.
RE: buford, it's your strongly stated ignorance...
Boehner is acting like a dictator? Really? How about needing to find a candidate that can get 218 votes? Buford, do you have such a candidate in mind. Certainly, if Boehner is handly this incorrectly, you must have an alternative in mind? No one from the right side of the party will get 100 votes, let alone 218.
So what the fuck do you propose that he do? He really doesn't want this assignment. Nor does he think that shutting down the government is a great idea for the party or the country, or defaulting on the debt, which would be an extraordinary disaster for both.
What, or who, is your solution?
See my post to Deej. Again, professed liberals attempting to understand what the feelings are in the Republican House among members and the people who voted for them is hilarious. There are a few members who have said they are interested. How about giving them time to get support rather than strong arming someone who doesn't want the job because you feel he can be controlled? Let the process play out. Let the people who were elected to represent the people of the US have their voices heard. This whole thing started because house members and voters were sick of Boehner and the way he runs things. Letting him dictate what happens after he is gone is the wrong way to go. It would be horrible for Ryan to be burdened with that.
McCarthy wasn't going to have the votes even before the Benghazi
Deej - what I'd guess happens is that Ryan, as a compromise candidate who both sides of the party generally approve of, agrees to serve as a sort of interim speaker for the rest of this session as a means of buying time to find a speaker for the next season. This lets Weepy go home as he wants to do and at least lets the whole media frenzy die down a bit. On Ryan's part, it makes him look good - he's the reluctant good solider, which is always a positive light.
just find me one GOP MOC who said that the vote should have proceeded and that someone would have been elected.
You cant do that. And as such, complaining that Boehner shut down the vote is silly. Complaining that he did it for the purpose of hand picking his successor and that he's a dictator because of that is even sillier. HE SHUT IT DOWN BECAUSE NO ONE COULD BE ELECTED AND THERE WAS AN 11TH HOUR GAME CHANGER. Why do you need to go ahead and fabricate a nefarious motive?
I get that he's a guy who could swing 220+ votes, and Boehner probably thinks that Ryan may be the only one who can do that. And Boehner mostly wants a replacement in place and to GTFO (prob with a preference for someone he gets along with should JB go into lobbying).
Putting aside my disagreements with Ryan's ideology, the guy is an ivory tower type, not a vote counter. There is no reason to think that he could ride herd over the GOP caucus. This is a problem that the Freedom Caucus folks dont seem to grasp -- the Speaker position is inherently political and not policy based. You need a Speaker who can move legislation and keep a coalition together. And Ryan to date has no experience doing that.
just a small correction.
(prob with a preference for someone he gets along with should when JB go into lobbying).
On the other hand, please identify what part of what he describes the Tea Partiers as demanding is incorrect. Whining that you don;t like him isn't the same as describing where he gets his facts wrong.
There aren't a lot of descriptions of the Freedom Caucus demands, which were described at a luncheon on Wednesday, on the Net, yet. Here's another one.
Quote:
To seize this opportunity, they presented the three contenders for the speakership McCarthy, Jason Chaffetz and Daniel Webster with a list of demands that would increase the (already deafening) voice of conservatives in the House.
There may only be a few dozen die-hard conservatives in the caucus, but, as Boehner and McCarthy have learned, if they withhold their votes, they deny Republican leaders a majority. Any would-be speaker, therefore, had better do what conservatives want and that includes likely showdowns over a debt-ceiling increase, an omnibus spending bill, a transportation bill and Export-Import Bank legislation.
Beyond that, the conservatives demand that the speaker never punish them for voting against the caucus; let them amend legislation on the floor at will; never let bills come to the floor without the support of a majority of Republicans; and refuse to take up Senate-brokered compromises.
That would lead to shutdown and default in short order. But this did not seem to be a major concern over lunch. Labrador, mocking GOP leaders' claims that we can't shut down the government, said he would prefer a leader who would be willing to fight even if we fail.
I have yet to find any article that claims that these are NOT what the Freedom Caucus is demanding.
Counter examples? Anyone? If not, do you think this it is reasonable for thirty-odd Congressmen on the extreme right of their party to demand a set of rules that puts them in pretty much full control of the House?
Where I come cfrom, that is called a coup, and has absolutely nothing to do with running a constitutional democracy, nor is it replicated in a functioning democracy in the history of the US or the developed world. Link - ( New Window )
RE: McCarthy wasn't going to have the votes even before the Benghazi
Deej - what I'd guess happens is that Ryan, as a compromise candidate who both sides of the party generally approve of, agrees to serve as a sort of interim speaker for the rest of this session as a means of buying time to find a speaker for the next season. This lets Weepy go home as he wants to do and at least lets the whole media frenzy die down a bit. On Ryan's part, it makes him look good - he's the reluctant good solider, which is always a positive light.
I dont think it is an interim speaker gig. At least I havent seen it proposed that way.
This is an interesting play by Ryan. I suspect he just genuinely doesnt want the job, either because he's happier doing policy than vote counting, or in particular doesnt want to be incharge of this group at this moment. In some ways it is too soon in any event. Lets say he becomes Speaker now. What does he do when that ends in 2-8 years? He's too young to peak now.
just find me one GOP MOC who said that the vote should have proceeded and that someone would have been elected.
You cant do that. And as such, complaining that Boehner shut down the vote is silly. Complaining that he did it for the purpose of hand picking his successor and that he's a dictator because of that is even sillier. HE SHUT IT DOWN BECAUSE NO ONE COULD BE ELECTED AND THERE WAS AN 11TH HOUR GAME CHANGER. Why do you need to go ahead and fabricate a nefarious motive?
We don't know if someone would have been elected. There were two other candidates who put their names forward. And again, Boehner has not just postponed the vote, he is pushing for Ryan or he will stay. And yes, there are many people in the house who are not happy with this. Louie Gohmert for one.
Instead of complaining about "you liberals," please answer the following:
1) Do you think the Freedom Caucus demands are reasonable?
2) Do you think their willingness to shut down the government and default on the debt is reasonable? Would they lead to a House that could function at all?
3) Is there any potential candidate for Speaker who would accede to those demands and still garner 218 votes?
4) If not, what is your solution?
Calling me a liberal doesn't deal with the political science issues currently on the table. So, either come up with an alternative that doesn't simply state "you guys don't understand," or let actual adults discuss this.
He doesn't want the job. I believe him when he says he doesn't. Right now he's getting leaned on heavily by all the bigwigs to take it because there really aren't any other candidates who both want and can get the position. The interim thing was just a guess on my part, based on the idea that he makes such an offer to get them off his back and try to keep this from becoming more of a fiasco.
Instead of complaining about "you liberals," please answer the following:
1) Do you think the Freedom Caucus demands are reasonable?
2) Do you think their willingness to shut down the government and default on the debt is reasonable? Would they lead to a House that could function at all?
3) Is there any potential candidate for Speaker who would accede to those demands and still garner 218 votes?
4) If not, what is your solution?
Calling me a liberal doesn't deal with the political science issues currently on the table. So, either come up with an alternative that doesn't simply state "you guys don't understand," or let actual adults discuss this.
Sorry if you object to being called a liberal, but you are. And your views have been made quite clear here. My solution is to let the process play out as it is supposed to. Have people who want the job put their names forward and let the members vote. Enough of this top down strategy. That is why Boehner was a horrible speaker in the first place. You don't agree, fine. But your perspective is a bit skewed. Whether you want to admit it or not.
even on an interim basis, unless the Freedom Caucus takes their demands off the table. The job is distasteful, unpalatable and damaging to Republicans generally unless they do.
He's a member of the House Republicans. And has a right to a voice, as they all do. If you want to keep your members marginalized, that's fine. But that is not how it is supposed to work.
I think the smart move is to let this play out. Show the Freedom folks that chaos isnt a plan. Then after a few weeks, someone to the right of 2/3 of the caucus will emerge and be generally acceptable. Rushing it will just get you a Speaker who is too weak to get the bare minimum of business done.
There is no one who can accede to the Freedom Caucus demands and garner 218 votes. "Letting the process play out" won't accomplish that, so the only solution is a negotiated one between a handful of leaders of the Caucus and non-Caucus Republicans. That would most likely have to include Boehner in the negotiations.
That isn't a liberal viewpoint, it's just one that requires an IQ in triple digits.
He's a member of the House Republicans. And has a right to a voice, as they all do. If you want to keep your members marginalized, that's fine. But that is not how it is supposed to work.
On the other hand, he's Louie fucking Gohmert. It's like if I told you that Alan Grayson or Maxine Waters said something, and then pretended that it somehow mattered.
There is no one who can accede to the Freedom Caucus demands and garner 218 votes. "Letting the process play out" won't accomplish that, so the only solution is a negotiated one between a handful of leaders of the Caucus and non-Caucus Republicans. That would most likely have to include Boehner in the negotiations.
That isn't a liberal viewpoint, it's just one that requires an IQ in triple digits.
Well I think that the FC folks need to see that taking down Boehner does not mean that they get their demands met. I think it will take time for that to sink in. They'll see that whoever their preferred person is wont get 100 votes. If you negotiate with them right now, they have a strong hand. In 2-3 weeks, they'll be more primed for a compromise IMO.
Or not. I think they care more about being true to their beliefs than coming up with solutions acceptable to a majority.
What they care about is sticking a knife in the party hierarchy
The GOP brass created this themselves. I have no pity for them. At a certain point, people who are marginalized are going to use whatever opportunity they can to fight back.
On the other hand, please identify what part of what he describes the Tea Partiers as demanding is incorrect. Whining that you don;t like him isn't the same as describing where he gets his facts wrong.
There aren't a lot of descriptions of the Freedom Caucus demands, which were described at a luncheon on Wednesday, on the Net, yet. Here's another one.
Quote:
To seize this opportunity, they presented the three contenders for the speakership McCarthy, Jason Chaffetz and Daniel Webster with a list of demands that would increase the (already deafening) voice of conservatives in the House.
There may only be a few dozen die-hard conservatives in the caucus, but, as Boehner and McCarthy have learned, if they withhold their votes, they deny Republican leaders a majority. Any would-be speaker, therefore, had better do what conservatives want and that includes likely showdowns over a debt-ceiling increase, an omnibus spending bill, a transportation bill and Export-Import Bank legislation.
Beyond that, the conservatives demand that the speaker never punish them for voting against the caucus; let them amend legislation on the floor at will; never let bills come to the floor without the support of a majority of Republicans; and refuse to take up Senate-brokered compromises.
That would lead to shutdown and default in short order. But this did not seem to be a major concern over lunch. Labrador, mocking GOP leaders' claims that we can't shut down the government, said he would prefer a leader who would be willing to fight even if we fail.
I have yet to find any article that claims that these are NOT what the Freedom Caucus is demanding.
Counter examples? Anyone? If not, do you think this it is reasonable for thirty-odd Congressmen on the extreme right of their party to demand a set of rules that puts them in pretty much full control of the House?
Where I come cfrom, that is called a coup, and has absolutely nothing to do with running a constitutional democracy, nor is it replicated in a functioning democracy in the history of the US or the developed world. Link - ( New Window )
That's pretty crazy. I don't know if I'd call it a coup but it does look a lot like the European or Israeli parliamentary system and the Freedom Caucus is like the crazy junior/fringe coalition partner that has just enough votes to significantly disrupt governance.
I just hope someone talks some sense into these guys. They're so not ready for prime time.
RE: What they care about is sticking a knife in the party hierarchy
The GOP brass created this themselves. I have no pity for them. At a certain point, people who are marginalized are going to use whatever opportunity they can to fight back.
I dont necessarily disagree. Now translate this into a Speaker election. Does that mean that they dont allow any Speaker who isnt effectively one of them? Becuase guys like Peter King get to vote too, and he wont vote for that.
I'm wondering to what extent Mitch McConnell's unwillingness to use the "nuclear option" the way Harry Reid did contributes to this mess. True, many of the current Republicans in the Senate excoriated Reid for the tactic. But I don't think that weighed heavily on the minds of the voters in 2014. The Republicans won seats for other reasons. Now the media and the Democrats will scream "hypocrisy" from the mountain tops, but will that resonate with the voters?
With the nuclear option in place, a lot of bottled up legislation would get through the House and Senate. Sure, it will get vetoed and the veto would not be overridden, but it would give the Freedom Caucus the chance to say they passed the legislation.
Without the nuclear option, Boehner basically didn't want to bother to get legislation through the House only to see it die in the Senate. Why bother?
BTW- Ryan is a policy wonk, not a vote counter and arm twister. Speaker is a bad fit for him.
give in to FC demands, or accept compromises with the Democrats to assure a governing majority. That doesn't make
Boehner a traitor. It just means he kept playing Texas Holdem' with starting hands of 7-2 unsuited--no possible way to win.
Congress' own IRA cheerleader. God I can't stand that guy. Fuckin' Long Island, amirite?
Anyway, you're right about that. That's why I can see that Ryan compromise I talked about earlier happening. This thing really just has to kind of run its course. Too many GOP reps are out for blood to get this worked out on such a tight schedule. They need to buy time somehow.
njm, it wasn't as simple a choice as you describe.
Reid applied the nuclear option to Presidential appointments, exclusively. Neither side was willing to go that far on votes related to making laws. Both sides are fearful as to what that would mean down the road.
that the Speaker is elected with Dem votes. It's unworkable even if the Dems were willing to play ball.
I just think for the overall chess match, this needs time. If you pick a new Speaker today, the FC is stronger than ever. They took down Boehner and McCarty. But if the caucus sweats it out and the FC are forced to see that their veto power is not the same thing as being the majority within the caucus, thing may start to shift.
Moreover, I think any middle of the party Speaker candidate would be crazy to take the job without getting assurances first on the debt ceiling and other necessary end of year business. Either the caucus commits to raising the debt ceiling or not, but the Speaker's first big move cant be a party revolt and moving a keep-the-lights-on bill with 40 Dem votes.
I challenge either Eric or Buford to tell me which issues on the GOP agenda of the last 20 years weren't straight put of the Conservative handbook.
Again, this entire narrative of Conservatives being pushed out of the GOP is a crock of shit. They have owned the GOP since Reagan. If the GOP has abandoned any branch of the party been the progressives and Libertarians.
because of his support of TARP/bailouts and purportedly getting people kicked off his committee. Including Louie fucking Gohmert.
Meanwhile, after McClintock quit in September, the FC loses another of its ranks in Rep. Reid Ribble (R-WI), who says:
Quote:
"The Freedom Caucus has moved away from this primary focus in recent weeks, and for this reason I have stepped back from the caucus," Ribble told the Post-Crescent. "The freedom caucus pivoted their attention to these leadership races and away from policy and I wasnt interested in making that pivot."
MG - this is why I said patience. I think people will peel off the FC and it will otherwise weaken. Wait a few weeks and a new Speaker gets to "save" the caucus from itself, and in doing so will come in strong and almost certainly with the pre-condition of unity on the debt ceiling. But make the deal today and the FC look like kingmakers.
Jason "Planned Parenthood is the new ACORN" Chaffetz
"Did I look at the finances and have a hearing specifically as to the revenue portion and how they spend? Yes. Was there any wrongdoing? I didn't find any," he said during a Judiciary Committee hearing on the family planning provider.
Chaffetz, a candidate for House speaker, grilled Planned Parenthood president Cecile Richards during a five-hour hearing last week. He questioned her salary, asked about the organization's expenses and revenues, and pressed Richards on why the group had revenue of $127 million last year if it's a nonprofit. (Nonprofits put their revenues back into their programs.)
But after all that, he concluded that Planned Parenthood isn't doing anything sketchy with its money. "Did we find any wrongdoing? The answer was no," Chaffetz said.
Well, that's that. Or is it?
Quote:
Chaffetz said Thursday that he still supports digging into Planned Parenthood's activities, even if they're using their money appropriately.
"I think there will continue to be investigations," he said.
Why? Moreover, why is the House GOP creating a select committee to investigate PP? What a desperate, political stunt. Link - ( New Window )
so long as the new leader comes in with an agreement that the FC demands as listed above are all DOA.
Beyond that, as of right now, there are 42 members of the FC by count, of which 36 are named members, after the resignation. There are 247 total Republican members of Congress. The FC and its voting affiliates need to get below 247 minus 218, or 29, before a new Speaker can be confident of getting any bill passed on the House floor with zero FC support.
then you set YOUR conditions which must be agreed to before saying yes. Only an idiot would say yes first, and then ask the FC what it will take to get them on board.
That's really the thrust of my point. Ryan may play coy for several weeks and then take the job. You'll know he's serious if he lists his demands and waits for them to be met.
His demands will only be met if two other sets of conditions exist:
1) The members of the FC give a rats ass how their behavior makes the rest of the Republican Party look; and
2) They actually have any interest in like, you know, governing, and getting things done like keeping the government open and raising the debt ceiling so that existing debt can be paid.
I am not convinced that many of them care about either 1) or 2). I am not convinced that a lot of them even understand the implications of not doing (2). Maybe some do. In an interview yesterday, Carson made it very clear that he did not, so why should we assume that all of these guys do?
they dont think that they make the GOP look bad (and I dont have an opinion). Rather they think the establishment is the enemy and disrupting it is inherently good.
As for #2, I think they're going to get that eventually you need a Speaker and they'll heed the notion that their list of demands, representing the wants of 1/5 of the caucus, need to be scaled back if no one else wants them and no one who can get 218 will serve. The FC's tactics are a giant game of chicken. Always have been. This is one of the rare times when the rest of the party can play chicken right back. Boehner will stick around if needed and make sure there is no shut down anyway.
Rubio raises only $8 million for the quarter. Says Walker and Kasich announcing hurt in July, and that
Quote:
The source quoted officials as saying the campaign finished the third quarter strong and raised over $1 million online alone in September. They added that October was the campaign's best month so far.
Seems kind of bullshitty to me. October (which wont be reported until January so donors cant confirm) is the best month so far, just days in?
HRC, Sanders, and Carson raised $20+ million for the quarter.
and Congress has every right to investigate whether laws have been broken. If it finds none have been broken, that does not mean the investigation was unwarranted.
and the Democratic members of the investigative task force have every right to see the full PP tapes, which the Republicans have but denied them, and to have the makers of those tapes testify, which the majority refused to permit.
Or don't you think so?
If they really wanted to solve the problem, instead of just
trying for political wailing (and I'm talking both or all sides here), then there's substantive stuff that can be done.
You could limit tissue collection and transfer to researchers to teaching hospitals or state facilities. You could forbid any transfer of money, even for re-reimbursement, so that it is entirely a donation and motivated by altruism. You could set a federal standard or cap for transport/storage so that the reimbursement costs were fixed or capped.
WRT PP, the feds could force them to split into two independent entities that are allowed and not allowed to do abortions and re-direct funding to the non-abortion entity. Or, if the potential baby part distribution is the only issue, you they could just do a public federal audit, publish the results, and then move on.
Nobody really wants to solve the problem; they just want to score points.
The PP stuff is not 99.9% about politics? It is a fascinating topic because it highlights a cognitive dissonance of sorts. It is the twisted pretzel logic.....Baby Parts, Benghazi, etc....
Eventually they will find something somewhere I suppose but it's a continuous witch hunt aimed at pulling the red meat strings of the Right.
"screw all of you, I am going to pass any bill I think I need using Democratic votes to get my majority."
And that would do nothing but prove conservatives' deepest suspicions of him, and verify that there are not in fact two distinct parties but one ruling class.
So, yeah, he could try that. It would be the ultimate end of the GOP. I'd bet anything on that outcome.
What Weepy should be thinking about is that he's reaping the fruit of overpromising and underdelivering. The RNC has advanced promises to do things. These promises helped them gain a majority. Failing to even attempt to keep those promises has made a lot of people very angry, and the current situation is a consequence of that.
What problem are you addressing? The transfer of tissue to research entities (state/non-profit/for profit pharma) at no profit to the abortion provider? What is that a problem? And why is the "solution" to just have this stuff go certain researchers?
The allegation was that PP was selling tissue at a profit. That has fallen apart. It is time to move on. This isnt a bipartisan "they're both wrong" issue. It is a trumped up bullsht issue.
Homer, even accepting your premise that an investigation....
can be done in good faith, did you see any parts of the 5-hour grilling of the head of PP. It was rude, embarrassing, anti-intellectual, and phony as a $3 bill. As noted above, there was no attempt to give Democrats equal access to material, and requests to interview the makers of the tapes were ignored.
The first question, out of the blue, was whether PP subsidized activities in the Congo, and she wasn't even given time to explain why she might not know that. A half hour was spent on the size of her salary. A totally phony chart of PP activities, provided by the film makers, was presented to the witness with the claim that it was taken from their data. That was a lie, and all of the numbers were wrong.
If you know anything about Congressional hearings, you would know that the staffers that prepare Congresspeople for these hearings are needle sharp, and that if they wanted to do a true investigative hearing instead of a political clown show, they could have. The fact that they did not is all of the evidence of lack of seriousness I need.
What problem are you addressing? The transfer of tissue to research entities (state/non-profit/for profit pharma) at no profit to the abortion provider? What is that a problem? And why is the "solution" to just have this stuff go certain researchers?
The allegation was that PP was selling tissue at a profit. That has fallen apart. It is time to move on. This isnt a bipartisan "they're both wrong" issue. It is a trumped up bullsht issue.
It's not certain researchers; it's certain places that can perform the transfers. Although, the research pool is pretty shallow, which is why this more noise than substanace. Further, you there is no reason no to limit researchers if you wanted. You can put an application and approval system in place or permits, etc. Right now, not every researcher can go out and purchase bioagents for research. There is a vetting process.
You don't think Boehner should use Democratic votes to keep the government from shutting down and raise the debt ceiling? Really?
And if he does so in other situations, well, that is just a source of pressure for the FC to get rid of him and elect an actual new Speaker. I would not be surprised to see him use that tactic--for example on the Ex-IM bank and the Federal Highway Trust Fund. His mess age would be: "if you don't want someone doing that, help elect a new speaker. I am no longer interested in keeping the job, and I am no longer beholden to you."
I'm far beyond giving a rat's ass about almost anything Congress does
I'm just pointing out to you that what you are suggesting will be the great final seppuku of the Republican party, which is why Weepy hasn't pursued it.
Both Chaffetz and Issa said today that they would support Ryan's candidacy for speaker and withdraw their own names. Other GOP reps are also now saying (anonymously) to the press that Ryan is now seriously considering it. It's more than likely going to happen.
No I literally dont know what issue you're addressing. It is illegal to turn a profit on these tissue samples. You dont need new rules for that. So what is the "problem" your rules would address? Your post is very unclear.
RE: Homer, even accepting your premise that an investigation....
If you know anything about Congressional hearings, you would know that the staffers that prepare Congresspeople for these hearings are needle sharp, and that if they wanted to do a true investigative hearing instead of a political clown show, they could have. The fact that they did not is all of the evidence of lack of seriousness I need.
Depends. The staff who work directly for a standing Committee of the Congress are often very smart people with deep subject-matter expertise on the areas within that Committee's jurisdiction. The Members, of course, also have personal staff. Now, some of these personal staff know their shit-- particularly long-time staffers for senior Reps and Senators. But a lot of them are folks who made their bones knocking on doors and answering phones in election campaigns, and whose understanding of policy doesn't go much beyond the talking-point level.
No I literally dont know what issue you're addressing. It is illegal to turn a profit on these tissue samples. You dont need new rules for that. So what is the "problem" your rules would address? Your post is very unclear.
How about potentially uncontrolled rogue places selling it for profit? Even in this case, I am totally unclear as to the need to dicker over reimbursement costs, which would be a fixed thing.
Both Chaffetz and Issa said today that they would support Ryan's candidacy for speaker and withdraw their own names. Other GOP reps are also now saying (anonymously) to the press that Ryan is now seriously considering it. It's more than likely going to happen.
Did either of them have a chance anyway? I havent seen any prognostication on who would win if Ryan doesnt run.
