No better way to energize the DEM voters than to block Obama's nominations...

[Mac1958]

Rock and a hard place for Republicans. They have to deal with a reputation of being obstructionists, which they brought on themselves. To the electorate, this just looks like more of the same..

They were definitely not obstructionist enough, but the left wing sold the lie and a whole lot of folks repeat it.

Look at the behavior of the GOP over the last eight years:

• Activists shoving absolutist "pledges" in the face of their candidates, threatening to "primary" anyone who didn't sign them
• Attacking any Republican who showed any moderation as a RINO
• Loudly declaring any hint of cooperation with Democrats as unacceptable
• Screaming "socialism" and/or "communism" at any number of existing government programs, wanting to shut down any number of departments
  
• Voting as a bloc against virtually any Democrat initiative

The public sees this. They don't see the Democrats doing this. It's not difficult to characterize that behavior as obstructionist.
.

Then again every one of those bullet points are accurate. Does that count for anything?

What I cannot tell about people like you, who insist riding the fence is a good thing, is if you have think having a one party system is a good thing.

Republicrat or demican? No opposition party to obvious socialist policies? Big government rule? The democrats obvious victimology strategy where they use all minorities as pawns for political gain and nothing else?

You feel that kind of patronizing is good for America?

I really cannot tell. Btw, those fucking rinos do not do shit in the way of blocking socialist policies. You do not think that is true? Just cannot tell what your position is other than telling us they are all corrupt.

I made a point, and it looks like you're not disagreeing with it or denying it. Good.

We all sit on fences. Some are way off to the left of the playground, some are off to the right of the playground. Those folks have a great view of their little part of the playground, but their view of the whole thing is pretty lousy. I wouldn't bother consulting with them if I needed a good, accurate view of the whole playground.

I like where mine is, just fine.
.

"We all sit on fences."

I love autobiographical posts.

Finally got you to admit it.

And you managed to completely ignore/avoid the rest of the post.

Tunnel vision is indeed one of the primary symptoms of the intellectual paralysis brought on by partisan ideology.
.

 

[Mac1958]

Rock and a hard place for Republicans. They have to deal with a reputation of being obstructionists, which they brought on themselves. To the electorate, this just looks like more of the same..

They were definitely not obstructionist enough, but the left wing sold the lie and a whole lot of folks repeat it.

Look at the behavior of the GOP over the last eight years:

• Activists shoving absolutist "pledges" in the face of their candidates, threatening to "primary" anyone who didn't sign them
• Attacking any Republican who showed any moderation as a RINO
• Loudly declaring any hint of cooperation with Democrats as unacceptable
• Screaming "socialism" and/or "communism" at any number of existing government programs, wanting to shut down any number of departments
  
• Voting as a bloc against virtually any Democrat initiative

The public sees this. They don't see the Democrats doing this. It's not difficult to characterize that behavior as obstructionist.
.

Then again every one of those bullet points are accurate. Does that count for anything?

What I cannot tell about people like you, who insist riding the fence is a good thing, is if you have think having a one party system is a good thing.

Republicrat or demican? No opposition party to obvious socialist policies? Big government rule? The democrats obvious victimology strategy where they use all minorities as pawns for political gain and nothing else?

You feel that kind of patronizing is good for America?

I really cannot tell. Btw, those fucking rinos do not do shit in the way of blocking socialist policies. You do not think that is true? Just cannot tell what your position is other than telling us they are all corrupt.

I made a point, and it looks like you're not disagreeing with it or denying it. Good.

We all sit on fences. Some are way off to the left of the playground, some are off to the right of the playground. Those folks have a great view of their little part of the playground, but their view of the whole thing is pretty lousy. I wouldn't bother consulting with them if I needed a good, accurate view of the whole playground.

I like where mine is, just fine.
.

You don't think our elected representatives ought to obstruct policies they deem as bad for america? Or are we all just suppose to expect them to take anything some fucking democrat American hating sack of socialist shit's word for it and simply sign on the dotted line. Pass all of their fucked up policies in order to not offend the minorities that prop up as pawns?

I still cannot tell what you expect.

If a party doesn't have enough votes in Congress to get what it wants, that means it has failed to attract/convince enough voters to vote for their party. And/or, it can also win the White House.