I also dont understand how Ryan isnt the embodiment of the establishment. Romney's running mate, vocal supporter of many of the purported sins of the right which purportedly birthed the FC in the first place.
No I literally dont know what issue you're addressing. It is illegal to turn a profit on these tissue samples. You dont need new rules for that. So what is the "problem" your rules would address? Your post is very unclear.
How about potentially uncontrolled rogue places selling it for profit? Even in this case, I am totally unclear as to the need to dicker over reimbursement costs, which would be a fixed thing.
Ok. Im not sure such places exist though. And why you need new rules rather than enforcement of the clear existing law.
As for dickering with reimbursement costs, they're not set by government. Government says dont profit. Entities look at their costs and figure out how to comply with the law.
Barring actual evidence of someone making a profit here -- and there is none -- I really dont understand why you need more lawmaking.
But he's not part of the leadership, which helps him. He's also just a pretty likeable guy from what I've read - charm never hurts.
The point is that Ryan's probably the best they're going to do.
Okie dokie. He seems beloved inside the GOP establishment as a friendly, presentable wonk type on policy issues, but his ideas on SS and Medicare are not going to play well in the 65+ set. Seems like easy fodder for Dem attack ads. Can he be sold as not deeply ideological when he is liked in the caucus because he is in fact deeply ideological without being a foaming at the mouth ideologue type?
Unless there is substantially defection from the Freedom Caucus
Choosing a new speaker and keeping the government open has become increasingly impossible.
The FC has a questionnaire for candidates interested in becoming speaker. Basically asking for commitment that increase in debt ceiling be linked to cuts to SS, Medicare,& Medicaid. Also, asking commitment appropriation bills will not have funding for PP, Obamacare, Iran Deal, and unconstitutional amnesty.
But he's not part of the leadership, which helps him. He's also just a pretty likeable guy from what I've read - charm never hurts.
The point is that Ryan's probably the best they're going to do.
Okie dokie. He seems beloved inside the GOP establishment as a friendly, presentable wonk type on policy issues, but his ideas on SS and Medicare are not going to play well in the 65+ set. Seems like easy fodder for Dem attack ads. Can he be sold as not deeply ideological when he is liked in the caucus because he is in fact deeply ideological without being a foaming at the mouth ideologue type?
WHy attack ads? It's Speaker, not a nationally elected position.
Keeping the government open and raising the debt ceiling...
may not be that difficult, for now. Boehner or a new interim Speaker will end-run the FC and use Democratic votes if necessary. What this all does is make it much more difficult to find someone to take the job more permanently.
Most of the leadership of both parties is. Are you telling me Pelosi isn't an ideologue?
No. Very liberal sure. But a deal maker through and through. Her political approach is bending elbows, not some big policy debate. There is no grand Pelosi or Boehner plan like Ryan's tax and entitlement proposal.
Most of the leadership of both parties is. Are you telling me Pelosi isn't an ideologue?
No. Very liberal sure. But a deal maker through and through. Her political approach is bending elbows, not some big policy debate. There is no grand Pelosi or Boehner plan like Ryan's tax and entitlement proposal.
I don't think it's difficult to see why government is so fractious. People just don't see the world in the same ways, so it's impossible to find even the smallest sliver of commonality.
The difference in Pelosi is that she's willing to be a part of
government. She's solidly in the "get something done around here" camp. She fends off the lefter wing of the Dems as needed.
That's something the Freedom Coalition has no interest in. Ryan has mostly been an ideologue lobbing rhetorical bombs from the sidelines. If he becomes the Speaker, that's an entirely different role.
and lost the house. Many of you complain about the two parties and how they are just slight variations of each other. But then when someone tries to step out of that box, they are ridiculed.
We've been 'getting things done' for the past 50 years and that is how we go into this mess.
There is no one who can accede to the Freedom Caucus demands and garner 218 votes. "Letting the process play out" won't accomplish that, so the only solution is a negotiated one between a handful of leaders of the Caucus and non-Caucus Republicans. That would most likely have to include Boehner in the negotiations.
That isn't a liberal viewpoint, it's just one that requires an IQ in triple digits.
The point isn't to do 100% of what the Freedom Caucus or the people who voted many of these guys into congress. It's at least to let those in the House have a voice and input on policy. That is what has not been happening. Boehner hand picking a successor and refusing to leave unless he can is part of the problem.
Vote For Paul Ryan Is Vote For Amnesty': Luis Gutierrez Endorses Paul Ryan For Speaker
As CNN is now reporting, Democratic Rep. Luis Gutierrez on MSNBC called Ryan one of the smartest men in the GOP. He would be good for the country, Gutierrez said. He would be good for the Republican Party. Paul Ryan is the kind of individual that would work with people on the other side of the aisle and thats what we need.'
Gutierrez has worked tirelessly to expand immigration levels and open Americas borders up to the rest of the world. As Gutierrez once declared, I have only one loyaltyand thats to the immigrant community.
Gutierrez and Paul Ryan have been longtime partners on efforts to open Americans borders. Indeed, Paul Ryan is arguably the most pro-amnesty GOP lawmaker in Congress, and even supports expanding immigration levels beyond many Democrats. Link - ( New Window )
Don't think Ryan,looking for help. He doesn't want the job.
there isn't any law that says Republicans can not pass things with Democratic votes
The idea that only laws and rules would brought to the floor of the House if the majority of the majority are in favor of them - in other words things will only be brought to the floor if they can be passed entirely with Republican votes.
This is a recent phenomenon called the Hassert Rule = Start by Newt and codified as an unwritten rule by Hassart .
Much like the anti tax pledge WRITTEN BY A 12 YEAR OLD that all Republicans sign . the Hassart rule merely guarantees that the crazies have a large amount of power and prevents any thoughts of compromise
The modern Republican party is unable to govern- it is simple as that.
as you wish they would govern. Do you ever think that the Dems in the house and the senate won't work with the Republicans?
This whole 'chaos' thing is a farce. It's an establishment chaos. They are desperately trying to cling to power while they have lost the support of the base and many of the members.
Meanwhile, the McCarthy rumor of an affair was started
The Department of Homeland Security has launched an investigation into reports that someone with a DHS IP address edited Wikipedia pages to include references to an alleged affair involving House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy, who bowed out of the race for speaker Thursday.
The California Republican stunned the conference with his decision, saying the House needs a "fresh face" to lead and suggesting he could not unite conservatives.
But reports of infidelity on conservative websites hung over the decision, and were cited in apparent revisions to Wikipedia pages.
Washington Free Beacon reporter Lachlan Markay first noted on Twitter that "someone using a DHS IP address" made the edits to Rep. Renee Ellmers' Wikipedia page. The Daily Caller noted a similar edit was made to McCarthy's page, referencing a report by controversial conservative writer Charles Johnson on an alleged affair between the two.
DHS spokeswoman Marsha Catron told Fox News the edits are being investigated.
"DHS has immediately launched an investigation into this serious matter. If it is discovered that a DHS employee, using Government property, is responsible for these alleged actions, immediate and appropriate disciplinary action will be taken," she said in a statement.
This after the Secret Service was found to have illegally released information about Chaffetz SS application. The IRS, the EPA, all of these agencies are corrupt.
RE: The difference in Pelosi is that she's willing to be a part of
government. She's solidly in the "get something done around here" camp. She fends off the lefter wing of the Dems as needed.
Pelosi is a hack. She's the Democrats version of Newt Gingrich with a phoney smile. The only person I have despised more than her is Harry Reid. The both of them are god awful liars and the only thing important to either of them is getting other Democrats elected.
And that doesn't let the Republicans off the hook especially the "conservative evangelicals." That useless group has hijacked the House for the past 8 years. No wonder nobody wants the speaker job. You have the self proclaimed and pseudo intelligentsia on the left and the intolerant pseudo religious on the right. A pox on them all.
And that doesn't let the Republicans off the hook especially the "conservative evangelicals." That useless group has hijacked the House for the past 8 years. No wonder nobody wants the speaker job. You have the self proclaimed and pseudo intelligentsia on the left and the intolerant pseudo religious on the right. A pox on them all.
LIKE :)
RE: RE: RE: The difference in Pelosi is that she's willing to be a part of
And that doesn't let the Republicans off the hook especially the "conservative evangelicals." That useless group has hijacked the House for the past 8 years. No wonder nobody wants the speaker job. You have the self proclaimed and pseudo intelligentsia on the left and the intolerant pseudo religious on the right. A pox on them all.
LIKE :)
You'd better like the 1st part too, lying sacks of excrement.
RE: RE: RE: RE: The difference in Pelosi is that she's willing to be a part of
And that doesn't let the Republicans off the hook especially the "conservative evangelicals." That useless group has hijacked the House for the past 8 years. No wonder nobody wants the speaker job. You have the self proclaimed and pseudo intelligentsia on the left and the intolerant pseudo religious on the right. A pox on them all.
LIKE :)
You'd better like the 1st part too, lying sacks of excrement.
Well, I know Greg doesn't like when I make reference to my past life as a Republican, but back then I thought Pelosi and Reid were evil incarnate.
where Paul Ryan is an idealogue and Nancy Pelosi isn't.....
I think the media and the liberals think this is a disaster for the GOP (just like they though the shutdown in 2013 was). The dems have their own issues and are likely counting on the republicans imploding to save them. But I don't think that will happen, just like it didn't happen in 2014. It's more wishful thinking than actual analysis of the situation.
This is merely a result of the GOP leadership abusing their base. That is why the leaders in the primary are not GOP establishment and why Boehner, Cantor and McCarthy are out.
where Paul Ryan is an idealogue and Nancy Pelosi isn't.....
I think the media and the liberals think this is a disaster for the GOP (just like they though the shutdown in 2013 was). The dems have their own issues and are likely counting on the republicans imploding to save them. But I don't think that will happen, just like it didn't happen in 2014. It's more wishful thinking than actual analysis of the situation.
This is merely a result of the GOP leadership abusing their base. That is why the leaders in the primary are not GOP establishment and why Boehner, Cantor and McCarthy are out.
Paul Ryan is an example of someone whose ideas and philosophy I disagree with. But its a respectful disagreement, much as I may disagree with many conservative posters here. He is not one of the "wackos". And no buford, I'm not going to get into "naming the wackos".
where Paul Ryan is an idealogue and Nancy Pelosi isn't.....
I think the media and the liberals think this is a disaster for the GOP (just like they though the shutdown in 2013 was). The dems have their own issues and are likely counting on the republicans imploding to save them. But I don't think that will happen, just like it didn't happen in 2014. It's more wishful thinking than actual analysis of the situation.
This is merely a result of the GOP leadership abusing their base. That is why the leaders in the primary are not GOP establishment and why Boehner, Cantor and McCarthy are out.
Paul Ryan is an example of someone whose ideas and philosophy I disagree with. But its a respectful disagreement, much as I may disagree with many conservative posters here. He is not one of the "wackos". And no buford, I'm not going to get into "naming the wackos".
I like Ryan too. But I don't think he's right for the spot and I don't think he was right for VP either. He's a policy wonk guy, not a politician (which is why people like and respect him).
NYT articles, any Gail Collins fans out there? I lover her droll humor. Even though she's of course, not conservative, I think even conservatives might get a chuckle from her columns. Here's today's column on the GOP Speaker "crisis"... Gail Collins - ( New Window )
NYT articles, any Gail Collins fans out there? I lover her droll humor. Even though she's of course, not conservative, I think even conservatives might get a chuckle from her columns. Here's today's column on the GOP Speaker "crisis"... Gail Collins - ( New Window )
As I've discovered, humor is very subjective, lol. Haven't read her in many years. Never found her funny, still don't. I prefer the sharp wit of Maureen Dowd, even tho I can't stand her.
NYT articles, any Gail Collins fans out there? I lover her droll humor. Even though she's of course, not conservative, I think even conservatives might get a chuckle from her columns. Here's today's column on the GOP Speaker "crisis"... Gail Collins - ( New Window )
As I've discovered, humor is very subjective, lol. Haven't read her in many years. Never found her funny, still don't. I prefer the sharp wit of Maureen Dowd, even tho I can't stand her.
Yeah, she's not LOL funny, amusing would be more like it. But of course you're right, its definitely subjective.
You can argue that the SOH along senior party leadership has to much
power, but what a minority of the republican caucus wants in regards to rule changes will only insure that nothing will get done via compromise.
Demographically this a very diverse country. It's just not differences in political philosophy. Congress's disapproval rating is so low because it can't get anything done. Polls show, regardless of party identification, Americans want compromise to get issues/problems addressed.
FC, imo is not interested in good governess. They want what they want like children having tantrums. One of their wants is to get PP defunded. Curiously, PP has a far better favorability rating than Congress.
So imo, if you think Congress is dysfunctional now, the house will be totally ungovernable. These rule changes are just not about trying to force Republican bills through, its also about compromises between the House and Senate versions.
NYT articles, any Gail Collins fans out there? I lover her droll humor. Even though she's of course, not conservative, I think even conservatives might get a chuckle from her columns. Here's today's column on the GOP Speaker "crisis"... Gail Collins - ( New Window )
As I've discovered, humor is very subjective, lol. Haven't read her in many years. Never found her funny, still don't. I prefer the sharp wit of Maureen Dowd, even tho I can't stand her.
Yeah, she's not LOL funny, amusing would be more like it. But of course you're right, its definitely subjective.
I miss Art Buchwald and Russell Baker, both of whom directed their humor in all directions.
It's politically tone deaf. Unvarnished truth is not for public consumption.
Chafetz's handling of the Planned Parenthood hearing was close to world class incompetent, so I have no respect for him Who else is there that can get the needed number of votes of 218? Without a Speaker after Boehner retires, I wonder what happens on debt ceiling, shutting down government, etc.
He took himself out of the running. That would of been my guess too.
The same thing happened to my rep. He was Linders aide and when Linder retired, he was basically given the seat. Now he's a leadership toady. I'm not sure who will get the job, but I've heard a lot of people mention Daniel Webster.
Something Hilary will never have happen.
I think it's cute conservatives try to rewrite history, as if the continued GOP failures are due to anything but strict application of conservative values.
It's the moderates fault. Sure.
If you only listen to what he says and not what he does, you might think so. Also, referring to conservatives as whackos and jackasses is not helpful.
Yes, yes
I don't know all the players, but I'd trust Ryan.
I think it's cute conservatives try to rewrite history, as if the continued GOP failures are due to anything but strict application of conservative values.
It's the moderates fault. Sure.
This is the mindnumbingly stupid part that I can't wrap my head around
If the GOP would embrace a moderate take on social issues, they'd win the POTUS general going away.
Alas.....
To a San Francisco leftist, yes, I'm sure Boehner seemed very conservative.
If the GOP would embrace a moderate take on social issues, they'd win the POTUS general going away.
Not even remotely close to being true
Quote:
The last 20 years, the GOP has been ruled by conservatives, both in the WH and Congress.
I think it's cute conservatives try to rewrite history, as if the continued GOP failures are due to anything but strict application of conservative values.
It's the moderates fault. Sure.
This is the mindnumbingly stupid part that I can't wrap my head around
If the GOP would embrace a moderate take on social issues, they'd win the POTUS general going away.
Alas.....
Yea, unfortunately they go for the guy that is conservative social issues and moderate fiscal issues (Bush). They need to flip their thinking!
Quote:
Conservative enough. He's pretty damn conservative.
To a San Francisco leftist, yes, I'm sure Boehner seemed very conservative.
i think he meant the radical right which seems to have the most juice today.
Quote:
If the GOP would embrace a moderate take on social issues, they'd win the POTUS general going away.
Not even remotely close to being true
Why?
Quote:
The last 20 years, the GOP has been ruled by conservatives, both in the WH and Congress.
I think it's cute conservatives try to rewrite history, as if the continued GOP failures are due to anything but strict application of conservative values.
It's the moderates fault. Sure.
This is the mindnumbingly stupid part that I can't wrap my head around
If the GOP would embrace a moderate take on social issues, they'd win the POTUS general going away.
Alas.....
So, yeah, maybe by tempering them or rejecting them they would go further in terms of political power, but I think that there is something to respect in a person holding onto their won principles, especially at a cost.
Being fiscally conservative is radical right?
Quote:
The last 20 years, the GOP has been ruled by conservatives, both in the WH and Congress.
I think it's cute conservatives try to rewrite history, as if the continued GOP failures are due to anything but strict application of conservative values.
It's the moderates fault. Sure.
This is the mindnumbingly stupid part that I can't wrap my head around
If the GOP would embrace a moderate take on social issues, they'd win the POTUS general going away.
Alas.....
John kaisich comes to mind.
Quote:
Conservative enough. He's pretty damn conservative.
If you only listen to what he says and not what he does, you might think so. Also, referring to conservatives as whackos and jackasses is not helpful.
He didn't call conservatives wackos. He called the Rejectionist Wing wackos.
Being fiscally conservative is radical right?
Being fiscally conservative is radical right?
for me politics is about compromise,the FAR right has no interest in any kind of compromise with anyone who disagrees with their views.
Hell no. He was Boehner's heir apparent until he got voted out by a nobody.
When independents can tip the scales in either direction, it absolutely matters.
Quote:
is it considered "radical right" to insist that the politicians you elect do what they said they would do?
Being fiscally conservative is radical right?
for me politics is about compromise,the FAR right has no interest in any kind of compromise with anyone who disagrees with their views.
Quote:
In comment 12534439 SanFranNowNCGiantsFan said:
Quote:
Conservative enough. He's pretty damn conservative.
If you only listen to what he says and not what he does, you might think so. Also, referring to conservatives as whackos and jackasses is not helpful.
He didn't call conservatives wackos. He called the Rejectionist Wing wackos.
Yes, they rejected the establishment. In case you haven't heard, the Republican establishment has been play fast and loose with their base. They campaign on one platform and do the opposite when they get into DC. Sure, they make a lot of noise and show votes, but they go along with what DC wants. The GOP base has caught on. Apparently the liberals haven't.
Quote:
Since Presidential elections only come down now to a few counties in a few states, I'm not sure that argument holds much water.
When independents can tip the scales in either direction, it absolutely matters.
The present GOP gets a pretty big hunk of their electoral support from Bible-Belt types. Take those planks out of the platform, and those voters either stay home or support somebody like a Carson or a Huckabee on a 3rd-party run.
- Defunding Planned Parenthood
- Attempts to repeal the ACA
- Policies of union busting across the country
- Creationalists to local school boards, funded by big money
- Attempts to repeal civil marriages between gays in several states
- Neoconservative spearheading of war in Iraq
- Bush era tax cuts
- "Defense of Marriage"
- "No child Left Behind"
- Welfare Rollbacks
Now you can argue whether the excution and public narratives were successful, but to say that Conservative voices have somehow been stifled is bogus.
What I've learned over the years is people vote for Party regardless of who the Party nominates. They say they will keep an open mind, but they really don't.
Are there really any independents? Or is that a self-described designation that makes one feel above messy Party politics?
I suspect "independents" tend to vote for one party over another too.
I could be wrong.
the difference is obama/reid do not want govt to fail or default on its obligations.
Not even close.....
Not the very same thing can be said about President Obama and Harry Reid.
The Dem's aren't perfect by any means, but there are many of them who are willing to compromise on most Issues.
Also, they aren't really into brinkmanship politics.
Exactly, it's the same thing with pandering to Hispanics by being pro-immigration. For every one hispanic vote you might pick up, you will lose 10 of your base. It's not worth it.
I don't care about gay marriage or abortion. But I know that for the most part, these are settled so it doesn't matter to me what a candidates stance is. There is little or nothing a President can do on these issues and most of them know it.
Presidential elections come down to swinging more independents than your opponent. The base is going to vote for you regardless. As candidates like Nader and Perot proved, you are cutting off your nose to spite your face by voting for a third party or sitting home completely. The problem with the Republicans is that they have not put together a ticket that can attract independents away form the Democrats. Running a more moderate ticket would force the Democrats to really have to defend states like Pennsylvania, Ohio and Michigan. That then forces them to take resources from Virginia, Florida and the mountain west. Moreover, younger Republicans are becoming more socially moderate, especially on issues like immigration and same sex marriage. Hispanics tend to be quite conservative in their religious and fiscal views, but Republicans are jeopardizing that avenue by their immigration stance and swinging them to the Democrats even though on the majority of issues they more align with the Republicans.
- Defunding Planned Parenthood
- Attempts to repeal the ACA
- Policies of union busting across the country
- Creationalists to local school boards, funded by big money
- Attempts to repeal civil marriages between gays in several states
- Neoconservative spearheading of war in Iraq
- Bush era tax cuts
- "Defense of Marriage"
- "No child Left Behind"
- Welfare Rollbacks
Now you can argue whether the excution and public narratives were successful, but to say that Conservative voices have somehow been stifled is bogus.
Wait, didn't Clinton do Welfare to Work and DOMA?
You don't have to be a member. But Cantor, for those with my viewpoint, is no better than McCarthy. And the way he spoke of the fiscal crisis vote back under Bush was on a par with McCarthy and Benghazi. Saying the R's were going to vote against it because he didn't like something Nancy Pelosi had said, iirc.
I do. And I know a lot of them.
Plenty of registered Dems out there that are as disillusioned with their party as conservatives are with the GOP. There's a lot of people waiting for that candidate with the right blend of fiscal conservatism, socially liberal tendencies.
And are we really suggesting that conservatives are gonna spite their nose and stay home to let a democrat win because the GOP is moderate?
If that's the state of the GOP, then they're even more lost than I accuse them of being.
The path to the WH is clear if they so choose.
Quote:
The same thing can be said of President Obama and Harry Reid.
.
the difference is obama/reid do not want govt to fail or default on its obligations.
The US will not default. That is a huge red herring. When there is a shut down, both sides are involved, not just one
With all of the evidence in last several years, this has to be projection from you.
Quote:
The same thing can be said of President Obama and Harry Reid.
Not even close.....
Not the very same thing can be said about President Obama and Harry Reid.
The Dem's aren't perfect by any means, but there are many of them who are willing to compromise on most Issues.
Also, they aren't really into brinkmanship politics.
WTF? Really? Obama loves to spike the ball anytime he can.
Quote:
In comment 12534500 Eric from BBI said:
Quote:
The same thing can be said of President Obama and Harry Reid.
.
the difference is obama/reid do not want govt to fail or default on its obligations.
The US will not default. That is a huge red herring. When there is a shut down, both sides are involved, not just one
the old both sides do it,sorry,i do not agree.
Fixed.
A biden/Warren ticket is going to be very powerful.
Quote:
In comment 12534500 Eric from BBI said:
Quote:
The same thing can be said of President Obama and Harry Reid.
Not even close.....
Not the very same thing can be said about President Obama and Harry Reid.
The Dem's aren't perfect by any means, but there are many of them who are willing to compromise on most Issues.
Also, they aren't really into brinkmanship politics.
WTF? Really? Obama loves to spike the ball anytime he can.
bush seemed a little to arrogant at times,no?
Biden can't come out opposing TPP.
Quote:
In comment 12534515 sundayatone said:
Quote:
In comment 12534500 Eric from BBI said:
Quote:
The same thing can be said of President Obama and Harry Reid.
.
the difference is obama/reid do not want govt to fail or default on its obligations.
The US will not default. That is a huge red herring. When there is a shut down, both sides are involved, not just one
the old both sides do it,sorry,i do not agree.
Buried in the press yesterday was the revelation that the FBI has seized the State Department servers. Of course, it might be too late depending on how much was erased/wiped. But that's a huge development.
Quote:
In comment 12534500 Eric from BBI said:
Quote:
The same thing can be said of President Obama and Harry Reid.
Not even close.....
Not the very same thing can be said about President Obama and Harry Reid.
The Dem's aren't perfect by any means, but there are many of them who are willing to compromise on most Issues.
Also, they aren't really into brinkmanship politics.
WTF? Really? Obama loves to spike the ball anytime he can.
We are not talking about spiking the ball. Everyone spike the ball, hence McCarthy's comments on Hannity. We are talking about compromising through the legislative process.
You can't sit here & tell me that Obama hasn't tried to compromise with most of the legislation during his 2 terms.
Biden can't come out opposing TPP.
Quote:
In comment 12534528 buford said:
Quote:
In comment 12534515 sundayatone said:
Quote:
In comment 12534500 Eric from BBI said:
Quote:
The same thing can be said of President Obama and Harry Reid.
.
the difference is obama/reid do not want govt to fail or default on its obligations.
The US will not default. That is a huge red herring. When there is a shut down, both sides are involved, not just one
the old both sides do it,sorry,i do not agree.
agree or not, you're wrong.
no,you are wrong.
Sam, you only see it from one side. It takes two to shutdown the government. I could argue, "Really, the President wants to shut down the government because of PP?" See how that works?
Obama loves the shutdown threats. For one, he could give a fuck about the national debt. Secondly, it makes the Republicans look bad.
Both sides are doing it, but you can't see it because of your party loyalty.
Quote:
In comment 12534531 sundayatone said:
Quote:
In comment 12534528 buford said:
Quote:
In comment 12534515 sundayatone said:
Quote:
In comment 12534500 Eric from BBI said:
Quote:
The same thing can be said of President Obama and Harry Reid.
.
the difference is obama/reid do not want govt to fail or default on its obligations.
The US will not default. That is a huge red herring. When there is a shut down, both sides are involved, not just one
the old both sides do it,sorry,i do not agree.
agree or not, you're wrong.
no,you are wrong.
(We can long cat this if you want)
Quote:
You can't be this full of it. A group that will shut down the government because of this Planned Parenthood bullshit is serious in compromising. Obama, for sure, has his faults in governance but it's fly speck compared to this stuff. The last shutdown cost the US over $2 billion and resulted in a credit downgrade. The rest of the world is building high speed rail, infrastructure, internet, etc and they want to shut down the government over a bullshit video and you find equivalence with Obama. That's insane.
The other side could have moved on PP and whatever it was in the actual sequester. The shutdown wasn't because those things existed but a failure of both sides to move.
This has everything to do with a Republican Party that is in shambles because they catered to the Radical Tea Party to win elections but was never Interested in meeting their demands.
So now the Inmates are running the asylum.
It means the chances of the FBI finding something in the emails become better, lol
This has everything to do with a Republican Party that is in shambles because they catered to the Radical Tea Party to win elections but was never Interested in meeting their demands.
So now the Inmates are running the asylum.
Why is the Tea Party radical? The Tea Party is simply an anti-establishment reaction to a Republican Party that seems to have lost its way.
Quote:
with Hillary breaking from Obama more and more each day.... does this mean Biden running becomes more of a sure thing?
It means the chances of the FBI finding something in the emails become better, lol
Quote:
The same thing can be said of President Obama and Harry Reid.
Not even close.....
Not the very same thing can be said about President Obama and Harry Reid.
The Dem's aren't perfect by any means, but there are many of them who are willing to compromise on most Issues.
Also, they aren't really into brinkmanship politics.
No they're not. They even said they wouldn't compromise on certain issues like Planned Parenthood. Since MSM is vastly liberal, they get the message out to the masses that the Democrats are willing to compromise but it is further from the truth. Obama begins each new topic with a threat of veto power. That's not exactly compromising is it?
If they abandoned the social issues, I think they'd have broader appeal. I think they worry about the social conservatives staying home, however.
Obama may not be a "Making Sausage With Congress Guy", but that is his way with both parties. That has nothing to do with the Democratic Party as a whole as far as compromise goes.
This has everything to do with a Republican Party that is in shambles because they catered to the Radical Tea Party to win elections but was never Interested in meeting their demands.
So now the Inmates are running the asylum.
True
Quote:
You can't be this full of it. A group that will shut down the government because of this Planned Parenthood bullshit is serious in compromising. Obama, for sure, has his faults in governance but it's fly speck compared to this stuff. The last shutdown cost the US over $2 billion and resulted in a credit downgrade. The rest of the world is building high speed rail, infrastructure, internet, etc and they want to shut down the government over a bullshit video and you find equivalence with Obama. That's insane.
Sam, you only see it from one side. It takes two to shutdown the government. I could argue, "Really, the President wants to shut down the government because of PP?" See how that works?
Obama loves the shutdown threats. For one, he could give a fuck about the national debt. Secondly, it makes the Republicans look bad.
Both sides are doing it, but you can't see it because of your party loyalty.
Honestly, Eric, you probably don't know what you are talking about when you say "Obama loves the shutdown" or Obama "could give a fuck about the National debt." Both comments suggest clairvoyance.
You only imagine and project what you think about how Obama percieves these issues.
I don't know any liberals that are similar.
Talk radio is about 90% conservative and full of shit. I listen every once in a while out of curiosity. Its really bad, biased, always misleading and misinforming.
We know just based on policy that the Republican party has moved hard right ie taxes, ACA etc....
I actually think much of the country is simply in the middle but the middle is now called the left.
So the outspoken Right gets characterized as crazy and I would venture 40-50% of people see it that way. Social issues are a big part of it. Also the hypocrisy on issues is a problem for the conservatives too because it is applied only when they want so it is phony.
Quote:
Sure I can tell you Obama hasn't tried to compromise. He hates working with Congress and he usually doesn't.
Obama may not be a "Making Sausage With Congress Guy", but that is his way with both parties. That has nothing to do with the Democratic Party as a whole as far as compromise goes.
So I have this straight. when you talk about specific Republicans, you're really talking about the whole party. When you're talking about specific Democrats, you're only talking about those individuals. Do I have that correct?
So what the hell are some of you talking about? You should be asking yourselves how those words are coming out of your mouths knowing that this was the Republican position from day one.
Quote:
In comment 12534464 GMenLTS said:
Quote:
If the GOP would embrace a moderate take on social issues, they'd win the POTUS general going away.
Not even remotely close to being true
Why?
Yeah, why?
I can't speak for everyone of my political leaning, but I can easily see myself supporting and voting for a Republican candidate who is more moderate on social issues. Such a person would probably impress me more than the average Dem politician, to be honest -- it would indicate that though they may have their own positions on various issues divined from their religion or upbringing, they don't feel as though they can inflict such positions on others without a logical justification.
So what the hell are some of you talking about? You should be asking yourselves how those words are coming out of your mouths knowing that this was the Republican position from day one.
Can you give examples of Obama compromising?
Can you tell me where a compromise was offered and can you tell me where there was movement form the left (including the President)? Let's use examples and then maybe we can focus our discussion a little bit.
The problem is you can't or refuse to accept the fact that half the country is too "radically right"...it's not a small minority. You just don't like their views.
Quote:
In comment 12534558 Eric from BBI said:
Quote:
Sure I can tell you Obama hasn't tried to compromise. He hates working with Congress and he usually doesn't.
Obama may not be a "Making Sausage With Congress Guy", but that is his way with both parties. That has nothing to do with the Democratic Party as a whole as far as compromise goes.
So I have this straight. when you talk about specific Republicans, you're really talking about the whole party. When you're talking about specific Democrats, you're only talking about those individuals. Do I have that correct?
I'm talking about both parties in General, but people keep sliding Obama and Clinton into this.
There are hardcore people on both sides, but the Dem's usually are the ones giving in for the sake of compromise....on most, not all issues.
Quote:
In comment 12534516 Jint 77 said:
Quote:
In comment 12534500 Eric from BBI said:
Quote:
The same thing can be said of President Obama and Harry Reid.
Not even close.....
Not the very same thing can be said about President Obama and Harry Reid.
The Dem's aren't perfect by any means, but there are many of them who are willing to compromise on most Issues.
Also, they aren't really into brinkmanship politics.
WTF? Really? Obama loves to spike the ball anytime he can.
We are not talking about spiking the ball. Everyone spike the ball, hence McCarthy's comments on Hannity. We are talking about compromising through the legislative process.
You can't sit here & tell me that Obama hasn't tried to compromise with most of the legislation during his 2 terms.
Of course I can because he hasn't.
Probably not, but I don't the abortion position as something so a la carte as that. His position on abortion would just be representative of a different-from-average way of thinking for a conservative.
There are hardcore people on both sides, but the Dem's usually are the ones giving in for the sake of compromise....on most, not all issues.
Such as?
Quote:
Because they would hemorrhage support from their existing voters while likely only picking up a trickle of new supporters to replace them. You're suggesting that there is a vast pool of potential voters who simply won't vote Republican because of what...abortion? Do you really think there are many Democrat voters who'd flip if the GOP would only embrace abortion?
Probably not, but I don't the abortion position as something so a la carte as that. His position on abortion would just be representative of a different-from-average way of thinking for a conservative.
Quote:
the classic "he told the truth" screw up.
Something Hilary will never have happen.
I dont understand this? Is your point that HRC would never tell the truth, or that she would not make a mistake like McCarthy and let the cat out of the bag on the political charade that has been the 8th congressional investigation of Benghazi?
So the question is: Does he still owe the Clintons for 2012? Or is the tension/dislike there too great?
If they abandoned the social issues, I think they'd have broader appeal. I think they worry about the social conservatives staying home, however.
They wouldn't have broader appeal, they'd just appeal to different people. They'd lose their base. If you want fiscal conservatives/social liberals, you should be looking at Libertarians, not Republicans
So the question is: Does he still owe the Clintons for 2012? Or is the tension/dislike there too great?
Yes, it is extreme right. From Guns to Abortion, Climate Change, Environmental issues, Religion in schools, to constant misinformation from a party that said from day one there would be no compromise and they were out to kill everything that Obama put forward. That was their stated goal. That isn't extreme?
One review of my facebook feed shows me plenty of extreme right wing views. Bat shit crazy. I never see bat shit crazy left views. Can you even tell me what they would be?
Giving rich people's money to the poor? I don't see anyone saying that. what is the lefts positions that are radical?
Quote:
You can't be this full of it. A group that will shut down the government because of this Planned Parenthood bullshit is serious in compromising. Obama, for sure, has his faults in governance but it's fly speck compared to this stuff. The last shutdown cost the US over $2 billion and resulted in a credit downgrade. The rest of the world is building high speed rail, infrastructure, internet, etc and they want to shut down the government over a bullshit video and you find equivalence with Obama. That's insane.
The other side could have moved on PP and whatever it was in the actual sequester. The shutdown wasn't because those things existed but a failure of both sides to move.
The real problem is the way the spending bills are done. There is not supposed to be one huge spending bill. They do not follow regular order and rely on continuing resolutions.
Absolutely. It already started in 2012. What the hell is the point of the GOP if it is nothing more than Dem Lite? If I wanted to vote for a Democrat, I'd vote for a fucking Democrat, not a Dem-in-elephant-clothing. Now, my perspective is a bit different in that I'm not a socon, rather a libertarian (or, at least, libertarian-leaning), but I'm through with the boogeyman scenarios. I'd vote for a few specific Republicans who actually do more than just flap their gums about individual liberty, but the rest of them? Piss on em all.....I'm through with lesser-of-two-evils craps. Both party establishments are rent-seeking scum to their core.
Harry Reid is about consolidating and expanding state power. Weepy Boehner is about consolidating and expanding state power. Pelosi is about consolidating and expanding state power. Hillary, Mitch McConnell, Jeb Bush, Joe Biden, Marco Rubio....the differences between them all are largely window dressing. Fuck em all.
I don't know any liberals that are similar.
Really? What about the War on Women. They want to be in your bedroom, they want control of your uterus.
Yes, it is extreme right. From Guns to Abortion, Climate Change, Environmental issues, Religion in schools, to constant misinformation from a party that said from day one there would be no compromise and they were out to kill everything that Obama put forward. That was their stated goal. That isn't extreme?
One review of my facebook feed shows me plenty of extreme right wing views. Bat shit crazy. I never see bat shit crazy left views. Can you even tell me what they would be?
Giving rich people's money to the poor? I don't see anyone saying that. what is the lefts positions that are radical?
I think you might have a fb issue more than anything else.
So the question is: Does he still owe the Clintons for 2012? Or is the tension/dislike there too great?
I think that is why she is now trying to distance herself more from him because it is a lost cause. Biden is running at this point and the WH will be firmly behind him. Everyone knows this so why even pretend anymore. Other than saying I'm a woman so that makes me an outsider too, what big difference was Hillary going to offer from a Biden candidacy?
A mite rich coming from Naked Shorts Boy.
How self immolating would that be?
Kind of like that gold standard of a trade deal that was just negotiated.
Debating this stuff with you becomes pointless if you simply throw out wild statements like that.
Quote:
Because they would hemorrhage support from their existing voters while likely only picking up a trickle of new supporters to replace them. You're suggesting that there is a vast pool of potential voters who simply won't vote Republican because of what...abortion? Do you really think there are many Democrat voters who'd flip if the GOP would only embrace abortion?
If they abandoned the social issues, I think they'd have broader appeal. I think they worry about the social conservatives staying home, however.
No they wouldn't. Romney, McCain and Dole proved that.
Quote:
In comment 12534385 Deej said:
Quote:
the classic "he told the truth" screw up.
Something Hilary will never have happen.
I dont understand this? Is your point that HRC would never tell the truth, or that she would not make a mistake like McCarthy and let the cat out of the bag on the political charade that has been the 8th congressional investigation of Benghazi?
She'll never be accused of being truthful.
And control of their Uterus is not a extreme left viewpoint. It is the current law.
Quote:
In comment 12534545 Samiam said:
Quote:
You can't be this full of it. A group that will shut down the government because of this Planned Parenthood bullshit is serious in compromising. Obama, for sure, has his faults in governance but it's fly speck compared to this stuff. The last shutdown cost the US over $2 billion and resulted in a credit downgrade. The rest of the world is building high speed rail, infrastructure, internet, etc and they want to shut down the government over a bullshit video and you find equivalence with Obama. That's insane.
Sam, you only see it from one side. It takes two to shutdown the government. I could argue, "Really, the President wants to shut down the government because of PP?" See how that works?
Obama loves the shutdown threats. For one, he could give a fuck about the national debt. Secondly, it makes the Republicans look bad.
Both sides are doing it, but you can't see it because of your party loyalty.
Honestly, Eric, you probably don't know what you are talking about when you say "Obama loves the shutdown" or Obama "could give a fuck about the National debt." Both comments suggest clairvoyance.
You only imagine and project what you think about how Obama percieves these issues.
He is very transparent. Although not in the way he promised to be. Do you think he cares about the National Debt? He pretended to when he was a Senator and said that Bush was 'unpatriotic' for have the debt at half of what it is now.
And it is also believed by many to be a big cause of the volatility in foreign markets which then directly impacts and causes high volatility in ours...
Quote:
In comment 12534579 Jint 77 said:
Quote:
In comment 12534558 Eric from BBI said:
Quote:
Sure I can tell you Obama hasn't tried to compromise. He hates working with Congress and he usually doesn't.
Obama may not be a "Making Sausage With Congress Guy", but that is his way with both parties. That has nothing to do with the Democratic Party as a whole as far as compromise goes.
So I have this straight. when you talk about specific Republicans, you're really talking about the whole party. When you're talking about specific Democrats, you're only talking about those individuals. Do I have that correct?
I'm talking about both parties in General, but people keep sliding Obama and Clinton into this.
There are hardcore people on both sides, but the Dem's usually are the ones giving in for the sake of compromise....on most, not all issues.
Please give examples.
I don't know any liberals that are similar.
I do. Where I live they're actually quite common, and super annoying.
An asshole as he may be, Bill Maher addresses and details their existence pretty regularly and accurately. Sure, usually it's in the defensive, retaliatory context of, "These stupid liberals all freaked out about something I said about Muslims!" But filter a bit of the vitriol out and his points stand -- there are quite a few liberals whose positions seem to be more of a knee-jerk anti status quo reflex than anything else.
And control of their Uterus is not a extreme left viewpoint. It is the current law.
Eric, I should not have to point this out to you. This is just some.
Now, you tell me what have the Republicans done as far as governing?
Keeping Robert Gates as secretary of defense
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/20/world/americas/20iht-repubs.1.19516831.html?_r=0
Obama meets with pro-choice and pro-life advocates
http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB124165510131594083
Obama listens to Republicans on health care
http://articles.baltimoresun.com/2010-01-29/news/bal-md.bipartisan29jan29_1_republican-leaders-democrats-rothenberg-political-report
Obama compromises on 2010 budget deal
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/06/AR2010120605923.html
Obama compromises on "fiscal cliff"
http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21569024-troubling-similarities-between-fiscal-mismanagement-washington-and-mess
R- "We're $18T in debt. We've got to stop printing and spending so much money"
D- "ok, let's compromise at an extra $250B"
How self immolating would that be?
It's not self-immolating if you feel the party no longer represents you at all, which is happening more and more every day.
The party is disjointed, and hypocritical. It is why Kasich is at the bottom and he is the best candidate you have and Trump and Carson are at the top.
So the question is: Does he still owe the Clintons for 2012? Or is the tension/dislike there too great?
Supposedly there was a deal that Bill Clinton supported Obama in 2012 (he made a speech at the convention) and Obama was supposed to support Hillary in 2016. But there is no love lost between the Obama's and the Clintons. Did you read 'Blood Fued'? very interesting book.
What I've learned over the years is people vote for Party regardless of who the Party nominates. They say they will keep an open mind, but they really don't.
Are there really any independents? Or is that a self-described designation that makes one feel above messy Party politics?
I think about 10% of the electorate are true independents. I think there are another 10% that vote predominantly for 1 party but, based on specific issues, could switch their vote (i.e. Democrats who voted for Nixon in '72 based on economics or Republicans in '04 who voted for Kerry based on opposition to Iraq). The other 80% are about as locked in as you can get.
Quote:
that conservatives are going to just say fuck it, stay home, and let a dem win? Or fuck it, lets vote for this third party guy who has no chance, split our own party, and again let a dem win easily?
How self immolating would that be?
It's not self-immolating if you feel the party no longer represents you at all, which is happening more and more every day.
Got some bad news for you, Greg
They never did represent you.
Quote:
And are we really suggesting that conservatives are gonna spite their nose and stay home to let a democrat win because the GOP is moderate?
Absolutely. It already started in 2012. What the hell is the point of the GOP if it is nothing more than Dem Lite? If I wanted to vote for a Democrat, I'd vote for a fucking Democrat, not a Dem-in-elephant-clothing. Now, my perspective is a bit different in that I'm not a socon, rather a libertarian (or, at least, libertarian-leaning), but I'm through with the boogeyman scenarios. I'd vote for a few specific Republicans who actually do more than just flap their gums about individual liberty, but the rest of them? Piss on em all.....I'm through with lesser-of-two-evils craps. Both party establishments are rent-seeking scum to their core.
Harry Reid is about consolidating and expanding state power. Weepy Boehner is about consolidating and expanding state power. Pelosi is about consolidating and expanding state power. Hillary, Mitch McConnell, Jeb Bush, Joe Biden, Marco Rubio....the differences between them all are largely window dressing. Fuck em all.
Winner. Quote of the day
Quote:
And are we really suggesting that conservatives are gonna spite their nose and stay home to let a democrat win because the GOP is moderate?
Absolutely. It already started in 2012. What the hell is the point of the GOP if it is nothing more than Dem Lite? If I wanted to vote for a Democrat, I'd vote for a fucking Democrat, not a Dem-in-elephant-clothing. Now, my perspective is a bit different in that I'm not a socon, rather a libertarian (or, at least, libertarian-leaning), but I'm through with the boogeyman scenarios. I'd vote for a few specific Republicans who actually do more than just flap their gums about individual liberty, but the rest of them? Piss on em all.....I'm through with lesser-of-two-evils craps. Both party establishments are rent-seeking scum to their core.
Harry Reid is about consolidating and expanding state power. Weepy Boehner is about consolidating and expanding state power. Pelosi is about consolidating and expanding state power. Hillary, Mitch McConnell, Jeb Bush, Joe Biden, Marco Rubio....the differences between them all are largely window dressing. Fuck em all.
Great post.
The party is disjointed, and hypocritical. It is why Kasich is at the bottom and he is the best candidate you have and Trump and Carson are at the top.
I call that being terribly stubborn in sticking to one's outlined principals, but I wouldn't call it "extreme." How is pledging not to raise taxes extreme? (I personally think pledges like that are just for show and dumb).
"The Tea Party" is an umbrella handle...there are all kinds of people who are interested in all kinds of things in it...but the common themes are smaller government, fiscal responsibility, and a renewed adherence to the U.S. Constitution. Anti-illegal immigration has seeped into it now, but there are a lot of blue collar Democrats who are anti-illegal immigration too.
How self immolating would that be?
Well voting for RINOs hasn't done the country any good. Bush spent almost as much as OBama.
It's fun listening to liberal leaning people talk about conservatives. You just don't get it. The GOP has burned its bridges with a lot of its base by not doing what they were elected to do. People are angry and frustrated. That is why Trump and Carson and Fiorina are doing so well. The establishment GOP is dead. They were just democrats lite anyway.
Is a foolish statement and one you have now doubled down on. Fortunately for most people the election is a binary choice. Red or Blue. Independents may be a majority by now. Many are one issue voters or hold their nose voters...etc...
Doesn't mean anything of their support for one party. Even on this thread people like myself say they could consider a conservative except for their stance on social issues.
He eventually COMPROMISED (which you say he never did) to ensure that some stimulus went through,,,
Them's the breaks.
You need to get involved and support a libertarian party if you'd like to actually be represented.
As it stands, the GOP was never a strictly libertarian party.
Quote:
In comment 12534506 Greg from LI said:
Quote:
Because they would hemorrhage support from their existing voters while likely only picking up a trickle of new supporters to replace them. You're suggesting that there is a vast pool of potential voters who simply won't vote Republican because of what...abortion? Do you really think there are many Democrat voters who'd flip if the GOP would only embrace abortion?
If they abandoned the social issues, I think they'd have broader appeal. I think they worry about the social conservatives staying home, however.
No they wouldn't. Romney, McCain and Dole proved that.
Romney supported outlawing all abortions. McCain was in favor of prosecuting doctors who had performed abortions. They both are against gay marriage. To most of America these are very conservative stances.
Obama has lost more congressional seats than any other President. Because of his disastrous policies. Why Dem voters don't also hold him accountable, I have no idea.
It is leading in the government and will likely be the elected. Maybe voting for Trump or Carson or Fiorina is some kind of picket sign you all are putting up but when one of them is not the candidate will you admit that the establishment is alive and well?
Fiscal cliff and budget? Slowing the rate of growth is not the same thing as an actual cut.
He eventually COMPROMISED (which you say he never did) to ensure that some stimulus went through,,,
and this:
Quote:
that conservatives are going to just say fuck it, stay home, and let a dem win? Or fuck it, lets vote for this third party guy who has no chance, split our own party, and again let a dem win easily?
How self immolating would that be?
Well voting for RINOs hasn't done the country any good. Bush spent almost as much as OBama.
It's fun listening to liberal leaning people talk about conservatives. You just don't get it. The GOP has burned its bridges with a lot of its base by not doing what they were elected to do. People are angry and frustrated. That is why Trump and Carson and Fiorina are doing so well. The establishment GOP is dead. They were just democrats lite anyway.
You say and think I lean liberal but my comments never support that.
It would be the same for me trying to tell you what liberals want.
Quote:
in a country as ..... free as our
and this:
Quote:
the government absolutely has to oversee A LOT.
Government oversight =/= taking away freedom
In some cases? Sure.
Not all. Not by a long shot.
Quote:
In comment 12534625 GMenLTS said:
Quote:
that conservatives are going to just say fuck it, stay home, and let a dem win? Or fuck it, lets vote for this third party guy who has no chance, split our own party, and again let a dem win easily?
How self immolating would that be?
It's not self-immolating if you feel the party no longer represents you at all, which is happening more and more every day.
Got some bad news for you, Greg
They never did represent you.
Yes, we know that. But what is funny is that people are still questioning why people who have voted republican are now rebelling.
Do you think the Democrats represent you? I used to think they represented the working man, but not anymore.
Quote:
In comment 12534625 GMenLTS said:
Quote:
that conservatives are going to just say fuck it, stay home, and let a dem win? Or fuck it, lets vote for this third party guy who has no chance, split our own party, and again let a dem win easily?
How self immolating would that be?
Well voting for RINOs hasn't done the country any good. Bush spent almost as much as OBama.
It's fun listening to liberal leaning people talk about conservatives. You just don't get it. The GOP has burned its bridges with a lot of its base by not doing what they were elected to do. People are angry and frustrated. That is why Trump and Carson and Fiorina are doing so well. The establishment GOP is dead. They were just democrats lite anyway.
You say and think I lean liberal but my comments never support that.
Them's the breaks.
You need to get involved and support a libertarian party if you'd like to actually be represented.
As it stands, the GOP was never a strictly libertarian party.
They should oversee a lot. But it has to be within what is the purview of the federal government. Most of what they do now is not. That's not libertarian, that is how the government was set up.
Regarding the left, I just don't see it and my FB friends or anywhere else don't compare to the vitriol and far right views. And factually incorrect views. Anything and everything that comes out they grasp on too. You can send them the link to Snopes where it showed they were 100% wrong and they ignore it.
And the funny part is that it has been that way from the very beginning. Remember Obama was going to have camps and all this other crazy shit....It was from the beginning and it never stopped.
And it's nothing wrong with catering to those groups, but at the expense of alienating all other groups at the same time is finally biting them in the ass.....And all they can do is blame Obama.
You have to admit at this point in time, they have no capability to govern.
Quote:
In comment 12534644 Greg from LI said:
Quote:
In comment 12534625 GMenLTS said:
Quote:
that conservatives are going to just say fuck it, stay home, and let a dem win? Or fuck it, lets vote for this third party guy who has no chance, split our own party, and again let a dem win easily?
How self immolating would that be?
It's not self-immolating if you feel the party no longer represents you at all, which is happening more and more every day.
Got some bad news for you, Greg
They never did represent you.
Yes, we know that. But what is funny is that people are still questioning why people who have voted republican are now rebelling.
Do you think the Democrats represent you? I used to think they represented the working man, but not anymore.
No, democrats don't represent me at all. Nor do republicans.
Hence why I'm not affiliated.
I don't question why conservatives are disappointed with their party fwiw.
It is leading in the government and will likely be the elected. Maybe voting for Trump or Carson or Fiorina is some kind of picket sign you all are putting up but when one of them is not the candidate will you admit that the establishment is alive and well?
Sorry if I don't take your opinion as any value. If A Bush is nominated he will not win and then what with the establishment do? They are just a bunch of sad old men trying to stay in power while sucking up all the money from voters and donors. They remind me of Eldrich Palmer in the Strain.
You are basically saying this:
All of the problems in Washington are due to Republicans. The President and the Democrats in Congress have nothing or very little to do with the problems.
This despite the fact that the Democrats controlled both Houses for two years, only lost the Senate recently, and the Executive Branch has never been stronger, the Legislative Branch more impotent, and a Judicial Branch willing to legislate on behalf of the White House.
Wow.
Fiscal cliff and budget? Slowing the rate of growth is not the same thing as an actual cut.
Didn't Obama suggest the sequester as a threat and the Republicans took him up on it? LOL, the one time they got one over on him.
Quote:
In comment 12534663 buford said:
Quote:
In comment 12534625 GMenLTS said:
Quote:
that conservatives are going to just say fuck it, stay home, and let a dem win? Or fuck it, lets vote for this third party guy who has no chance, split our own party, and again let a dem win easily?
How self immolating would that be?
Well voting for RINOs hasn't done the country any good. Bush spent almost as much as OBama.
It's fun listening to liberal leaning people talk about conservatives. You just don't get it. The GOP has burned its bridges with a lot of its base by not doing what they were elected to do. People are angry and frustrated. That is why Trump and Carson and Fiorina are doing so well. The establishment GOP is dead. They were just democrats lite anyway.
You say and think I lean liberal but my comments never support that.
I agree completely. I have to say that, more than anyone else, I have a hard time in determining which side LTS is. SO I just assume...vapid?
I appreciate that. I'm on side America. It feels quite lonely sometimes.
I don't love Obama but think he did a good job overall with what he had to work with. I don't like Hillary. I always like Biden though. Not sure about Sanders but he might be right when everything is considered.
I am very pro gay rights, pro abortion rights, pro-gun, tend to be economically conservative although I cant stand the handouts to the rich when people focus on much smaller handouts to the poor. I would have made a fine fiscal conservative 20 years ago.
And it's nothing wrong with catering to those groups, but at the expense of alienating all other groups at the same time is finally biting them in the ass.....And all they can do is blame Obama.
You have to admit at this point in time, they have no capability to govern.
I would argue that Republican state governors have been taking Democrat state governors to the wood shed in recent years.
I am not saying it is all the Republicans fault but much of it is. And to be on the side of Womens rights, Gay rights, People's rights over corporations rights is not such a radical concept.
Quote:
That the Republican Party adopted the Southern Strategy of the last 40 years and didn't even try to cater to Black, Latino, or Asian groups like they did with the "Far Right Evangelists" and Nationalist groups and every other majority white group out there.....
And it's nothing wrong with catering to those groups, but at the expense of alienating all other groups at the same time is finally biting them in the ass.....And all they can do is blame Obama.
You have to admit at this point in time, they have no capability to govern.
I would argue that Republican state governors have been taking Democrat state governors to the wood shed in recent years.
How is Kansas doing nowadays?
There is a simple concept which I heard some time ago and makes sense and that is that the Republicans really don't like government and really aren't very good at it either for the same reason.
Fiscal cliff and budget? Slowing the rate of growth is not the same thing as an actual cut.
Look, I tried to give you some examples on very short notice, apparently it's your party that is in dismay right now and you keep using Obama as a scapegoat for their inability to govern.
This is nothing new, as they have blamed Obama for pretty much everything that goes wrong.
Just look at the results in the past 7 years. After the Republicans took took control of the house in 2010, it's been a quagmire all over again & again.
People should use Obamacare to cure that Obama Derangement Syndrome.
And it's nothing wrong with catering to those groups, but at the expense of alienating all other groups at the same time is finally biting them in the ass.....And all they can do is blame Obama.
You have to admit at this point in time, they have no capability to govern.
Let's see, the dems 'cater' to blacs and latinos? How is that working out for the blacks and latinos? Unemployment for those groups is sky high, they've lost economic progress that they gained over the past 20 years, blacks did better under Reagan than Obama, and he does deserve blame for that. The cities they live in are a mess, being run by democrats for decades. And look at the current candidates. Dems are all old white people. The Republicans have a black man, two Hispanics and an Asian.
Also, there are plenty of black evangelists. I'm not sure what 'Nationalists' or 'White Majority' groups you think the Republicans have catered to. The Dems have pretty much alienated whites, men in particular and now even women. And it remains to be seen if the black vote comes out if Obama is not on the ticket.
Quote:
In comment 12534500 Eric from BBI said:
Quote:
The same thing can be said of President Obama and Harry Reid.
.
the difference is obama/reid do not want govt to fail or default on its obligations.
The US will not default. That is a huge red herring. When there is a shut down, both sides are involved, not just one
Nice talking point but no cigar. Your threating to shutdown the government if Planned Parenthood isn't defunded, where is the compromise in that? The only reason this stunt is being pulled is because it can't pass as a stand alone.
So opponents should give in to childish tantrums when polls show a majority of Americans don't want funding eliminated:
"At a time when Republicans have been calling for cutting off federal funding to Planned Parenthood and threatening to shut down the government to do so, the new poll found that a strong majority of Americans 61% oppose eliminating funding, while 35% support a funding cut off."
Even people in favor of defunding don't want the gov't shut down because of this issue. Yes, the American public is more responsible than Republican Members of the House:
"But even among people who want to cut off funding to Planned Parenthood, only 27% favored forcing a government shutdown to accomplish the goal."
If this happens, this is going to be very difficult for the American public to understand, said GOP pollster Bill McInturff, who helped conduct the survey"
Link - ( New Window )
I'm merely responding to the claim that the Republicans are the roadblock and the Democrats aren't.
Both sides are the problem.
The few examples you gave me are not compelling. Republicans gave Obama TPP, but they wanted it. That doesn't mean they are willing compromisers either, but they are clearly willing to vote with the President if it serves their interests.
I don't have much to add here. You're last sentence says it all.
Quote:
That the Republican Party adopted the Southern Strategy of the last 40 years and didn't even try to cater to Black, Latino, or Asian groups like they did with the "Far Right Evangelists" and Nationalist groups and every other majority white group out there.....
And it's nothing wrong with catering to those groups, but at the expense of alienating all other groups at the same time is finally biting them in the ass.....And all they can do is blame Obama.
You have to admit at this point in time, they have no capability to govern.
Let's see, the dems 'cater' to blacs and latinos? How is that working out for the blacks and latinos?
Terribly, thus highlighting the ridiculousness of the democratic party as well. They offer these blocs bread crumbs then they go jerk themselves off.
Quote:
That the Republican Party adopted the Southern Strategy of the last 40 years and didn't even try to cater to Black, Latino, or Asian groups like they did with the "Far Right Evangelists" and Nationalist groups and every other majority white group out there.....
And it's nothing wrong with catering to those groups, but at the expense of alienating all other groups at the same time is finally biting them in the ass.....And all they can do is blame Obama.
You have to admit at this point in time, they have no capability to govern.
Let's see, the dems 'cater' to blacs and latinos? How is that working out for the blacks and latinos? Unemployment for those groups is sky high, they've lost economic progress that they gained over the past 20 years, blacks did better under Reagan than Obama, and he does deserve blame for that. The cities they live in are a mess, being run by democrats for decades. And look at the current candidates. Dems are all old white people. The Republicans have a black man, two Hispanics and an Asian.
Also, there are plenty of black evangelists. I'm not sure what 'Nationalists' or 'White Majority' groups you think the Republicans have catered to. The Dems have pretty much alienated whites, men in particular and now even women. And it remains to be seen if the black vote comes out if Obama is not on the ticket.
Ask Steve Scalise about Nationalists. Do you really think he is the only one? Why is he still in leadership? Hell, he just might run fors peaker. And do not act like you never heard of the Southern Strategy before.
Black & Latinos are actually doing better than they were 30 years ago and definitely better than in 2007-2008. Maybe you can ask one for yourself as I have heard that lame argument before.
You talk as if there was some golden age for Blacks & latinos of Yesteryear....Gimme a break.
99% of the wealth is owned by what 1% of the people? There is a huge disparity in the country, middle class is deteriorating. Education is stupid expensive. One in 5 kids is born in poverty
What is the Republican plan for this?
Quote:
In comment 12534696 Jint 77 said:
Quote:
That the Republican Party adopted the Southern Strategy of the last 40 years and didn't even try to cater to Black, Latino, or Asian groups like they did with the "Far Right Evangelists" and Nationalist groups and every other majority white group out there.....
And it's nothing wrong with catering to those groups, but at the expense of alienating all other groups at the same time is finally biting them in the ass.....And all they can do is blame Obama.
You have to admit at this point in time, they have no capability to govern.
Let's see, the dems 'cater' to blacs and latinos? How is that working out for the blacks and latinos?
Terribly, thus highlighting the ridiculousness of the democratic party as well. They offer these blocs bread crumbs then they go jerk themselves off.
You know, sometimes you have to take the breadcrumbs from one party if the other party is handing out dog shit.
Lee Atwater explaining a bit of Southern Strategy....
https://youtu.be/AT2fsv7xt4E
Link - ( New Window )
Lol, you get from my posts that I have faith in these people and this system?
Hell, my faith in the public at large is waning tremendously lately.
I feel like one of the few rational people out there in a sea full of mouthbreathers.
I have read that a while ago, But the Southern Strategy does in fact exist & still being used by Republicans. It may have been used by Dem's as well before the 60's, But it exist is my point and still in play.
So for many Blacks & Latinos, it about the lesser of the 2 evils.
Gotta Choose One.
Let's Make It The Less Racist One.
The last line of the article reads
"The development of the Southern GOP was a slow-moving, gradual process that lasted over a century, and is just being completed today."
So it is not a myth. Thanks.
But if this opens the door for Chaffetz, then we are all the big losers in this. After the way he handled the Planned Parenthood hearing, it is clear that he is incompetent and either a scumbag or a lunatic for trying to make Planned Parenthood feel guilty for his parents cancer-caused deaths.
Melts - What I meant was that you have faith that the instutions aren't themselves inherently corrupting. You believe that there can be some kind of "good government"
Melts - What I meant was that you have faith that the instutions aren't themselves inherently corrupting. You believe that there can be some kind of "good government"
I wasn't retreating.
I was merely thanking you for the link. It more or less proved My point.
It contradicts My point that it exist? Because that was My point, is that it does exist an being used today.
Are you saying it doesn't exist?
In case you didn't want to hear the audio of Lee Atwater, here is what he said.
And subconsciously maybe that is part of it. I'm not saying that. But I'm saying that if it is getting that abstract, and that coded, that we are doing away with the racial problem one way or the other. You follow me because obviously sitting around saying, We want to cut this, is much more abstract than even the busing thing, and a hell of a lot more abstract than Nigger, nigger.
Do these statements sound familiar?
Do you think Black & Latinos can't this connection?
He was rumored to be having an affair with a colleague. That would explain his abrupt decision to back out.
Melts - What I meant was that you have faith that the instutions aren't themselves inherently corrupting. You believe that there can be some kind of "good government"
Got it. Well I do believe there *can* be good government but the nature of our democracy right now? Yea the system is thoroughly corruptible for even the most well intentioned people.
I have some ideas for how to fix that but alas, I gotta focus on my own responsibilities first.
Maybe one day..
Quote:
In comment 12534696 Jint 77 said:
Quote:
That the Republican Party adopted the Southern Strategy of the last 40 years and didn't even try to cater to Black, Latino, or Asian groups like they did with the "Far Right Evangelists" and Nationalist groups and every other majority white group out there.....
And it's nothing wrong with catering to those groups, but at the expense of alienating all other groups at the same time is finally biting them in the ass.....And all they can do is blame Obama.
You have to admit at this point in time, they have no capability to govern.
I would argue that Republican state governors have been taking Democrat state governors to the wood shed in recent years.
How is Kansas doing nowadays?
Brownback was cited as a real conservative. A great candidate for president from the our party's nominee is not conservative enough crowd. Now, I'm sure they don't want anyone to look.
If that had been a conservative professor?
Quote:
In comment 12534708 Eric from BBI said:
Quote:
In comment 12534696 Jint 77 said:
Quote:
That the Republican Party adopted the Southern Strategy of the last 40 years and didn't even try to cater to Black, Latino, or Asian groups like they did with the "Far Right Evangelists" and Nationalist groups and every other majority white group out there.....
And it's nothing wrong with catering to those groups, but at the expense of alienating all other groups at the same time is finally biting them in the ass.....And all they can do is blame Obama.
You have to admit at this point in time, they have no capability to govern.
I would argue that Republican state governors have been taking Democrat state governors to the wood shed in recent years.
How is Kansas doing nowadays?
Brownback was cited as a real conservative. A great candidate for president from the our party's nominee is not conservative enough crowd. Now, I'm sure they don't want anyone to look.
As someone who leans Left, I always thought that John Huntsman or maybe Kasich would be OK as a consolation if a D lost, but they just do not have a chance in hell, because they are deemed too moderate.
But I wouldn't poop my pants if they were elected.
If that had been a conservative professor?
Well, she should be fired or disciplined if the said that, but he is a Loon because he says stupid shit everyday.
"Gayness must be a choice, because prisoners who are raped come out gay"
"Obamacare is worse than slavery. We live in a Gestapo age."
"The Big Bang is a fairy tale and the notion of evolution was encouraged by the devil."
"Theres no war on women; there may be a war on womens insides."
"Theres no war on women; there may be a war on womens insides."
"Planned Parenthood is a plot to kill black babies."
Now, he has a right to say these things & some Blacks will call him a Coon for these very statements.
But he is definitely a Loon.
Until that changes, which it probably won't any time soon, Republicans will have a massive advantage at the state and local level. There is good news and bad news in that--the bad news coming on social issues, and on unwillingness to spend on infrastructure projects and maintenance. Nevertheless, it is what it is, and I don;t see it changing any time soon.
And yes, in some state dominated by Republicans, governing has gotten really crazy. Kansas/Brownback is the worst example of that.
At the Federal level, some of the same issues exist, but they aren't as egregious or important, imo. At the same time, some of the major social issues play out on a leveraged basis at the Federal level, and that helps keep Democrats in the game, and probably with a significant advantage, in national elections. The other advantage Democrats have at the Federal level, imo, is the strong believe in the Tea Party crowd that compromise, or even governing/government, is a bad idea.
As a consequence, there is a substantial dichotomy between party affiliation at the state and local level and at the Federal level.
This is reflected in the proportion of independents. I don't knwo where the idea comes from that there aren't a lot of independents. In a Gallup survey earlier this year, 43% identified as political independents. Are they all lying? Doubtful.
Link - ( New Window )
That's generally considered to be a poor strategy in the pursuit of elected office, going out of your way to anger the people you want to vote for you.
I'm not saying that just because he's a Black Republican.
You just can't say those things and expect to get any respect from the black community.
MIchael Steele & J. C. Watts are Republicans who I disagree with most of the time, but these are things they probably don't agree with and things they would never say as a matter of opinion or policy.
I'm not saying that just because he's a Black Republican.
You just can't say those things and expect to get any respect from the black community.
MIchael Steele & J. C. Watts are Republicans who I disagree with most of the time, but these are things they probably don't agree with and things they would never say as a matter of opinion or policy.
I forgot to say I respect Michael Steele, J. C. Watts & Tim Scott, and other black R's who I forget at this time who don't say outlandish things to simply to appease others in the party.
If that had been a conservative professor?
Apparently (or arguably? -- I didnt know this) that term has a very different definition within the black community, and the professor in question is black.
Link - ( New Window )
Quote:
In comment 12534506 Greg from LI said:
Quote:
Because they would hemorrhage support from their existing voters while likely only picking up a trickle of new supporters to replace them. You're suggesting that there is a vast pool of potential voters who simply won't vote Republican because of what...abortion? Do you really think there are many Democrat voters who'd flip if the GOP would only embrace abortion?
Probably not, but I don't the abortion position as something so a la carte as that. His position on abortion would just be representative of a different-from-average way of thinking for a conservative.
WHo are you speaking about?
It was a hypothetical "His..." no one specific and I probably should have said their.
There is a war on women?
Many black Republicans have pointed out that nearly 50 years of "Great Society" policies designed to level the playing field seemed to have had the opposite effect (education, crime/drug use, poverty, unemployment, social welfare dependency). Not sure what the answers are, but what's been tried has failed miserably.
Quote:
A liberal professor at the University of Pennsylvania just called Ben Carson a "coon" and she still has her job.
If that had been a conservative professor?
Well, she should be fired or disciplined if the said that, but he is a Loon because he says stupid shit everyday.
"Gayness must be a choice, because prisoners who are raped come out gay"
"Obamacare is worse than slavery. We live in a Gestapo age."
"The Big Bang is a fairy tale and the notion of evolution was encouraged by the devil."
"Theres no war on women; there may be a war on womens insides."
"Theres no war on women; there may be a war on womens insides."
"Planned Parenthood is a plot to kill black babies."
Now, he has a right to say these things & some Blacks will call him a Coon for these very statements.
But he is definitely a Loon.
We know Carson is a smart man, a surgeon trained in the sciences.
He also thinks the Earth is 6,000 years old.
Then we hear quotes such as these, and it just flabbergasts you.............
What false equivalency?
Know your a libertarian but sounds like your down on the Rep. Party. What's your take on Paul?
The inability to see the false equivalency is ultimately what separates us between the left from the right
He would absolutely be my preferred choice among this field, though.
The inability to see the false equivalency is ultimately what separates us between the left from the right
You simply can't/won't admit your own biases. The fact that you label yourself as moderate independent is a joke. At least own up to who and what you are.
Your leading candidates right now are Trump, Carson and Fiorina....
with that simple piece of information, not sure what ground you can stand on.
Uh, yes. There is a difference between Jay-Z dropping the N-bomb and Jeb Bush doing the same. Is this a foreign concept to you?
There is a war on women?
Many black Republicans have pointed out that nearly 50 years of "Great Society" policies designed to level the playing field seemed to have had the opposite effect (education, crime/drug use, poverty, unemployment, social welfare dependency). Not sure what the answers are, but what's been tried has failed miserably.
Eric I think the main thing is unemployment, but when you look at the disinvestment of Capital in the black communities, No Great Society program is gonna help when they are no jobs where there were jobs before.
I hear Conservatives talk about Baltimore, and other black majority cities, but look back to the 50's and 60's when these communities were thriving, but when you go to Baltimore now and see shell of factories from yesteryear, not only was there White Flight to the suburbs, there was capital flight from these same neighborhoods.
When my family used to drive to Baltimore from Landover MD as a kid, my grandmother used always say its a shame what they did to this city shipping all those jobs elsewhere, as we all gaze upon that abandoned Domino sugar factory.
Jon Huntsman Verified account
@JonHuntsman
To be clear. I believe in evolution and trust scientists on global warming. Call me crazy.
But this disinvestment in capital started happening in the 60's before I was born and now everyone is starting to feel it as well, because this outsourcing is just not to other parts of the state or country anymore.
These jobs are going oversees.
R's & D's both played a heavy roles in this.
The Great Society is a scapegoat and has really helped people alot all these years.
If anything, Defense Contractors & Big Corporations are the biggest and laziest welfare queens ever.
.@GOPLeader McCarthy just got "Chaffetzed."Something I know a little something about. #selfpromoter #powerhungry
I haven't made myself out to be unbiased or a moderate independent. Years ago I was a liberal Democrat. Now a Tea Party conservative.
I'm not pretending to be something I'm not.
I'm merely pointing out that you simply refuse to accept the lenses in which you see the world. You see bias on FOX (which obviously exists) but can't see the same bias in other media outlets (did you happen to miss NBC's week of Hilliary promotion?). You see obstinate Republican Congressmen, but don't see the same on the Democratic side.
GMenLTS sounds like an independent because he sees the problems and hypocrisy with both sides.
Right-wing media - both TV and especially radio - but there is dissent. Look at McCarthy. He's been vilified harshly on the right, especially on radio. Trump? There are people on FOX who blow smoke up his ass while others who say he is a running joke.
I can easily envision a situation where no one that's left can get the requisite 218 votes, and Boehner remains until the presidential election or he gets sick of it all, whichever comes first.
But in order to increase investment in these states and cities, you have to put in policies that are pro-business. That's the lesson many mayors and governors have learned. Look at South Carolina. They've done a great job of expanding job growth in that state.
Billions have been spent on Baltimore and it gets worse and worse. Dumping tax payer money on the problem isn't fixing it.
You have to fix the economy.
joke.
The one skeleton he has was that he was a moron and he let that out pretty quick. He's too boring to have any others.
I'm not saying that just because he's a Black Republican.
You just can't say those things and expect to get any respect from the black community.
MIchael Steele & J. C. Watts are Republicans who I disagree with most of the time, but these are things they probably don't agree with and things they would never say as a matter of opinion or policy.
So calling another black person a coon gets you respect from the black community?
I've heard slight rumblings about a Clinton-Huntsman ticket. I dont buy it, since it would seriously piss off most Clinton voters if Huntsman ended up having to actually do his job and take over the presidency. But I've heard it suggested.
But in order to increase investment in these states and cities, you have to put in policies that are pro-business. That's the lesson many mayors and governors have learned. Look at South Carolina. They've done a great job of expanding job growth in that state.
Billions have been spent on Baltimore and it gets worse and worse. Dumping tax payer money on the problem isn't fixing it.
You have to fix the economy.
Yes, More jobs, less welfare programs. I just hope that these Multinational Corporations agree as well. I know most US based businesses will agree.
The problem is that some previously US based are now Multinational. And thats a problem.
Know your a libertarian but sounds like your down on the Rep. Party. What's your take on Paul?
Well you might consider Kasich realistic, but I don't. The guy was just saying that we have to expand Medicare because of the bible. If Carson or Cruz wanted to base policy on the Bible, people would be freaking out over it. Besides the fact that charity, as represented in Christianity, is not about taking someone else's money and giving it away, it's about giving your own money.
Palling around with the loathsome Bloomberg is no way to connect with primary voters, either.
Quote:
is a Coon, but thats just me.
I'm not saying that just because he's a Black Republican.
You just can't say those things and expect to get any respect from the black community.
MIchael Steele & J. C. Watts are Republicans who I disagree with most of the time, but these are things they probably don't agree with and things they would never say as a matter of opinion or policy.
So calling another black person a coon gets you respect from the black community?
99% of Blacks do not go around looking for respect from other Blacks....Respect is generally given initially, like other humans you know.
Thats kinda of a weird question.
Carson had the upmost respect from everyone especially from the AA community. But when you start saying a health care law compares to SLAVERY, what in the fuck are AA supposed to think?
You tell me, Buford. What is a person to think of that statement?
I can easily envision a situation where no one that's left can get the requisite 218 votes, and Boehner remains until the presidential election or he gets sick of it all, whichever comes first.
Also today, Ryan has once again says he's not a candidate.
Quote:
In comment 12534939 Jint 77 said:
Quote:
is a Coon, but thats just me.
I'm not saying that just because he's a Black Republican.
You just can't say those things and expect to get any respect from the black community.
MIchael Steele & J. C. Watts are Republicans who I disagree with most of the time, but these are things they probably don't agree with and things they would never say as a matter of opinion or policy.
So calling another black person a coon gets you respect from the black community?
99% of Blacks do not go around looking for respect from other Blacks....Respect is generally given initially, like other humans you know.
Thats kinda of a weird question.
Carson had the upmost respect from everyone especially from the AA community. But when you start saying a health care law compares to SLAVERY, what in the fuck are AA supposed to think?
You tell me, Buford. What is a person to think of that statement?
What he means is that you lose control of your healthcare. He's making an analogy.
Really, to get your panties in a wad about a statement like that is absurd. I think you are just looking for excuses to not like him because he's a black conservative.
As far as the respect question, you were the one who saidthat you 'can't expect to get any respect from the black community by saying certain things'. I was simply asking if that extended to using a racist term against another African American.
Quote:
is a Coon, but thats just me.
I'm not saying that just because he's a Black Republican.
You just can't say those things and expect to get any respect from the black community.
MIchael Steele & J. C. Watts are Republicans who I disagree with most of the time, but these are things they probably don't agree with and things they would never say as a matter of opinion or policy.
So calling another black person a coon gets you respect from the black community?
Buford.
I ask you, do these things compare at all.
But this disinvestment in capital started happening in the 60's before I was born and now everyone is starting to feel it as well, because this outsourcing is just not to other parts of the state or country anymore.
These jobs are going oversees.
R's & D's both played a heavy roles in this.
The Great Society is a scapegoat and has really helped people alot all these years.
If anything, Defense Contractors & Big Corporations are the biggest and laziest welfare queens ever.
Fact. In 2012 a person making 50k gave $36 a year to people on food stamps and $870 in direct subsidies and grants to corporations. Treasury lost $181 billion dollars in corporate subsidies that year.
Quote:
In comment 12535079 buford said:
Quote:
In comment 12534939 Jint 77 said:
Quote:
is a Coon, but thats just me.
I'm not saying that just because he's a Black Republican.
You just can't say those things and expect to get any respect from the black community.
MIchael Steele & J. C. Watts are Republicans who I disagree with most of the time, but these are things they probably don't agree with and things they would never say as a matter of opinion or policy.
So calling another black person a coon gets you respect from the black community?
99% of Blacks do not go around looking for respect from other Blacks....Respect is generally given initially, like other humans you know.
Thats kinda of a weird question.
Carson had the upmost respect from everyone especially from the AA community. But when you start saying a health care law compares to SLAVERY, what in the fuck are AA supposed to think?
You tell me, Buford. What is a person to think of that statement?
What he means is that you lose control of your healthcare. He's making an analogy.
Really, to get your panties in a wad about a statement like that is absurd. I think you are just looking for excuses to not like him because he's a black conservative.
As far as the respect question, you were the one who saidthat you 'can't expect to get any respect from the black community by saying certain things'. I was simply asking if that extended to using a racist term against another African American.
Have you seen my earlier posts?
I like Michael Steele, JC Watts, Colon Powell, Tim Scott, who are conservatives, but they will not say stupid shit like that, especially running for president......
Dude, Slavery was much more than losing your choice in healthcare providers. Slavery was losing your freedom of doing anything of choice. It meant having a child and never seeing them again after a couple of weeks or days.
It's the worst analogy you can give, quite frankly.
Quote:
Jon Huntsman Verified account
@JonHuntsman
To be clear. I believe in evolution and trust scientists on global warming. Call me crazy.
Ok stand corrected. At the time, probably didn't think offensive. Tired of the party being Science & Math challenged.
I can't think of anything redeeming about him from my point of view.
Buford, you should too, especially after this discussion.
I was pretty miffed at that as well.
I was actually angrier at Trent Lott for saying
"I want to say this about my state: When Strom Thurmond ran for president, we voted for him. We're proud of it. And if the rest of the country had followed our lead we wouldn't have had all these problems over all these years either."
You see Buford, We can all pick stupid thing that different Pol's have said over the years, but we are talking about Ben Carson, so stay on topic.
It's a microcosm of the state of affairs.
At the same time, I'm personally fed up with the one-side narratives. So this allows me to vent and rant.
But the Biden point has relevancy since there is a good chance he will be the Democratic Party nominee.
Quote:
Honestly, can some of you ever resist the tit for tat?
It's a microcosm of the state of affairs.
At the same time, I'm personally fed up with the one-side narratives. So this allows me to vent and rant.
Eric, i'm sorry but Buford keeps coming at me.
Maybe some think it's tit for tat, but I personally feel that people get in a snit over something people say if they don't like that person. And the media blows it out of proportion. Like they did when Carson said he if faced with a gunman, he would try to stop him.
I don't agree with everything Carson says and I don't know if I would vote for him. But I don't think he deserves a lot of the vitriol he gets. And I'm sure it's because he's a black conservative who is not afraid of speaking his mind and doesn't back down. And like Trump, he's not politically correct. I prefer plain speak, even if I don't agree with the person.
Was the slavery comment stupid, yes. But I understood what he meant by that. People make stupid comments all the time. But I don't see Carson being deliberately mean or abusive to anyone. And I don't think he deserves to be called a Coon or any other derogatory name. No one does.
Hasn't the current leader in the Republican primary suggested doing something similar to this?
Quote:
Or when Hilliary said the Republicans were going to use cattle cars to send the illegals back?
Hasn't the current leader in the Republican primary suggested doing something similar to this?
I don't believe the term 'cattle cars' was used by Trump. It was deportation, which is how illegal aliens are supposed to be sent back.
Can we just agree that all people say stupid things and making huge political decisions based on one comment is ridiculous? Nine times out of ten the comments are taken out of context and skewed by what your political view is.
Robert Costa Verified account
@costareports
Rep. Peter King tells me that members are crying in cloakroom, unable to handle the unrest and confusion. "A banana republic," he says.
WTF?
Link - ( New Window )
But I have criticized the Republican Party plenty on this site, including the Republican Congress. It's why I align myself with the "vote the bums out" crowd.
But I have criticized the Republican Party plenty on this site, including the Republican Congress. It's why I align myself with the "vote the bums out" crowd.
Yeah but you attack them from the right and dont criticize the one sided right wing narrative. You said your problem was with one-sided narratives, when it is abundantly clear that your problem is with just one side's "one-sided narratives".
Quote:
and was pretty bitter. Maybe I'm wrong but I think both speak more about what is possible and not so much as insulting. So the party is mad at "establishment" candidate's because they didnt do what was promised, but yet won't look at guys being realistic?
Know your a libertarian but sounds like your down on the Rep. Party. What's your take on Paul?
Well you might consider Kasich realistic, but I don't. The guy was just saying that we have to expand Medicare because of the bible. If Carson or Cruz wanted to base policy on the Bible, people would be freaking out over it. Besides the fact that charity, as represented in Christianity, is not about taking someone else's money and giving it away, it's about giving your own money.
Imo, this was an effort to reach out to the base through their shared Christian values. What's wrong with that? You don't think helping the poor and sick should be a value we share as a nation?
But the attached link is what Kasich said in an interview with Laura Ingraham in 2013. Accepted Medicaid expansion in order to address problems which in the long run will save money as well as help people live health productive lives.
As far as realistic, less overselling and promising things that probably will not happen or at least to extent extreme elements want. So what do you want? Candidates that tell you exactly what you want to hear or candidates that speak about what is possible? Honestly did you really think Obamacare was going to be repealed, all illegals thrown out, no more abortions, tax cuts were going to create millions of jobs?
Link - ( New Window )
It's a false assumption to say that FOX or right-wing media "brainwashes" people to thinking a certain way. Those media are so successful because they attract people who already relate to those views.
For example, as I've stated before, I grew up in a very liberal household where those views were reinforced by the media of the day and my college professors. By the time I graduated from school, I was a product of the system. Not only did I support Democratic candidates, but I involved myself in activities that were considered "more liberal" (i.e., I was heavily involved in homeless activities including participating in marches and working/sleeping in shelters, volunteering for NOW, protesting).
But as I got older, my life experiences changed my views and the way I perceived the world. Whether you agree or not, I began to believe that smaller government was better, that we were spending beyond our means, that a nanny state was doing more harm than good, capitalism is a good thing that creates wealth for all, that power had shifted too far to the Federal government, that there really are good and bad international actors, etc.). I wasn't even really aware of these changes as they were ongoing. But it started to dawn on me that those college professor didn't really understand the way the world really works. They lived in a fairy tale world.
This was pre-conservative media days. There was no brain-washing.
The people on the Right think that people on the Left "don't get it." And people on the Left think people on the Right "don't get it." Nothing we say to each other really is going to change our opinions. We're all just venting or patting ourselves on the back for making what we think are valid points.
You are 100 percent correct there. My wife tells me that all of the time!
Jones Letter - ( New Window )
Link - ( New Window )
Nothing like bad soap opera.
Two, which seems more likely to me, is that after the Hillary/Benghazi screw-up, when they counted heads in the room, they couldn't get to 218. It's just a guess, but makes some sense. There are 247 total Republicans, and certainly at least 40 in the Tea Party or aligned with it. Without any of those votes, he was 11 short even if he held everyone else, which presumes that none of the others were supporting the other candidates.
That he had said that he had the votes isn't really relevant. He may have been trying to generate a self-fulfilling prophesy, and dropped out when he failed.
I guess these fools will never learn about using voters, Cantor got his, was funny driving through his territory looking at the candidate that beat him. GOP can't get out of their own way...They have gotten so entitled, but the voters that have helped them twice claiming the house and senate want to be repaid, or it will be them next.
That's funny. Its the exact same thing I'm seeing on my FB page. I try to ignore most of it ... crazy shit like Obama is not only a Muslim, but he's on the payroll of the Muslim Brotherhood and they have assigned him to destroy America. Stuff that's just so far out you can't even argue it. When I correct some facts or provide a link to Snopes or Fact Check, never get any response. They don't seem to care about facts, its more comfortable to accept stories that fit your beliefs, no matter how wacky
But no, there's no 'war on women'. Republicans love women.
then again, i have x meadlowander on my side
But according to our esteemed founder, there is 'no war on women'. Give me a freaking break.
Planned Parenthood...I'm sure many people want it shut down because they are Pro Life. But much of the opposition has nothing to do with the abortion issue per se but the selling of baby body parts.
You don't see it that way.
But that hardly means it's a war on women. PP is not the only healthcare center that treats women. And no one has talked about cutting funding to centers far less controversial (rather, they have talked about expanding funding to those at the expense of PP). But somehow PP has become some sort of golden symbol to the left, for whatever reason.
Another issue? A federally funded organization like PP should not be making political donations.
Is that good enough for you?
Quote:
to express it. I for one, however, do not believe it makes sound business sense for a business owner to mix their politics with their business. Those who disagree with your politics may take their business elsewhere.
You are 100 percent correct there. My wife tells me that all of the time!
Certainly made the difference for me this time around.
The dems are blocking republican bills that would allow birth control pills to be OTC. Why? Because they want women to be dependent on either government or insurance to get birth control.
As far as abortion goes, more women support a 20 week limit than men do. So isn't it a war on those women to vote against it?
Like blacks and hispanics, women are treated as victims by democrats. They have to drill the victim message constantly, otherwise people might wake up and find that the dems really have not done much for them. And in fact, have spent away their future and made it impossible for them to get ahead.
Hillary is losing votes from women, that should tell you something. Maybe they have figured out what is going on.
Also, the federal $ PP receives does not cover abortion.
& I think like 3% or 4% of what PP does is perform abortions. That's a pretty damn low percentage.
Quote:
Regarding the left, I just don't see it and my FB friends or anywhere else don't compare to the vitriol and far right views. And factually incorrect views. Anything and everything that comes out they grasp on too. You can send them the link to Snopes where it showed they were 100% wrong and they ignore it.
That's funny. Its the exact same thing I'm seeing on my FB page. I try to ignore most of it ... crazy shit like Obama is not only a Muslim, but he's on the payroll of the Muslim Brotherhood and they have assigned him to destroy America. Stuff that's just so far out you can't even argue it. When I correct some facts or provide a link to Snopes or Fact Check, never get any response. They don't seem to care about facts, its more comfortable to accept stories that fit your beliefs, no matter how wacky
Also, the federal $ PP receives does not cover abortion.
& I think like 3% or 4% of what PP does is perform abortions. That's a pretty damn low percentage.
Did you watch the videos?
And if PP is so dedicated to abortion and doesn't make money from the sale of organs, they should just stop doing it. Problem solved.
I seriously doubt you even watched the videos.
Quote:
In comment 12534695 PA Giant Fan said:
Quote:
Regarding the left, I just don't see it and my FB friends or anywhere else don't compare to the vitriol and far right views. And factually incorrect views. Anything and everything that comes out they grasp on too. You can send them the link to Snopes where it showed they were 100% wrong and they ignore it.
That's funny. Its the exact same thing I'm seeing on my FB page. I try to ignore most of it ... crazy shit like Obama is not only a Muslim, but he's on the payroll of the Muslim Brotherhood and they have assigned him to destroy America. Stuff that's just so far out you can't even argue it. When I correct some facts or provide a link to Snopes or Fact Check, never get any response. They don't seem to care about facts, its more comfortable to accept stories that fit your beliefs, no matter how wacky
Unfortunately this is true for too many. The FB stuff I often see from the far right is often bazarre.
Any of the far left/right stuff is bizarre. I've seen plenty of stuff from the left that is flat out wrong and really inflammatory.
& it's amazing that PP-again, an agency that maybe devotes 3 or 4% of their services to abortion-is being called for stripping their public funding. PP is a godsend for many women, especially the poor.
All that bill did is extend the amount of time you could sue. It doesn't guarantee anything. Typical lip service legislation from the Dems. Also a big payout to trial lawyers, the dems favorite donor base.
& it's amazing that PP-again, an agency that maybe devotes 3 or 4% of their services to abortion-is being called for stripping their public funding. PP is a godsend for many women, especially the poor.
Did you watch the videos?
Regardless, I find it sickening.
You don't agree.
But it's not a war on women.
The fact that you think there is a war on women is disconcerting.
Do you think women who vote Republican are stupid? Misguided?
I also never been in Syria, but I think I could talk about it anyways.
I find that from the fringes of both sides.
I have a lot of low intelligence voters on both sides as friends I guess.
Problem is a few are in political office.
Why you see me post rarely if not at all on political threads anymore.
It has become to much of a game.
Quote:
In comment 12535392 River Mike said:
Quote:
In comment 12534695 PA Giant Fan said:
Quote:
Regarding the left, I just don't see it and my FB friends or anywhere else don't compare to the vitriol and far right views. And factually incorrect views. Anything and everything that comes out they grasp on too. You can send them the link to Snopes where it showed they were 100% wrong and they ignore it.
That's funny. Its the exact same thing I'm seeing on my FB page. I try to ignore most of it ... crazy shit like Obama is not only a Muslim, but he's on the payroll of the Muslim Brotherhood and they have assigned him to destroy America. Stuff that's just so far out you can't even argue it. When I correct some facts or provide a link to Snopes or Fact Check, never get any response. They don't seem to care about facts, its more comfortable to accept stories that fit your beliefs, no matter how wacky
Unfortunately this is true for too many. The FB stuff I often see from the far right is often bazarre.
Any of the far left/right stuff is bizarre. I've seen plenty of stuff from the left that is flat out wrong and really inflammatory.
I also never been in Syria, but I think I could talk about it anyways.
Don't worry. Buford will post an article from the Family Research Council stating the videos are 100% authentic.
How do you put words into someone's mouth? The PP officials said what they said. The tapes weren't dubbed.
Planned Parenthood...I'm sure many people want it shut down because they are Pro Life. But much of the opposition has nothing to do with the abortion issue per se but the selling of baby body parts.
You don't see it that way.
But that hardly means it's a war on women. PP is not the only healthcare center that treats women. And no one has talked about cutting funding to centers far less controversial (rather, they have talked about expanding funding to those at the expense of PP). But somehow PP has become some sort of golden symbol to the left, for whatever reason.
Another issue? A federally funded organization like PP should not be making political donations.
Is that good enough for you?
What a filthy, disgusting slander by you. You should be ashamed of yourself for perpetuating characterization of PP making tissue available at BELOW THEIR COST as "the selling of baby body parts".
And before you resort to your normal bullshit about questions and whatnot, I think that if you make a charge like that, you should have the facts first. Facts first.
Quote:
In comment 12535392 River Mike said:
Quote:
In comment 12534695 PA Giant Fan said:
Quote:
Regarding the left, I just don't see it and my FB friends or anywhere else don't compare to the vitriol and far right views. And factually incorrect views. Anything and everything that comes out they grasp on too. You can send them the link to Snopes where it showed they were 100% wrong and they ignore it.
That's funny. Its the exact same thing I'm seeing on my FB page. I try to ignore most of it ... crazy shit like Obama is not only a Muslim, but he's on the payroll of the Muslim Brotherhood and they have assigned him to destroy America. Stuff that's just so far out you can't even argue it. When I correct some facts or provide a link to Snopes or Fact Check, never get any response. They don't seem to care about facts, its more comfortable to accept stories that fit your beliefs, no matter how wacky
Unfortunately this is true for too many. The FB stuff I often see from the far right is often bazarre.
Any of the far left/right stuff is bizarre. I've seen plenty of stuff from the left that is flat out wrong and really inflammatory.
Wrong is one thing, as is inflammatory, but totally batshit crazy is something I see coming only from the right on my FB page. And I do mean crazy. I disagree with many right wing posters here, but I've never seen any posts that I regarded as batshit crazy. I have little doubt that the right wing posters here would also regard those FB items as crazy, not merely wrong or inflammatory.
I don't see how that is a war on women. You honestly think those mean conservative men are sitting around thinking, "Hey, how can will hurt women today?"
It's a talking point. And it certainly isn't conducive dialogue when you accuse the other side of hating women, blacks, Hispanics, puppies, unicorns, etc.
I see crazy from both sides but the amount of crazy from the far right greatly exceeds far left on the stuff I get on my page.
I must have too many kooky liberal friends.
Such a tolerant group.
Are any evangelicals women?
Aren't you confusing a social issue with some sort of gender discrimination?
The email, sent just after 8 a.m. on Thursday, came from Steve Baer, a Chicago-based GOP donor known for mass-emailing conservative figures and Republican lawmakers. It was addressed to McCarthy and numerous others, including the personal account of Rep. Renee Ellmers (R-N.C.), who conservative media sites have suggested is tied romantically to McCarthy.
Link - ( New Window )
I don't see how that is a war on women. You honestly think those mean conservative men are sitting around thinking, "Hey, how can will hurt women today?"
It's a talking point. And it certainly isn't conducive dialogue when you accuse the other side of hating women, blacks, Hispanics, puppies, unicorns, etc.
Eric it is the usual fear mongering the Democratic Party is famous for and engages in.
How do you put words into someone's mouth? The PP officials said what they said. The tapes weren't dubbed.
You dont get it because EVERY TIME someone explains it to you, you pretend like you're hearing it for the first time.
The videos were edited so that you heard what sounded like a haggling over price. They were selectively edited to suggest that this was a profit center for PP. Thus GOPers immediately charged that PP was profiting from the sale of baby body parts. What was clipped was the person explaining that PP was not looking to make money, just recover costs so they didnt lose money. And experts say that at the reimbursement levels discussed, PP is absolutely losing money.
Link - ( New Window )
Quote:
I don't get the "videos were doctored" narrative.
How do you put words into someone's mouth? The PP officials said what they said. The tapes weren't dubbed.
You dont get it because EVERY TIME someone explains it to you, you pretend like you're hearing it for the first time.
The videos were edited so that you heard what sounded like a haggling over price. They were selectively edited to suggest that this was a profit center for PP. Thus GOPers immediately charged that PP was profiting from the sale of baby body parts. What was clipped was the person explaining that PP was not looking to make money, just recover costs so they didnt lose money. And experts say that at the reimbursement levels discussed, PP is absolutely losing money. Link - ( New Window )
You hit the nail on the head. How many times has this been explained to Eric in multiple threads and his response is the same every single time.
Such a tolerant group.
Tolerance is irrelevant. I dont need to be tolerant of deceitful descriptions. If made up some fact about you and posted it here, would you have to be tolerant of that? Teach the controversy and other such nonsense?
The email, sent just after 8 a.m. on Thursday, came from Steve Baer, a Chicago-based GOP donor known for mass-emailing conservative figures and Republican lawmakers. It was addressed to McCarthy and numerous others, including the personal account of Rep. Renee Ellmers (R-N.C.), who conservative media sites have suggested is tied romantically to McCarthy. Link - ( New Window )
You dont have your lawyers write a cease and desist for nothin:
Link - ( New Window )
I still find the casual nature of the discussion of transaction of baby body parts over wine disturbing...but that's me.
But again, not a war on women. I didn't raise PP...San Fran did as "evidence" of a war on women.
If there is a war on women, half the women in this country must be pretty stupid for voting for the wrong Party.
Such a tolerant group.
You stated that people are selling baby parts.
Slander seems an accurate term. Although I think slander is spoken, not written.
I still find the casual nature of the discussion of transaction of baby body parts over wine disturbing...but that's me.
But again, not a war on women. I didn't raise PP...San Fran did as "evidence" of a war on women.
If there is a war on women, half the women in this country must be pretty stupid for voting for the wrong Party.
Maybe when the Democrats next control a house of Congress they should investigate every Republican because if they did nothing wrong they have nothing to fear. I want my elected officials to work to find solutions to the problems our country faces rather than conducting these "investigations" to score political points.
What would be illegal is if it is for profit.
Nowhere on this thread did I say they were definitely doing it for profit. But that's the question. If Deej is correct, then there is no illegal activity. But they are still selling parts.
I still find the casual nature of the discussion of transaction of baby body parts over wine disturbing...but that's me.
But again, not a war on women. I didn't raise PP...San Fran did as "evidence" of a war on women.
If there is a war on women, half the women in this country must be pretty stupid for voting for the wrong Party.
What a crock of shit man. You level a false charge about selling body parts and when pushed on it you say there will be "an investigation". I thought there was already a hearing about PP and the GOP took a pass on this nonsense?
Yet watching morning Joe, it seems that the polls show that the "war on women" is starting to become a loser for Clinton.
Glass ceiling is all but gone, pay equity has really shrunk, and that evangelical base is made up of women who have excelled in their public and private lives and would disagree with you that they are for many things. One of which is not restricting or stripping women's rights.
The country is split damn near 50/50 on the abortion issue with the most like me. I am anti abortion but could never fathom telling someone what to do or how to feel on such a personal decision. So I am pro choice for everyone except me.
If you want to be angry at anyone, be angry at half your fellow countrymen.
Quote:
I don't get the "videos were doctored" narrative.
How do you put words into someone's mouth? The PP officials said what they said. The tapes weren't dubbed.
You dont get it because EVERY TIME someone explains it to you, you pretend like you're hearing it for the first time.
The videos were edited so that you heard what sounded like a haggling over price. They were selectively edited to suggest that this was a profit center for PP. Thus GOPers immediately charged that PP was profiting from the sale of baby body parts. What was clipped was the person explaining that PP was not looking to make money, just recover costs so they didnt lose money. And experts say that at the reimbursement levels discussed, PP is absolutely losing money. Link - ( New Window )
If the videos were so deceptively edited, why did the PP President apologize for them?
There was an independent audit of the videos that said they were not significantly edited except to remove tape with no dialogue on it.
Says a man.
To be honest, I find the whole concept kind of offensive. It's one of those things that I never really thought about...what happened to the body tissue of aborted babies? It never dawned on me that transactions too place. It doesn't sit right with me. And I'm not a religious person.
But again...not a war on women.
Quote:
Slander?
Such a tolerant group.
You stated that people are selling baby parts.
Slander seems an accurate term. Although I think slander is spoken, not written.
They receive reimbursement for organs from aborted fetuses. I don't think saying they sell baby parts is slander. I think many liberals have blinders on about what exactly goes on which is why they use terms like fetus and tissue. They are harvesting full organs, preferably from later term abortions so the organs are more fully formed. It's quite clear what is going on.
What would be illegal is if it is for profit.
Nowhere on this thread did I say they were definitely doing it for profit. But that's the question. If Deej is correct, then there is no illegal activity. But they are still selling parts.
They're selling fetal tissue.
Quote:
In the hours before House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) abruptly withdrew his candidacy to be the next speaker of the House, he was sent an email from a conservative activist threatening to expose an alleged affair with a colleague. The subject line: Kevin, why not resign like Bob Livingston?
The email, sent just after 8 a.m. on Thursday, came from Steve Baer, a Chicago-based GOP donor known for mass-emailing conservative figures and Republican lawmakers. It was addressed to McCarthy and numerous others, including the personal account of Rep. Renee Ellmers (R-N.C.), who conservative media sites have suggested is tied romantically to McCarthy. Link - ( New Window )
You dont have your lawyers write a cease and desist for nothin: Link - ( New Window )
Damn it man. Office sex a thing of the past.
Glad I'm retired.
Now I get to hit on the Florida trailer park honey's who husbands have passed.
Except for my wife.
Quote:
They are selling baby body parts.
What would be illegal is if it is for profit.
Nowhere on this thread did I say they were definitely doing it for profit. But that's the question. If Deej is correct, then there is no illegal activity. But they are still selling parts.
They're selling fetal tissue.
Or baby organs.....why do you have to sanitize it? If you support what they do, then support it. Here are some facts, abortion is ending a human life, willfully. The 'fetus' is a baby that if it stayed in the uterus a few more weeks would survive to be a person. Sometimes the aborted fetuses are born alive and left to die in a metal bowl (which was shown in the video that Fiorina referenced). I believe that women have a right to end a pregnancy, up to a point. Many European countries have 16 and 20 week limits. The US has the most liberal abortion laws in the world.
A couple hours later, Halperin cryptically tweeted:
That time everyone in politics & journalism knew what happened and readers/viewers/listeners were left in the dark.
Link - ( New Window )
That is his First Amendment right.
As for "independent audit", it was an commissioned by the group that shot the videos. I have no idea why you'd label that as an independent audit. PP's report, preparred by a company headed by a former WSJ investigative reporter, came to the opposite conclusion. Per the WSJ:
WSJ: Dueling Assessments of Planned Parenthood Videos - ( New Window )
Quote:
In comment 12535511 Eric from BBI said:
Quote:
They are selling baby body parts.
What would be illegal is if it is for profit.
Nowhere on this thread did I say they were definitely doing it for profit. But that's the question. If Deej is correct, then there is no illegal activity. But they are still selling parts.
They're selling fetal tissue.
Or baby organs.....why do you have to sanitize it? If you support what they do, then support it. Here are some facts, abortion is ending a human life, willfully. The 'fetus' is a baby that if it stayed in the uterus a few more weeks would survive to be a person. Sometimes the aborted fetuses are born alive and left to die in a metal bowl (which was shown in the video that Fiorina referenced). I believe that women have a right to end a pregnancy, up to a point. Many European countries have 16 and 20 week limits. The US has the most liberal abortion laws in the world.
Because I wouldn't call an embryo a baby. Being incorrect for the sake of connotations, not interested.
A couple hours later, Halperin cryptically tweeted:
That time everyone in politics & journalism knew what happened and readers/viewers/listeners were left in the dark. Link - ( New Window )
Mark Halperin is probably my least favorite journalist ever. All he reports on is the horse race. The guy literally thinks his job is to snow the public and be liked by the cool kids in power. I mean, this is him literally bragging about not telling the public what is really going on.
What a fucking joke.
Wrong thread but he did look good.
To be honest, I find the whole concept kind of offensive. It's one of those things that I never really thought about...what happened to the body tissue of aborted babies? It never dawned on me that transactions too place. It doesn't sit right with me. And I'm not a religious person.
But again...not a war on women.
You're right Eric, I agree that the concept is kind of gruesome whether they give away body parts or sell them to cover their expenses. You're not wrong there.
But it's done for a very good reason - not just for the fun of shipping fetal organs. It's done because it helps us develop cures for some very awful things - not because PP gets a kick out of chopping up fetuses. If they are able to use this research to develop a cure for Alzheimers or paralysis wouldn't you want to be able to be cured of those things if they happened to you? Or you family members. Or your kids?
I don't like abortions or the idea of transferring fetal organs any more than you do - but it's a hell of a lot better than just throwing fetuses in the garbage. No fetuses are being killed for medical research - these are women that were going to have abortions anyway. So why not make the best of an awful situation?
Put it another way - would anyone here be willing to sign a pledge that they are wiling to forego the possible benefits of any cures they develop using fetal body parts? If not then none of us can honestly complain about the practice without being hypocrites.
Quote:
I see crazy from both sides but the amount of crazy from the far right greatly exceeds far left on the stuff I get on my page.
I must have too many kooky liberal friends.
Quote:
In comment 12535531 schabadoo said:
Quote:
In comment 12535511 Eric from BBI said:
Quote:
They are selling baby body parts.
What would be illegal is if it is for profit.
Nowhere on this thread did I say they were definitely doing it for profit. But that's the question. If Deej is correct, then there is no illegal activity. But they are still selling parts.
They're selling fetal tissue.
Or baby organs.....why do you have to sanitize it? If you support what they do, then support it. Here are some facts, abortion is ending a human life, willfully. The 'fetus' is a baby that if it stayed in the uterus a few more weeks would survive to be a person. Sometimes the aborted fetuses are born alive and left to die in a metal bowl (which was shown in the video that Fiorina referenced). I believe that women have a right to end a pregnancy, up to a point. Many European countries have 16 and 20 week limits. The US has the most liberal abortion laws in the world.
Because I wouldn't call an embryo a baby. Being incorrect for the sake of connotations, not interested.
A nineteen week old fetus is not an embryo.
Quote:
In comment 12535453 Big Al said:
Quote:
I see crazy from both sides but the amount of crazy from the far right greatly exceeds far left on the stuff I get on my page.
I must have too many kooky liberal friends.
I just found out on my fb page that Hillary has six months to live. More health problems than you can imagine plus an alcoholic.
I didn't need FB for that, I can read that online at the supermarket.
Quote:
In comment 12535541 buford said:
Quote:
In comment 12535531 schabadoo said:
Quote:
In comment 12535511 Eric from BBI said:
Quote:
They are selling baby body parts.
What would be illegal is if it is for profit.
Nowhere on this thread did I say they were definitely doing it for profit. But that's the question. If Deej is correct, then there is no illegal activity. But they are still selling parts.
They're selling fetal tissue.
Or baby organs.....why do you have to sanitize it? If you support what they do, then support it. Here are some facts, abortion is ending a human life, willfully. The 'fetus' is a baby that if it stayed in the uterus a few more weeks would survive to be a person. Sometimes the aborted fetuses are born alive and left to die in a metal bowl (which was shown in the video that Fiorina referenced). I believe that women have a right to end a pregnancy, up to a point. Many European countries have 16 and 20 week limits. The US has the most liberal abortion laws in the world.
Because I wouldn't call an embryo a baby. Being incorrect for the sake of connotations, not interested.
A nineteen week old fetus is not an embryo.
And no one said it was.
Buford and Eric are calling embryos babies, however.
Quote:
So PP is just giving away baby body parts?
To be honest, I find the whole concept kind of offensive. It's one of those things that I never really thought about...what happened to the body tissue of aborted babies? It never dawned on me that transactions too place. It doesn't sit right with me. And I'm not a religious person.
But again...not a war on women.
You're right Eric, I agree that the concept is kind of gruesome whether they give away body parts or sell them to cover their expenses. You're not wrong there.
But it's done for a very good reason - not just for the fun of shipping fetal organs. It's done because it helps us develop cures for some very awful things - not because PP gets a kick out of chopping up fetuses. If they are able to use this research to develop a cure for Alzheimers or paralysis wouldn't you want to be able to be cured of those things if they happened to you? Or you family members. Or your kids?
I don't like abortions or the idea of transferring fetal organs any more than you do - but it's a hell of a lot better than just throwing fetuses in the garbage. No fetuses are being killed for medical research - these are women that were going to have abortions anyway. So why not make the best of an awful situation?
Put it another way - would anyone here be willing to sign a pledge that they are wiling to forego the possible benefits of any cures they develop using fetal body parts? If not then none of us can honestly complain about the practice without being hypocrites.
Oversight Committee Chairman Jason Chaffetz has in his possession right now, a computer hard drive that contains videos produced by David Daleiden, the head of the group that tried to entrap Planned Parenthood, Rep. Louise Slaughter (D-N.Y.) declared from the House floor, interrupting the chambers debate on legislation expanding the investigation into Planned Parenthood.
Chaffetz, who is running for House Speaker, received a copy of the videos on Sept. 25, and has since declined to share a copy with the Democrats, according to a Democratic committee aide.
Instead, Chaffetz has said he will set up a viewing room for Democratic members and staff to view the videos. Republicans have not yet hosted a screening, the aide said, calling the move a "direct violation" of the Democrats' recent subpoena of Daleiden's unedited footage.
A Republican committee aide confirmed that the viewing sessions haven't been scheduled, but added that Republicans haven't watched the footage yet, either.
The committee does plan to watch that footage, as well as the footage recently unlocked by a court order, with Democrats over the next few weeks, the aide said.
Democrats have repeatedly asked for copies of unedited footage from the secretly recorded meetings with Planned Parenthood officials and an anti-abortion group. That group, The Center for Medical Progress, has released 10 videos, each about 10 minutes long, which appear to show Planned Parenthood officials discussing the price of fetal tissue.
It's unclear if the footage given to Republicans last week is the full unedited footage that has been requested by Democrats, because Daleiden has been blocked from releasing at least some of the footage per a court order. That order was lifted Tuesday night.
"We dont know what the videos are because, despite the fact that the videos were delivered two weeks ago, the Republicans have yet to set up their 'viewing room,'" the aide said.
Both parties acknowledge that the videos posted on YouTube are highly edited, and Democrats believe that the full footage will disprove allegations against Planned Parenthood.
Those videos are the property of the committee, but [Chaffetz] is refusing to give the Democratic members a copy of those videos, Slaughter said. Those tapes are being hidden away. It appears that the Republicans dont want the Democrats to be able to see those videos.
The new criticism against Chaffetz and the Oversight Committee came during debate over a House bill to establish a select committee to investigate Planned Parenthood in the wake of the videos. That bill is expected to pass, largely on party lines.
Updated Thursday at 11:20 a.m.
Link - ( New Window )
No. Because the owner, for many years, has held this sort of NON-SPORTS activity in pretty reasonable check. Now the owner is a primary instigator of fruitless ideological bickering. Outside the football season, I don't really care. During the season, I do.
Quote:
So you decided not to support BBI - a sports site - because you disagree with the politics of the owner?
You miss the point. Completely. If your argument were valid, however, the same reasoning would apply to me.
That is his First Amendment right.
Quote:
So you decided not to support BBI - a sports site - because you disagree with the politics of the owner?
No. Because the owner, for many years, has held this sort of NON-SPORTS activity in pretty reasonable check. Now the owner is a primary instigator of fruitless ideological bickering. Outside the football season, I don't really care. During the season, I do.
Well then maybe you should leave the site. I have learned a lot of politics from both Eric and the opposite viewpoint. And never has it gotten to the point where it's personal. You dont agree with him? Fine.
But what you just posted is a total dick move. You dont like it? Leave. Pretty simple if you ask me.
Quote:
In comment 12535422 Eric from BBI said:
Quote:
So you decided not to support BBI - a sports site - because you disagree with the politics of the owner?
You miss the point. Completely. If your argument were valid, however, the same reasoning would apply to me.
That is his First Amendment right.
Put the response in the wrong place.
You miss the point. Completely. If your argument were valid, however, the same reasoning would apply to me.
Quote:
So you decided not to support BBI - a sports site - because you disagree with the politics of the owner?
No. Because the owner, for many years, has held this sort of NON-SPORTS activity in pretty reasonable check. Now the owner is a primary instigator of fruitless ideological bickering. Outside the football season, I don't really care. During the season, I do.
I've just been watching here...But agree 100% with this.
A nineteen week old fetus is not an embryo.
And no one said it was.
Buford and Eric are calling embryos babies, however.
How old do you think the fetuses are in these videos? Many are 18 weeks or more. Those are not embryos. The embryo stage is about 10 weeks. Then it's a fetus.
Buford, you don't have enough synapses firing to understand the issue.
Go back to complaining about all your physical issues; you play the martyr very well.
You have no history here and, although you are certainly free to express yourself, have no real idea of where I'm coming from.
Quote:
In comment 12535422 Eric from BBI said:
Quote:
So you decided not to support BBI - a sports site - because you disagree with the politics of the owner?
No. Because the owner, for many years, has held this sort of NON-SPORTS activity in pretty reasonable check. Now the owner is a primary instigator of fruitless ideological bickering. Outside the football season, I don't really care. During the season, I do.
Well then maybe you should leave the site. I have learned a lot of politics from both Eric and the opposite viewpoint. And never has it gotten to the point where it's personal. You dont agree with him? Fine.
But what you just posted is a total dick move. You dont like it? Leave. Pretty simple if you ask me.
SMD.
Quote:
In comment 12535611 BMac said:
Quote:
In comment 12535422 Eric from BBI said:
Quote:
So you decided not to support BBI - a sports site - because you disagree with the politics of the owner?
No. Because the owner, for many years, has held this sort of NON-SPORTS activity in pretty reasonable check. Now the owner is a primary instigator of fruitless ideological bickering. Outside the football season, I don't really care. During the season, I do.
Well then maybe you should leave the site. I have learned a lot of politics from both Eric and the opposite viewpoint. And never has it gotten to the point where it's personal. You dont agree with him? Fine.
But what you just posted is a total dick move. You dont like it? Leave. Pretty simple if you ask me.
SMD.
No thanks. Sorry I said it was a dick move, its more like you are a total bitch.
Quote:
In comment 12535617 dep026 said:
Quote:
In comment 12535611 BMac said:
Quote:
In comment 12535422 Eric from BBI said:
Quote:
So you decided not to support BBI - a sports site - because you disagree with the politics of the owner?
No. Because the owner, for many years, has held this sort of NON-SPORTS activity in pretty reasonable check. Now the owner is a primary instigator of fruitless ideological bickering. Outside the football season, I don't really care. During the season, I do.
Well then maybe you should leave the site. I have learned a lot of politics from both Eric and the opposite viewpoint. And never has it gotten to the point where it's personal. You dont agree with him? Fine.
But what you just posted is a total dick move. You dont like it? Leave. Pretty simple if you ask me.
SMD.
No thanks. Sorry I said it was a dick move, its more like you are a total bitch.
Stifle it, newbie.
No thanks. Sorry I said it was a dick move, its more like you are a total bitch.
LOL, total beyotch with a very sandy vagina.
Quote:
They are selling baby body parts.
What would be illegal is if it is for profit.
Nowhere on this thread did I say they were definitely doing it for profit. But that's the question. If Deej is correct, then there is no illegal activity. But they are still selling parts.
They're selling fetal tissue.
What a relief. That's nothing at all like body parts, that's like Kleenex
Quote:
A nineteen week old fetus is not an embryo.
And no one said it was.
Buford and Eric are calling embryos babies, however.
How old do you think the fetuses are in these videos? Many are 18 weeks or more. Those are not embryos. The embryo stage is about 10 weeks. Then it's a fetus.
You need to call the fetal tissue they're selling babies. That's on you.
It must play better, lumping embryos and fetuses in with babies.
Eric responds that his wife has said the same thing to him.
This poster, who has supported the site, sometimes with double payments, agreed and stated that this did, indeed make a difference this year.
Said poster gets attacked for providing honest feedback to the site owner.
Some of the usual suspects start foaming at the mouth, as if some apostasy had been committed. Truly, these same usual suspects fear that these extraordinarily divisive and unproductive topics may disappear, making their existence here moot, since many don't post at all on football threads.
Then one famous female schmuck makes a disparaging comment using female genitals. It's surreal.
I've donated far more already than you ever will. I mean, if you want to start sucking Eric off rather than Eli, well, it's a free country.
Quote:
In comment 12535511 Eric from BBI said:
Quote:
They are selling baby body parts.
What would be illegal is if it is for profit.
Nowhere on this thread did I say they were definitely doing it for profit. But that's the question. If Deej is correct, then there is no illegal activity. But they are still selling parts.
They're selling fetal tissue.
What a relief. That's nothing at all like body parts, that's like Kleenex
It's actually just like body parts.
So the sale of body parts is the issue? Strange how it keeps changing.
Quote:
In comment 12535601 schabadoo said:
Quote:
A nineteen week old fetus is not an embryo.
And no one said it was.
Buford and Eric are calling embryos babies, however.
How old do you think the fetuses are in these videos? Many are 18 weeks or more. Those are not embryos. The embryo stage is about 10 weeks. Then it's a fetus.
You need to call the fetal tissue they're selling babies. That's on you.
It must play better, lumping embryos and fetuses in with babies.
You are the one doing the lumping. As I said, the organs (not tissue) are harvested from fetuses above a certain age. Not embryos. And in a few weeks those fetuses would be babies that could survive outside the womb. You are the one who has to use sanitized terminology to make it more palatable for you to accept.
Eric responds that his wife has said the same thing to him.
This poster, who has supported the site, sometimes with double payments, agreed and stated that this did, indeed make a difference this year.
Said poster gets attacked for providing honest feedback to the site owner.
Some of the usual suspects start foaming at the mouth, as if some apostasy had been committed. Truly, these same usual suspects fear that these extraordinarily divisive and unproductive topics may disappear, making their existence here moot, since many don't post at all on football threads.
Then one famous female schmuck makes a disparaging comment using female genitals. It's surreal.
Aww, I made a disparaging comment. WHHHAAA! I had no idea you were such a shrinking violet. Too bad it doesn't stop you from dishing it out.
Quote:
...made an observation that Eric, as a businessman, wasa making a chancy move by becoming embroiled in ideological battles on here, perhaps to his detriment.
Eric responds that his wife has said the same thing to him.
This poster, who has supported the site, sometimes with double payments, agreed and stated that this did, indeed make a difference this year.
Said poster gets attacked for providing honest feedback to the site owner.
Some of the usual suspects start foaming at the mouth, as if some apostasy had been committed. Truly, these same usual suspects fear that these extraordinarily divisive and unproductive topics may disappear, making their existence here moot, since many don't post at all on football threads.
Then one famous female schmuck makes a disparaging comment using female genitals. It's surreal.
Aww, I made a disparaging comment. WHHHAAA! I had no idea you were such a shrinking violet. Too bad it doesn't stop you from dishing it out.
You like to act like you have a set of balls, Buford. Is that actually true?
Quote:
In comment 12535656 BMac said:
Quote:
...made an observation that Eric, as a businessman, wasa making a chancy move by becoming embroiled in ideological battles on here, perhaps to his detriment.
Eric responds that his wife has said the same thing to him.
This poster, who has supported the site, sometimes with double payments, agreed and stated that this did, indeed make a difference this year.
Said poster gets attacked for providing honest feedback to the site owner.
Some of the usual suspects start foaming at the mouth, as if some apostasy had been committed. Truly, these same usual suspects fear that these extraordinarily divisive and unproductive topics may disappear, making their existence here moot, since many don't post at all on football threads.
Then one famous female schmuck makes a disparaging comment using female genitals. It's surreal.
Aww, I made a disparaging comment. WHHHAAA! I had no idea you were such a shrinking violet. Too bad it doesn't stop you from dishing it out.
You like to act like you have a set of balls, Buford. Is that actually true?
Awfully sexist comment BMac.
People like buford really add nothing to these discussions (sorry, but it's true) but I hope Eric keeps allowing these threads and keeps contributing to them.
Quote:
In comment 12535671 buford said:
Quote:
In comment 12535656 BMac said:
Quote:
...made an observation that Eric, as a businessman, wasa making a chancy move by becoming embroiled in ideological battles on here, perhaps to his detriment.
Eric responds that his wife has said the same thing to him.
This poster, who has supported the site, sometimes with double payments, agreed and stated that this did, indeed make a difference this year.
Said poster gets attacked for providing honest feedback to the site owner.
Some of the usual suspects start foaming at the mouth, as if some apostasy had been committed. Truly, these same usual suspects fear that these extraordinarily divisive and unproductive topics may disappear, making their existence here moot, since many don't post at all on football threads.
Then one famous female schmuck makes a disparaging comment using female genitals. It's surreal.
Aww, I made a disparaging comment. WHHHAAA! I had no idea you were such a shrinking violet. Too bad it doesn't stop you from dishing it out.
You like to act like you have a set of balls, Buford. Is that actually true?
Awfully sexist comment BMac.
The original comment from Buford is where you should be stating this. Once the door opens, one never knows what may enter. True statement, nonetheless.
i have been on bbi for a long time. worst poster ever
Attacking a man and insinuating he has a vagina (and a sandy one at that) just seems out of line. Double-standard much?
If the dumb fuck can't stand the heat, she needs to use the outhouse.
Quote:
Just seems out of line.
Attacking a man and insinuating he has a vagina (and a sandy one at that) just seems out of line. Double-standard much?
If the dumb fuck can't stand the heat, she needs to use the outhouse.
As a man, you are expected to be above that.
Quote:
In comment 12535688 bradshaw44 said:
Quote:
Just seems out of line.
Attacking a man and insinuating he has a vagina (and a sandy one at that) just seems out of line. Double-standard much?
If the dumb fuck can't stand the heat, she needs to use the outhouse.
As a man, you are expected to be above that.
Horseshit, plain and simple. When were you born, 1920?
Quote:
In comment 12535697 BMac said:
Quote:
In comment 12535688 bradshaw44 said:
Quote:
Just seems out of line.
Attacking a man and insinuating he has a vagina (and a sandy one at that) just seems out of line. Double-standard much?
If the dumb fuck can't stand the heat, she needs to use the outhouse.
As a man, you are expected to be above that.
Horseshit, plain and simple. When were you born, 1920?
SMH. As long as things fit your anger pallet I guess it's ok.
Quote:
In comment 12535623 buford said:
Quote:
In comment 12535601 schabadoo said:
Quote:
A nineteen week old fetus is not an embryo.
And no one said it was.
Buford and Eric are calling embryos babies, however.
How old do you think the fetuses are in these videos? Many are 18 weeks or more. Those are not embryos. The embryo stage is about 10 weeks. Then it's a fetus.
You need to call the fetal tissue they're selling babies. That's on you.
It must play better, lumping embryos and fetuses in with babies.
You are the one doing the lumping. As I said, the organs (not tissue) are harvested from fetuses above a certain age. Not embryos. And in a few weeks those fetuses would be babies that could survive outside the womb. You are the one who has to use sanitized terminology to make it more palatable for you to accept.
I'd think you were kidding, but I fear you're not.
You can call fetuses and embryos toddlers, you'd be just as accurate.
Quote:
In comment 12535700 bradshaw44 said:
Quote:
In comment 12535697 BMac said:
Quote:
In comment 12535688 bradshaw44 said:
Quote:
Just seems out of line.
Attacking a man and insinuating he has a vagina (and a sandy one at that) just seems out of line. Double-standard much?
If the dumb fuck can't stand the heat, she needs to use the outhouse.
As a man, you are expected to be above that.
Horseshit, plain and simple. When were you born, 1920?
SMH. As long as things fit your anger pallet I guess it's ok.
You don't seem to understand that when someone repeatedly inserts themselves into these kind of threads and is exceptionally confrontational, and I'm referring to Buford in this case, that all bets are off.
Just because you want to keep women on a pedestal (or better yet, barefoot, pregnant, and in the kitchen) doesn't mean that anyone else feels that way.
Responses aren't made in a vacuum. If someone sticks their snout in the fire well, it's likely to get burned.
By the way, just what is an "anger pallet," or did you mean "palette?" In any case, it's a nonsensical statement.
Maybe it's as simple as the site needs more hits to attract more advertisers at higher rates.
Quote:
In comment 12535702 BMac said:
Quote:
In comment 12535700 bradshaw44 said:
Quote:
In comment 12535697 BMac said:
Quote:
In comment 12535688 bradshaw44 said:
Quote:
Just seems out of line.
Attacking a man and insinuating he has a vagina (and a sandy one at that) just seems out of line. Double-standard much?
If the dumb fuck can't stand the heat, she needs to use the outhouse.
As a man, you are expected to be above that.
Horseshit, plain and simple. When were you born, 1920?
SMH. As long as things fit your anger pallet I guess it's ok.
You don't seem to understand that when someone repeatedly inserts themselves into these kind of threads and is exceptionally confrontational, and I'm referring to Buford in this case, that all bets are off.
Just because you want to keep women on a pedestal (or better yet, barefoot, pregnant, and in the kitchen) doesn't mean that anyone else feels that way.
Responses aren't made in a vacuum. If someone sticks their snout in the fire well, it's likely to get burned.
By the way, just what is an "anger pallet," or did you mean "palette?" In any case, it's a nonsensical statement.
Goodness... The anger from you. As a liberal, I'm shocked that you would not want to defend women! How on earth am I wanting to keep women "barefoot in the kitchen"??? You're the one that won't defend them! You are attacking a woman here just for her belief! Unacceptable!!!
Quote:
In comment 12535711 bradshaw44 said:
Quote:
In comment 12535702 BMac said:
Quote:
In comment 12535700 bradshaw44 said:
Quote:
In comment 12535697 BMac said:
Quote:
In comment 12535688 bradshaw44 said:
Quote:
Just seems out of line.
Attacking a man and insinuating he has a vagina (and a sandy one at that) just seems out of line. Double-standard much?
If the dumb fuck can't stand the heat, she needs to use the outhouse.
As a man, you are expected to be above that.
Horseshit, plain and simple. When were you born, 1920?
SMH. As long as things fit your anger pallet I guess it's ok.
You don't seem to understand that when someone repeatedly inserts themselves into these kind of threads and is exceptionally confrontational, and I'm referring to Buford in this case, that all bets are off.
Just because you want to keep women on a pedestal (or better yet, barefoot, pregnant, and in the kitchen) doesn't mean that anyone else feels that way.
Responses aren't made in a vacuum. If someone sticks their snout in the fire well, it's likely to get burned.
By the way, just what is an "anger pallet," or did you mean "palette?" In any case, it's a nonsensical statement.
Goodness... The anger from you. As a liberal, I'm shocked that you would not want to defend women! How on earth am I wanting to keep women "barefoot in the kitchen"??? You're the one that won't defend them! You are attacking a woman here just for her belief! Unacceptable!!!
You apparently are unable to follow a reasoned statement, nor can you form a cogent argument, so I'll waste no more time on you.
Those are some big buttons, though.
Nighty night. Don't let the bedbugs bite.
Quote:
In comment 12535727 BMac said:
Quote:
In comment 12535711 bradshaw44 said:
Quote:
In comment 12535702 BMac said:
Quote:
In comment 12535700 bradshaw44 said:
Quote:
In comment 12535697 BMac said:
Quote:
In comment 12535688 bradshaw44 said:
Quote:
Just seems out of line.
Attacking a man and insinuating he has a vagina (and a sandy one at that) just seems out of line. Double-standard much?
If the dumb fuck can't stand the heat, she needs to use the outhouse.
As a man, you are expected to be above that.
Horseshit, plain and simple. When were you born, 1920?
SMH. As long as things fit your anger pallet I guess it's ok.
You don't seem to understand that when someone repeatedly inserts themselves into these kind of threads and is exceptionally confrontational, and I'm referring to Buford in this case, that all bets are off.
Just because you want to keep women on a pedestal (or better yet, barefoot, pregnant, and in the kitchen) doesn't mean that anyone else feels that way.
Responses aren't made in a vacuum. If someone sticks their snout in the fire well, it's likely to get burned.
By the way, just what is an "anger pallet," or did you mean "palette?" In any case, it's a nonsensical statement.
Goodness... The anger from you. As a liberal, I'm shocked that you would not want to defend women! How on earth am I wanting to keep women "barefoot in the kitchen"??? You're the one that won't defend them! You are attacking a woman here just for her belief! Unacceptable!!!
You apparently are unable to follow a reasoned statement, nor can you form a cogent argument, so I'll waste no more time on you.
Those are some big buttons, though.
Nighty night. Don't let the bedbugs bite.
Goodnight misogynist.
Don't know if another perspective helps but...
When I joined I used to participate on these threads as they got to a point where the fact base and partisanship made mincemeat at what I thought were serious subjects actual citizens should be serious about. And at that time a lot of the discussion was about the ME ...A subject and area I had to visit often...or econ/finance ..so to me at that time policy ( an area I think should be discussed) and politics ( a circus designed to extract mental and financial rent from people who could be doing g better things) intermixed to a greater extent than they do now.
Now when I see political threads about parties or candidates) I see accidents on the highway. The log jam of people stopping annoys me but when I do wind up watching the source of fascination. Hypocritical I am sure.
I dunno how anyone can allow their self identity to be so wrapped up in this junk that they get upset about it. There is not a dimes worth of difference on the things and priorities that matter between almost all of them imho...and this comes from someone who used to be engaged and donate and I dunno...five degrees separated ( I try to stay seven degrees out now a days).
but to each his own...and this is where we differ. The site has always been and allowed discussions about a wide range of subjects. We win out most of the time because it is allowed to be more than a football site. Always has been that way. So it's nothing new. Used to be much more of a wild west show. Now much less so. So now Eric participates more on these threads. He always did on history threads ( where he is a great as in one of the top contributors on several subjects like Ww2) and econ threads and econ policy and foreign policy and trade policy ( where he again is an excellent contributor...As in one of the very best we have). To me. ..so what? I am not going to vote or not vote or be influenced by anyone who does not bring up fact intense and supported opinion....which I will merge with my own. I own my mind. Not any poster. So to me...I incorporate the best of what I read as from any other source and otherwise preserve brain cells...we only have so many...why burn a nerve on every days ticker tape of passing monkey chatter?
Emotion spent on this stuff is like measuring with a micrometer and missing by a mile. It's irrelevant ( or will be) to our lives. We are not given real choice so to me it's 99.5% exercise in pretend influence and control. So to me the practical response is a .5 effort on my part. Again imho.
No reply on this imho as it is not a debate nor personal between us. Take care.
People like buford really add nothing to these discussions (sorry, but it's true) but I hope Eric keeps allowing these threads and keeps contributing to them.
THIS^^^^
It's ok, I said he had a sandy vagina. While I don't have testicles, I don't whine like a bitch about everything and everyone. So yeah, I guess I am ballsy.
Quote:
I really enjoy reading Eric's posts on these threads because he's obviously a very intelligent person and seems like a really good guy, so I'm curious to see why his positions are often (though not always) so different than my own on some of these issues.
People like buford really add nothing to these discussions (sorry, but it's true) but I hope Eric keeps allowing these threads and keeps contributing to them.
THIS^^^^
Except for the part about buford. What she may or may not "add to the discussions" is opinion. I thoroughly disagree with her, but she has as much right to post as anyone. She's no more disagreeable than most including me.
Quote:
In comment 12535654 schabadoo said:
Quote:
In comment 12535623 buford said:
Quote:
In comment 12535601 schabadoo said:
Quote:
A nineteen week old fetus is not an embryo.
And no one said it was.
Buford and Eric are calling embryos babies, however.
How old do you think the fetuses are in these videos? Many are 18 weeks or more. Those are not embryos. The embryo stage is about 10 weeks. Then it's a fetus.
You need to call the fetal tissue they're selling babies. That's on you.
It must play better, lumping embryos and fetuses in with babies.
You are the one doing the lumping. As I said, the organs (not tissue) are harvested from fetuses above a certain age. Not embryos. And in a few weeks those fetuses would be babies that could survive outside the womb. You are the one who has to use sanitized terminology to make it more palatable for you to accept.
I'd think you were kidding, but I fear you're not.
You can call fetuses and embryos toddlers, you'd be just as accurate.
Like it or not, there are criteria for embryo, fetus and toddler. You have accepted the sanitized version of what is being done, most people do, I did before I watched the videos. It's how this gruesome practice continues. And to the poster who cited the research angle, the fetal cells can be replaced by adult stem cells.
Link - ( New Window )
And while many of you may not agree with me on issues, you have to see that this situation is exactly what is wrong with DC today. Guys get into Congress, stay for decades, get into leadership, get rich from donors/lobbyists and land deals that they push legislation for, and then rule over the representatives that we elect. Our voices are being stifled by corporatist in both parties that put their personal advancement above their job to represent the people. Why are you calling people who are against that crazies? It's not just about social issues. The Freedom Caucus is fighting to have their voice heard, to have the voices of the people who elected them heard. Not to just be fodder for the DC machine.
I'll vote for someone who is against this, even if I disagree on certain issues. Someone who understands what the role of DC should be, not what it is now. Someone who will represent the people, not the donors or K street. Not someone who will flip flop on issues to be the flavor of the month. Someone who will stop the disastrous course we are on of increased taxing/spending/debt of endless regulation by agencies that are not elected. Someone who will stop the strangulation of business which could flourish and boost our economy so that we can solve some of our financial issues. But if you are happy with the status quo, and you think things are honky dorry, then keep voting for the usually DC politician. They are the ones who got us into this mess, what makes you think that they will even try to get us out of it?
And while many of you may not agree with me on issues, you have to see that this situation is exactly what is wrong with DC today. Guys get into Congress, stay for decades, get into leadership, get rich from donors/lobbyists and land deals that they push legislation for, and then rule over the representatives that we elect. Our voices are being stifled by corporatist in both parties that put their personal advancement above their job to represent the people. Why are you calling people who are against that crazies? It's not just about social issues. The Freedom Caucus is fighting to have their voice heard, to have the voices of the people who elected them heard. Not to just be fodder for the DC machine.
I'll vote for someone who is against this, even if I disagree on certain issues. Someone who understands what the role of DC should be, not what it is now. Someone who will represent the people, not the donors or K street. Not someone who will flip flop on issues to be the flavor of the month. Someone who will stop the disastrous course we are on of increased taxing/spending/debt of endless regulation by agencies that are not elected. Someone who will stop the strangulation of business which could flourish and boost our economy so that we can solve some of our financial issues. But if you are happy with the status quo, and you think things are honky dorry, then keep voting for the usually DC politician. They are the ones who got us into this mess, what makes you think that they will even try to get us out of it?
The Speaker is a dictator? Of course he is, that is his job. IMHO Boehner wasn't enough of a dictator. That is why Pelosi got stuff done. If you screwed with Pelosi, she cut your nuts off...
Quote:
Boehner is acting like a dictator. He shut down the election for speaker until he can get a candidate that he (and K-Street) like. Ryan is a good guy, but he would be more of the same establishment and he doesn't want the job. Boehner needs to step aside and let the House decide. That is the main problem, he has been a dictator as speaker and that is what many members have rebelled against.
And while many of you may not agree with me on issues, you have to see that this situation is exactly what is wrong with DC today. Guys get into Congress, stay for decades, get into leadership, get rich from donors/lobbyists and land deals that they push legislation for, and then rule over the representatives that we elect. Our voices are being stifled by corporatist in both parties that put their personal advancement above their job to represent the people. Why are you calling people who are against that crazies? It's not just about social issues. The Freedom Caucus is fighting to have their voice heard, to have the voices of the people who elected them heard. Not to just be fodder for the DC machine.
I'll vote for someone who is against this, even if I disagree on certain issues. Someone who understands what the role of DC should be, not what it is now. Someone who will represent the people, not the donors or K street. Not someone who will flip flop on issues to be the flavor of the month. Someone who will stop the disastrous course we are on of increased taxing/spending/debt of endless regulation by agencies that are not elected. Someone who will stop the strangulation of business which could flourish and boost our economy so that we can solve some of our financial issues. But if you are happy with the status quo, and you think things are honky dorry, then keep voting for the usually DC politician. They are the ones who got us into this mess, what makes you think that they will even try to get us out of it?
The Speaker is a dictator? Of course he is, that is his job. IMHO Boehner wasn't enough of a dictator. That is why Pelosi got stuff done. If you screwed with Pelosi, she cut your nuts off...
Yes, Pelosi made the trains run on time....
And while many of you may not agree with me on issues, you have to see that this situation is exactly what is wrong with DC today. Guys get into Congress, stay for decades, get into leadership, get rich from donors/lobbyists and land deals that they push legislation for, and then rule over the representatives that we elect. Our voices are being stifled by corporatist in both parties that put their personal advancement above their job to represent the people. Why are you calling people who are against that crazies? It's not just about social issues. The Freedom Caucus is fighting to have their voice heard, to have the voices of the people who elected them heard. Not to just be fodder for the DC machine.
I'll vote for someone who is against this, even if I disagree on certain issues. Someone who understands what the role of DC should be, not what it is now. Someone who will represent the people, not the donors or K street. Not someone who will flip flop on issues to be the flavor of the month. Someone who will stop the disastrous course we are on of increased taxing/spending/debt of endless regulation by agencies that are not elected. Someone who will stop the strangulation of business which could flourish and boost our economy so that we can solve some of our financial issues. But if you are happy with the status quo, and you think things are honky dorry, then keep voting for the usually DC politician. They are the ones who got us into this mess, what makes you think that they will even try to get us out of it?
I actually agree with much of this post in principle. But
Why are you calling people who are against that crazies? It's not just about social issues. The Freedom Caucus is fighting to have their voice heard, to have the voices of the people who elected them heard
those voices are just so wrong headed and some, yes, crazy IMHO.
Well I'm sure those people think your political positions are wrong too.
Quote:
In comment 12535940 buford said:
Why are you calling people who are against that crazies? It's not just about social issues. The Freedom Caucus is fighting to have their voice heard, to have the voices of the people who elected them heard
those voices are just so wrong headed and some, yes, crazy IMHO.
Well I'm sure those people think your political positions are wrong too.
Obviously. And I'm not arrogant enough to think my ideas are absolutely correct, that's why I ended my post with "IMHO". I am willing to change my mind when presented with facts or experience, and I have.
Are you just making up this criticism? Did anyone in the room come out and complain that the vote was put off?
Hope you are doing well
Any update?
Hope you are doing well
Issa would be a fiasco- Newt 2. Pass
Or the democrats... or the republicans. Don't be obtuse. This all or nothing permeates the entire congress. I think Newt started it and Pelosi and Reid were just as bad.
Boehner is acting like a dictator? Really? How about needing to find a candidate that can get 218 votes? Buford, do you have such a candidate in mind. Certainly, if Boehner is handly this incorrectly, you must have an alternative in mind? No one from the right side of the party will get 100 votes, let alone 218.
So what the fuck do you propose that he do? He really doesn't want this assignment. Nor does he think that shutting down the government is a great idea for the party or the country, or defaulting on the debt, which would be an extraordinary disaster for both.
What, or who, is your solution?
It wont be Issa. The alleged skeletons in his closet (whether true or not) will be too much to overcome.
From the viewpoint of anyone who thinks we need to have a functioning government, these are scary times.
Again, Buford, if you don't want Boehner "acting like a dictator," you must have an alternative in mind. What is it?
Link - ( New Window )
Boehner is acting like a dictator? Really? How about needing to find a candidate that can get 218 votes? Buford, do you have such a candidate in mind. Certainly, if Boehner is handly this incorrectly, you must have an alternative in mind? No one from the right side of the party will get 100 votes, let alone 218.
So what the fuck do you propose that he do? He really doesn't want this assignment. Nor does he think that shutting down the government is a great idea for the party or the country, or defaulting on the debt, which would be an extraordinary disaster for both.
What, or who, is your solution?
+1
Preening, snotty, obnoxious etc. Just a huge douchebag.
Quote:
Boehner is acting like a dictator. He shut down the election for speaker until he can get a candidate that he (and K-Street) like. Ryan is a good guy, but he would be more of the same establishment and he doesn't want the job. Boehner needs to step aside and let the House decide. That is the main problem, he has been a dictator as speaker and that is what many members have rebelled against.
And while many of you may not agree with me on issues, you have to see that this situation is exactly what is wrong with DC today. Guys get into Congress, stay for decades, get into leadership, get rich from donors/lobbyists and land deals that they push legislation for, and then rule over the representatives that we elect. Our voices are being stifled by corporatist in both parties that put their personal advancement above their job to represent the people. Why are you calling people who are against that crazies? It's not just about social issues. The Freedom Caucus is fighting to have their voice heard, to have the voices of the people who elected them heard. Not to just be fodder for the DC machine.
I'll vote for someone who is against this, even if I disagree on certain issues. Someone who understands what the role of DC should be, not what it is now. Someone who will represent the people, not the donors or K street. Not someone who will flip flop on issues to be the flavor of the month. Someone who will stop the disastrous course we are on of increased taxing/spending/debt of endless regulation by agencies that are not elected. Someone who will stop the strangulation of business which could flourish and boost our economy so that we can solve some of our financial issues. But if you are happy with the status quo, and you think things are honky dorry, then keep voting for the usually DC politician. They are the ones who got us into this mess, what makes you think that they will even try to get us out of it?
I actually agree with much of this post in principle. But
Quote:
Why are you calling people who are against that crazies? It's not just about social issues. The Freedom Caucus is fighting to have their voice heard, to have the voices of the people who elected them heard
those voices are just so wrong headed and some, yes, crazy IMHO.
Can you specify which ones and what they say that is crazy?
Putting aside my disagreements with Ryan's ideology, the guy is an ivory tower type, not a vote counter. There is no reason to think that he could ride herd over the GOP caucus. This is a problem that the Freedom Caucus folks dont seem to grasp -- the Speaker position is inherently political and not policy based. You need a Speaker who can move legislation and keep a coalition together. And Ryan to date has no experience doing that.
Are you just making up this criticism? Did anyone in the room come out and complain that the vote was put off?
No, McCarthy did not have the votes. So either he pulled out or he was told to pull out. There were a few others who were trying to get support and I don't have a problem with delaying the vote. But what Boehner is doing is trying to hand select his successor and since McCarthy put his foot in his mouth, they now want Paul Ryan. And Boehner says unless Ryan takes the job, he will stay. If that isn't being dictatorish or even royalty like, I don't know what is.
The House members complaints about Boehner wasn't just that he wasn't conservative in reality, it is that he did not allow for open debate and individual voices to be heard. This is just viewed as another extension of that.
Boehner is acting like a dictator? Really? How about needing to find a candidate that can get 218 votes? Buford, do you have such a candidate in mind. Certainly, if Boehner is handly this incorrectly, you must have an alternative in mind? No one from the right side of the party will get 100 votes, let alone 218.
So what the fuck do you propose that he do? He really doesn't want this assignment. Nor does he think that shutting down the government is a great idea for the party or the country, or defaulting on the debt, which would be an extraordinary disaster for both.
What, or who, is your solution?
See my post to Deej. Again, professed liberals attempting to understand what the feelings are in the Republican House among members and the people who voted for them is hilarious. There are a few members who have said they are interested. How about giving them time to get support rather than strong arming someone who doesn't want the job because you feel he can be controlled? Let the process play out. Let the people who were elected to represent the people of the US have their voices heard. This whole thing started because house members and voters were sick of Boehner and the way he runs things. Letting him dictate what happens after he is gone is the wrong way to go. It would be horrible for Ryan to be burdened with that.
Deej - what I'd guess happens is that Ryan, as a compromise candidate who both sides of the party generally approve of, agrees to serve as a sort of interim speaker for the rest of this session as a means of buying time to find a speaker for the next season. This lets Weepy go home as he wants to do and at least lets the whole media frenzy die down a bit. On Ryan's part, it makes him look good - he's the reluctant good solider, which is always a positive light.
You cant do that. And as such, complaining that Boehner shut down the vote is silly. Complaining that he did it for the purpose of hand picking his successor and that he's a dictator because of that is even sillier. HE SHUT IT DOWN BECAUSE NO ONE COULD BE ELECTED AND THERE WAS AN 11TH HOUR GAME CHANGER. Why do you need to go ahead and fabricate a nefarious motive?
Putting aside my disagreements with Ryan's ideology, the guy is an ivory tower type, not a vote counter. There is no reason to think that he could ride herd over the GOP caucus. This is a problem that the Freedom Caucus folks dont seem to grasp -- the Speaker position is inherently political and not policy based. You need a Speaker who can move legislation and keep a coalition together. And Ryan to date has no experience doing that.
just a small correction.
(prob with a preference for someone he gets along with should when JB go into lobbying).
There aren't a lot of descriptions of the Freedom Caucus demands, which were described at a luncheon on Wednesday, on the Net, yet. Here's another one.
There may only be a few dozen die-hard conservatives in the caucus, but, as Boehner and McCarthy have learned, if they withhold their votes, they deny Republican leaders a majority. Any would-be speaker, therefore, had better do what conservatives want and that includes likely showdowns over a debt-ceiling increase, an omnibus spending bill, a transportation bill and Export-Import Bank legislation.
Beyond that, the conservatives demand that the speaker never punish them for voting against the caucus; let them amend legislation on the floor at will; never let bills come to the floor without the support of a majority of Republicans; and refuse to take up Senate-brokered compromises.
That would lead to shutdown and default in short order. But this did not seem to be a major concern over lunch. Labrador, mocking GOP leaders' claims that we can't shut down the government, said he would prefer a leader who would be willing to fight even if we fail.
I have yet to find any article that claims that these are NOT what the Freedom Caucus is demanding.
Counter examples? Anyone? If not, do you think this it is reasonable for thirty-odd Congressmen on the extreme right of their party to demand a set of rules that puts them in pretty much full control of the House?
Where I come cfrom, that is called a coup, and has absolutely nothing to do with running a constitutional democracy, nor is it replicated in a functioning democracy in the history of the US or the developed world.
Link - ( New Window )
Deej - what I'd guess happens is that Ryan, as a compromise candidate who both sides of the party generally approve of, agrees to serve as a sort of interim speaker for the rest of this session as a means of buying time to find a speaker for the next season. This lets Weepy go home as he wants to do and at least lets the whole media frenzy die down a bit. On Ryan's part, it makes him look good - he's the reluctant good solider, which is always a positive light.
I dont think it is an interim speaker gig. At least I havent seen it proposed that way.
This is an interesting play by Ryan. I suspect he just genuinely doesnt want the job, either because he's happier doing policy than vote counting, or in particular doesnt want to be incharge of this group at this moment. In some ways it is too soon in any event. Lets say he becomes Speaker now. What does he do when that ends in 2-8 years? He's too young to peak now.
You cant do that. And as such, complaining that Boehner shut down the vote is silly. Complaining that he did it for the purpose of hand picking his successor and that he's a dictator because of that is even sillier. HE SHUT IT DOWN BECAUSE NO ONE COULD BE ELECTED AND THERE WAS AN 11TH HOUR GAME CHANGER. Why do you need to go ahead and fabricate a nefarious motive?
We don't know if someone would have been elected. There were two other candidates who put their names forward. And again, Boehner has not just postponed the vote, he is pushing for Ryan or he will stay. And yes, there are many people in the house who are not happy with this. Louie Gohmert for one.
1) Do you think the Freedom Caucus demands are reasonable?
2) Do you think their willingness to shut down the government and default on the debt is reasonable? Would they lead to a House that could function at all?
3) Is there any potential candidate for Speaker who would accede to those demands and still garner 218 votes?
4) If not, what is your solution?
Calling me a liberal doesn't deal with the political science issues currently on the table. So, either come up with an alternative that doesn't simply state "you guys don't understand," or let actual adults discuss this.
1) Do you think the Freedom Caucus demands are reasonable?
2) Do you think their willingness to shut down the government and default on the debt is reasonable? Would they lead to a House that could function at all?
3) Is there any potential candidate for Speaker who would accede to those demands and still garner 218 votes?
4) If not, what is your solution?
Calling me a liberal doesn't deal with the political science issues currently on the table. So, either come up with an alternative that doesn't simply state "you guys don't understand," or let actual adults discuss this.
Sorry if you object to being called a liberal, but you are. And your views have been made quite clear here. My solution is to let the process play out as it is supposed to. Have people who want the job put their names forward and let the members vote. Enough of this top down strategy. That is why Boehner was a horrible speaker in the first place. You don't agree, fine. But your perspective is a bit skewed. Whether you want to admit it or not.
He's a member of the House Republicans. And has a right to a voice, as they all do. If you want to keep your members marginalized, that's fine. But that is not how it is supposed to work.
I think the smart move is to let this play out. Show the Freedom folks that chaos isnt a plan. Then after a few weeks, someone to the right of 2/3 of the caucus will emerge and be generally acceptable. Rushing it will just get you a Speaker who is too weak to get the bare minimum of business done.
That isn't a liberal viewpoint, it's just one that requires an IQ in triple digits.
Quote:
Ohforchristssake. Louie fucking Gohmert.
He's a member of the House Republicans. And has a right to a voice, as they all do. If you want to keep your members marginalized, that's fine. But that is not how it is supposed to work.
On the other hand, he's Louie fucking Gohmert. It's like if I told you that Alan Grayson or Maxine Waters said something, and then pretended that it somehow mattered.
I can dream.
That isn't a liberal viewpoint, it's just one that requires an IQ in triple digits.
Well I think that the FC folks need to see that taking down Boehner does not mean that they get their demands met. I think it will take time for that to sink in. They'll see that whoever their preferred person is wont get 100 votes. If you negotiate with them right now, they have a strong hand. In 2-3 weeks, they'll be more primed for a compromise IMO.
Or not. I think they care more about being true to their beliefs than coming up with solutions acceptable to a majority.
There aren't a lot of descriptions of the Freedom Caucus demands, which were described at a luncheon on Wednesday, on the Net, yet. Here's another one.
Quote:
To seize this opportunity, they presented the three contenders for the speakership McCarthy, Jason Chaffetz and Daniel Webster with a list of demands that would increase the (already deafening) voice of conservatives in the House.
There may only be a few dozen die-hard conservatives in the caucus, but, as Boehner and McCarthy have learned, if they withhold their votes, they deny Republican leaders a majority. Any would-be speaker, therefore, had better do what conservatives want and that includes likely showdowns over a debt-ceiling increase, an omnibus spending bill, a transportation bill and Export-Import Bank legislation.
Beyond that, the conservatives demand that the speaker never punish them for voting against the caucus; let them amend legislation on the floor at will; never let bills come to the floor without the support of a majority of Republicans; and refuse to take up Senate-brokered compromises.
That would lead to shutdown and default in short order. But this did not seem to be a major concern over lunch. Labrador, mocking GOP leaders' claims that we can't shut down the government, said he would prefer a leader who would be willing to fight even if we fail.
I have yet to find any article that claims that these are NOT what the Freedom Caucus is demanding.
Counter examples? Anyone? If not, do you think this it is reasonable for thirty-odd Congressmen on the extreme right of their party to demand a set of rules that puts them in pretty much full control of the House?
Where I come cfrom, that is called a coup, and has absolutely nothing to do with running a constitutional democracy, nor is it replicated in a functioning democracy in the history of the US or the developed world. Link - ( New Window )
That's pretty crazy. I don't know if I'd call it a coup but it does look a lot like the European or Israeli parliamentary system and the Freedom Caucus is like the crazy junior/fringe coalition partner that has just enough votes to significantly disrupt governance.
I just hope someone talks some sense into these guys. They're so not ready for prime time.
I dont necessarily disagree. Now translate this into a Speaker election. Does that mean that they dont allow any Speaker who isnt effectively one of them? Becuase guys like Peter King get to vote too, and he wont vote for that.
Then what?
With the nuclear option in place, a lot of bottled up legislation would get through the House and Senate. Sure, it will get vetoed and the veto would not be overridden, but it would give the Freedom Caucus the chance to say they passed the legislation.
Without the nuclear option, Boehner basically didn't want to bother to get legislation through the House only to see it die in the Senate. Why bother?
BTW- Ryan is a policy wonk, not a vote counter and arm twister. Speaker is a bad fit for him.
Boehner a traitor. It just means he kept playing Texas Holdem' with starting hands of 7-2 unsuited--no possible way to win.
Anyway, you're right about that. That's why I can see that Ryan compromise I talked about earlier happening. This thing really just has to kind of run its course. Too many GOP reps are out for blood to get this worked out on such a tight schedule. They need to buy time somehow.
I just think for the overall chess match, this needs time. If you pick a new Speaker today, the FC is stronger than ever. They took down Boehner and McCarty. But if the caucus sweats it out and the FC are forced to see that their veto power is not the same thing as being the majority within the caucus, thing may start to shift.
Moreover, I think any middle of the party Speaker candidate would be crazy to take the job without getting assurances first on the debt ceiling and other necessary end of year business. Either the caucus commits to raising the debt ceiling or not, but the Speaker's first big move cant be a party revolt and moving a keep-the-lights-on bill with 40 Dem votes.
Both of these statements smack of two people just making shit up as they go.
Again, this entire narrative of Conservatives being pushed out of the GOP is a crock of shit. They have owned the GOP since Reagan. If the GOP has abandoned any branch of the party been the progressives and Libertarians.
Meanwhile, after McClintock quit in September, the FC loses another of its ranks in Rep. Reid Ribble (R-WI), who says:
MG - this is why I said patience. I think people will peel off the FC and it will otherwise weaken. Wait a few weeks and a new Speaker gets to "save" the caucus from itself, and in doing so will come in strong and almost certainly with the pre-condition of unity on the debt ceiling. But make the deal today and the FC look like kingmakers.
Chaffetz, a candidate for House speaker, grilled Planned Parenthood president Cecile Richards during a five-hour hearing last week. He questioned her salary, asked about the organization's expenses and revenues, and pressed Richards on why the group had revenue of $127 million last year if it's a nonprofit. (Nonprofits put their revenues back into their programs.)
But after all that, he concluded that Planned Parenthood isn't doing anything sketchy with its money. "Did we find any wrongdoing? The answer was no," Chaffetz said.
Well, that's that. Or is it?
"I think there will continue to be investigations," he said.
Why? Moreover, why is the House GOP creating a select committee to investigate PP? What a desperate, political stunt.
Link - ( New Window )
Beyond that, as of right now, there are 42 members of the FC by count, of which 36 are named members, after the resignation. There are 247 total Republican members of Congress. The FC and its voting affiliates need to get below 247 minus 218, or 29, before a new Speaker can be confident of getting any bill passed on the House floor with zero FC support.
That's really the thrust of my point. Ryan may play coy for several weeks and then take the job. You'll know he's serious if he lists his demands and waits for them to be met.
1) The members of the FC give a rats ass how their behavior makes the rest of the Republican Party look; and
2) They actually have any interest in like, you know, governing, and getting things done like keeping the government open and raising the debt ceiling so that existing debt can be paid.
I am not convinced that many of them care about either 1) or 2). I am not convinced that a lot of them even understand the implications of not doing (2). Maybe some do. In an interview yesterday, Carson made it very clear that he did not, so why should we assume that all of these guys do?
As for #2, I think they're going to get that eventually you need a Speaker and they'll heed the notion that their list of demands, representing the wants of 1/5 of the caucus, need to be scaled back if no one else wants them and no one who can get 218 will serve. The FC's tactics are a giant game of chicken. Always have been. This is one of the rare times when the rest of the party can play chicken right back. Boehner will stick around if needed and make sure there is no shut down anyway.
That will work except in the few times where an FC member is in position to block a floor vote. I don;t think there are many of those.
Seems kind of bullshitty to me. October (which wont be reported until January so donors cant confirm) is the best month so far, just days in?
HRC, Sanders, and Carson raised $20+ million for the quarter.
Or don't you think so?
You could limit tissue collection and transfer to researchers to teaching hospitals or state facilities. You could forbid any transfer of money, even for re-reimbursement, so that it is entirely a donation and motivated by altruism. You could set a federal standard or cap for transport/storage so that the reimbursement costs were fixed or capped.
WRT PP, the feds could force them to split into two independent entities that are allowed and not allowed to do abortions and re-direct funding to the non-abortion entity. Or, if the potential baby part distribution is the only issue, you they could just do a public federal audit, publish the results, and then move on.
Nobody really wants to solve the problem; they just want to score points.
Eventually they will find something somewhere I suppose but it's a continuous witch hunt aimed at pulling the red meat strings of the Right.
And that would do nothing but prove conservatives' deepest suspicions of him, and verify that there are not in fact two distinct parties but one ruling class.
So, yeah, he could try that. It would be the ultimate end of the GOP. I'd bet anything on that outcome.
What Weepy should be thinking about is that he's reaping the fruit of overpromising and underdelivering. The RNC has advanced promises to do things. These promises helped them gain a majority. Failing to even attempt to keep those promises has made a lot of people very angry, and the current situation is a consequence of that.
The allegation was that PP was selling tissue at a profit. That has fallen apart. It is time to move on. This isnt a bipartisan "they're both wrong" issue. It is a trumped up bullsht issue.
The first question, out of the blue, was whether PP subsidized activities in the Congo, and she wasn't even given time to explain why she might not know that. A half hour was spent on the size of her salary. A totally phony chart of PP activities, provided by the film makers, was presented to the witness with the claim that it was taken from their data. That was a lie, and all of the numbers were wrong.
If you know anything about Congressional hearings, you would know that the staffers that prepare Congresspeople for these hearings are needle sharp, and that if they wanted to do a true investigative hearing instead of a political clown show, they could have. The fact that they did not is all of the evidence of lack of seriousness I need.
The allegation was that PP was selling tissue at a profit. That has fallen apart. It is time to move on. This isnt a bipartisan "they're both wrong" issue. It is a trumped up bullsht issue.
And if he does so in other situations, well, that is just a source of pressure for the FC to get rid of him and elect an actual new Speaker. I would not be surprised to see him use that tactic--for example on the Ex-IM bank and the Federal Highway Trust Fund. His mess age would be: "if you don't want someone doing that, help elect a new speaker. I am no longer interested in keeping the job, and I am no longer beholden to you."
Depends. The staff who work directly for a standing Committee of the Congress are often very smart people with deep subject-matter expertise on the areas within that Committee's jurisdiction. The Members, of course, also have personal staff. Now, some of these personal staff know their shit-- particularly long-time staffers for senior Reps and Senators. But a lot of them are folks who made their bones knocking on doors and answering phones in election campaigns, and whose understanding of policy doesn't go much beyond the talking-point level.
Did either of them have a chance anyway? I havent seen any prognostication on who would win if Ryan doesnt run.
I also dont understand how Ryan isnt the embodiment of the establishment. Romney's running mate, vocal supporter of many of the purported sins of the right which purportedly birthed the FC in the first place.
The point is that Ryan's probably the best they're going to do.
Quote:
No I literally dont know what issue you're addressing. It is illegal to turn a profit on these tissue samples. You dont need new rules for that. So what is the "problem" your rules would address? Your post is very unclear.
How about potentially uncontrolled rogue places selling it for profit? Even in this case, I am totally unclear as to the need to dicker over reimbursement costs, which would be a fixed thing.
Ok. Im not sure such places exist though. And why you need new rules rather than enforcement of the clear existing law.
As for dickering with reimbursement costs, they're not set by government. Government says dont profit. Entities look at their costs and figure out how to comply with the law.
Barring actual evidence of someone making a profit here -- and there is none -- I really dont understand why you need more lawmaking.
The point is that Ryan's probably the best they're going to do.
Okie dokie. He seems beloved inside the GOP establishment as a friendly, presentable wonk type on policy issues, but his ideas on SS and Medicare are not going to play well in the 65+ set. Seems like easy fodder for Dem attack ads. Can he be sold as not deeply ideological when he is liked in the caucus because he is in fact deeply ideological without being a foaming at the mouth ideologue type?
The FC has a questionnaire for candidates interested in becoming speaker. Basically asking for commitment that increase in debt ceiling be linked to cuts to SS, Medicare,& Medicaid. Also, asking commitment appropriation bills will not have funding for PP, Obamacare, Iran Deal, and unconstitutional amnesty.
Quote:
But he's not part of the leadership, which helps him. He's also just a pretty likeable guy from what I've read - charm never hurts.
The point is that Ryan's probably the best they're going to do.
Okie dokie. He seems beloved inside the GOP establishment as a friendly, presentable wonk type on policy issues, but his ideas on SS and Medicare are not going to play well in the 65+ set. Seems like easy fodder for Dem attack ads. Can he be sold as not deeply ideological when he is liked in the caucus because he is in fact deeply ideological without being a foaming at the mouth ideologue type?
No. Very liberal sure. But a deal maker through and through. Her political approach is bending elbows, not some big policy debate. There is no grand Pelosi or Boehner plan like Ryan's tax and entitlement proposal.
Quote:
Most of the leadership of both parties is. Are you telling me Pelosi isn't an ideologue?
No. Very liberal sure. But a deal maker through and through. Her political approach is bending elbows, not some big policy debate. There is no grand Pelosi or Boehner plan like Ryan's tax and entitlement proposal.
That's something the Freedom Coalition has no interest in. Ryan has mostly been an ideologue lobbing rhetorical bombs from the sidelines. If he becomes the Speaker, that's an entirely different role.
We've been 'getting things done' for the past 50 years and that is how we go into this mess.
That isn't a liberal viewpoint, it's just one that requires an IQ in triple digits.
The point isn't to do 100% of what the Freedom Caucus or the people who voted many of these guys into congress. It's at least to let those in the House have a voice and input on policy. That is what has not been happening. Boehner hand picking a successor and refusing to leave unless he can is part of the problem.
As CNN is now reporting, Democratic Rep. Luis Gutierrez on MSNBC called Ryan one of the smartest men in the GOP. He would be good for the country, Gutierrez said. He would be good for the Republican Party. Paul Ryan is the kind of individual that would work with people on the other side of the aisle and thats what we need.'
Gutierrez has worked tirelessly to expand immigration levels and open Americas borders up to the rest of the world. As Gutierrez once declared, I have only one loyaltyand thats to the immigrant community.
Gutierrez and Paul Ryan have been longtime partners on efforts to open Americans borders. Indeed, Paul Ryan is arguably the most pro-amnesty GOP lawmaker in Congress, and even supports expanding immigration levels beyond many Democrats.
Link - ( New Window )
Breitbart - Ryan support slipping. Questions arise whether he could get enough votes - ( New Window )
The idea that only laws and rules would brought to the floor of the House if the majority of the majority are in favor of them - in other words things will only be brought to the floor if they can be passed entirely with Republican votes.
This is a recent phenomenon called the Hassert Rule = Start by Newt and codified as an unwritten rule by Hassart .
Much like the anti tax pledge WRITTEN BY A 12 YEAR OLD that all Republicans sign . the Hassart rule merely guarantees that the crazies have a large amount of power and prevents any thoughts of compromise
The modern Republican party is unable to govern- it is simple as that.
This whole 'chaos' thing is a farce. It's an establishment chaos. They are desperately trying to cling to power while they have lost the support of the base and many of the members.
The California Republican stunned the conference with his decision, saying the House needs a "fresh face" to lead and suggesting he could not unite conservatives.
But reports of infidelity on conservative websites hung over the decision, and were cited in apparent revisions to Wikipedia pages.
Washington Free Beacon reporter Lachlan Markay first noted on Twitter that "someone using a DHS IP address" made the edits to Rep. Renee Ellmers' Wikipedia page. The Daily Caller noted a similar edit was made to McCarthy's page, referencing a report by controversial conservative writer Charles Johnson on an alleged affair between the two.
DHS spokeswoman Marsha Catron told Fox News the edits are being investigated.
"DHS has immediately launched an investigation into this serious matter. If it is discovered that a DHS employee, using Government property, is responsible for these alleged actions, immediate and appropriate disciplinary action will be taken," she said in a statement.
This after the Secret Service was found to have illegally released information about Chaffetz SS application. The IRS, the EPA, all of these agencies are corrupt.
Pelosi is a hack. She's the Democrats version of Newt Gingrich with a phoney smile. The only person I have despised more than her is Harry Reid. The both of them are god awful liars and the only thing important to either of them is getting other Democrats elected.
And that doesn't let the Republicans off the hook especially the "conservative evangelicals." That useless group has hijacked the House for the past 8 years. No wonder nobody wants the speaker job. You have the self proclaimed and pseudo intelligentsia on the left and the intolerant pseudo religious on the right. A pox on them all.
Quote:
And that doesn't let the Republicans off the hook especially the "conservative evangelicals." That useless group has hijacked the House for the past 8 years. No wonder nobody wants the speaker job. You have the self proclaimed and pseudo intelligentsia on the left and the intolerant pseudo religious on the right. A pox on them all.
LIKE :)
Quote:
Quote:
And that doesn't let the Republicans off the hook especially the "conservative evangelicals." That useless group has hijacked the House for the past 8 years. No wonder nobody wants the speaker job. You have the self proclaimed and pseudo intelligentsia on the left and the intolerant pseudo religious on the right. A pox on them all.
LIKE :)
You'd better like the 1st part too, lying sacks of excrement.
Quote:
In comment 12537478 section125 said:
Quote:
Quote:
And that doesn't let the Republicans off the hook especially the "conservative evangelicals." That useless group has hijacked the House for the past 8 years. No wonder nobody wants the speaker job. You have the self proclaimed and pseudo intelligentsia on the left and the intolerant pseudo religious on the right. A pox on them all.
LIKE :)
You'd better like the 1st part too, lying sacks of excrement.
Well, I know Greg doesn't like when I make reference to my past life as a Republican, but back then I thought Pelosi and Reid were evil incarnate.
In the Secret Service scandal it was many, including supervisors and we all know what happened with the IRS.
I think the media and the liberals think this is a disaster for the GOP (just like they though the shutdown in 2013 was). The dems have their own issues and are likely counting on the republicans imploding to save them. But I don't think that will happen, just like it didn't happen in 2014. It's more wishful thinking than actual analysis of the situation.
This is merely a result of the GOP leadership abusing their base. That is why the leaders in the primary are not GOP establishment and why Boehner, Cantor and McCarthy are out.
I think the media and the liberals think this is a disaster for the GOP (just like they though the shutdown in 2013 was). The dems have their own issues and are likely counting on the republicans imploding to save them. But I don't think that will happen, just like it didn't happen in 2014. It's more wishful thinking than actual analysis of the situation.
This is merely a result of the GOP leadership abusing their base. That is why the leaders in the primary are not GOP establishment and why Boehner, Cantor and McCarthy are out.
Paul Ryan is an example of someone whose ideas and philosophy I disagree with. But its a respectful disagreement, much as I may disagree with many conservative posters here. He is not one of the "wackos". And no buford, I'm not going to get into "naming the wackos".
http://nypost.com/2015/10/10/congresswoman-calls-mccarthy-affair-rumor-bats-t-crazy/ - ( New Window )
Quote:
where Paul Ryan is an idealogue and Nancy Pelosi isn't.....
I think the media and the liberals think this is a disaster for the GOP (just like they though the shutdown in 2013 was). The dems have their own issues and are likely counting on the republicans imploding to save them. But I don't think that will happen, just like it didn't happen in 2014. It's more wishful thinking than actual analysis of the situation.
This is merely a result of the GOP leadership abusing their base. That is why the leaders in the primary are not GOP establishment and why Boehner, Cantor and McCarthy are out.
Paul Ryan is an example of someone whose ideas and philosophy I disagree with. But its a respectful disagreement, much as I may disagree with many conservative posters here. He is not one of the "wackos". And no buford, I'm not going to get into "naming the wackos".
I like Ryan too. But I don't think he's right for the spot and I don't think he was right for VP either. He's a policy wonk guy, not a politician (which is why people like and respect him).
A more bottom up approach with all members having input. The ability to amend legislation. Force the Senate Dems to pass the spending bills.
I don't know but that doesn't sound like crazy stuff to me.
Link - ( New Window )
Gail Collins - ( New Window )
As I've discovered, humor is very subjective, lol. Haven't read her in many years. Never found her funny, still don't. I prefer the sharp wit of Maureen Dowd, even tho I can't stand her.
Quote:
NYT articles, any Gail Collins fans out there? I lover her droll humor. Even though she's of course, not conservative, I think even conservatives might get a chuckle from her columns. Here's today's column on the GOP Speaker "crisis"... Gail Collins - ( New Window )
As I've discovered, humor is very subjective, lol. Haven't read her in many years. Never found her funny, still don't. I prefer the sharp wit of Maureen Dowd, even tho I can't stand her.
Yeah, she's not LOL funny, amusing would be more like it. But of course you're right, its definitely subjective.
Demographically this a very diverse country. It's just not differences in political philosophy. Congress's disapproval rating is so low because it can't get anything done. Polls show, regardless of party identification, Americans want compromise to get issues/problems addressed.
FC, imo is not interested in good governess. They want what they want like children having tantrums. One of their wants is to get PP defunded. Curiously, PP has a far better favorability rating than Congress.
So imo, if you think Congress is dysfunctional now, the house will be totally ungovernable. These rule changes are just not about trying to force Republican bills through, its also about compromises between the House and Senate versions.
Quote:
In comment 12538280 River Mike said:
Quote:
NYT articles, any Gail Collins fans out there? I lover her droll humor. Even though she's of course, not conservative, I think even conservatives might get a chuckle from her columns. Here's today's column on the GOP Speaker "crisis"... Gail Collins - ( New Window )
As I've discovered, humor is very subjective, lol. Haven't read her in many years. Never found her funny, still don't. I prefer the sharp wit of Maureen Dowd, even tho I can't stand her.
Yeah, she's not LOL funny, amusing would be more like it. But of course you're right, its definitely subjective.
I miss Art Buchwald and Russell Baker, both of whom directed their humor in all directions.