That party can either admit that or it can take its toys and go home. The GOP made its choice, and that's fine, but if they are perceived as obstructionists by the public, and if that damages their brand, they need to look in the mirror.

So I think they should vote and act as they please, and we'll see how the chips fall. I'm lousy at predicting politics.
.

 

[paulitician]

Sounds like desperation. Most Dem-Bots are realizing they're gonna be stuck with Hillary Clinton. They're bummin. They know hey're gonna be ordered to get out there and support a corrupt incompetent asshole. I'd be grasping at any possible reason to get 'Energized' too.

 

[PoliticalChic]

They were definitely not obstructionist enough, but the left wing sold the lie and a whole lot of folks repeat it.

Look at the behavior of the GOP over the last eight years:

• Activists shoving absolutist "pledges" in the face of their candidates, threatening to "primary" anyone who didn't sign them
• Attacking any Republican who showed any moderation as a RINO
• Loudly declaring any hint of cooperation with Democrats as unacceptable
• Screaming "socialism" and/or "communism" at any number of existing government programs, wanting to shut down any number of departments
  
• Voting as a bloc against virtually any Democrat initiative

The public sees this. They don't see the Democrats doing this. It's not difficult to characterize that behavior as obstructionist.
.

Then again every one of those bullet points are accurate. Does that count for anything?

What I cannot tell about people like you, who insist riding the fence is a good thing, is if you have think having a one party system is a good thing.

Republicrat or demican? No opposition party to obvious socialist policies? Big government rule? The democrats obvious victimology strategy where they use all minorities as pawns for political gain and nothing else?

You feel that kind of patronizing is good for America?

I really cannot tell. Btw, those fucking rinos do not do shit in the way of blocking socialist policies. You do not think that is true? Just cannot tell what your position is other than telling us they are all corrupt.

I made a point, and it looks like you're not disagreeing with it or denying it. Good.

We all sit on fences. Some are way off to the left of the playground, some are off to the right of the playground. Those folks have a great view of their little part of the playground, but their view of the whole thing is pretty lousy. I wouldn't bother consulting with them if I needed a good, accurate view of the whole playground.

I like where mine is, just fine.
.

You don't think our elected representatives ought to obstruct policies they deem as bad for america? Or are we all just suppose to expect them to take anything some fucking democrat American hating sack of socialist shit's word for it and simply sign on the dotted line. Pass all of their fucked up policies in order to not offend the minorities that prop up as pawns?

I still cannot tell what you expect.

If a party doesn't have enough votes in Congress to get what it wants, that means it has failed to attract/convince enough voters to vote for their party. And/or, it can also win the White House.

That party can either admit that or it can take its toys and go home. The GOP made its choice, and that's fine, but if they are perceived as obstructionists by the public, and if that damages their brand, they need to look in the mirror.

So I think they should vote and act as they please, and we'll see how the chips fall. I'm lousy at predicting politics.
.

"If a party doesn't have enough votes in Congress to get what it wants, that means it has failed to attract/convince enough voters to vote for their party. And/or, it can also win the White House."

No it doesn't.

That's not what it means, at all.

Before the electorate can make an informed decision, it need be informed.
The first amendment makes special accommodation for the press with the understanding that the press will provide a fair analysis of the various perspectives.


That is hardly the scenario under which we currently live.


Here is an exposure of leftist journalists using the term ‘racists’ to cow their political opponents. Enlightening.

1. After someone torpedoed Dave Weigel’s Washington Post gig by breaking the code of silence on the Journolist listserv, the race has been on to see who would sell the entire contents of the e-mail messages between the liberal members of the group — and who would get to buy them. We may never know who sold it, but Tucker Carlson and the Daily Caller wound up with the data,…
2. Daily Caller reporter Jonathan Strong lays out a strategy plotted by Journolist members to kill the Jeremiah Wright story during the 2008 primaries — and to smear Barack Obama’s critics as racists:
3. …videos surfaced of Obama’s pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, angrily denouncing whites, the U.S. government and America itself. Obama had once bragged of his closeness to Wright….in mid-April, 2008, at an ABC News debate moderated by Charlie Gibson and George Stephanopoulos. Gibson asked Obama why it had taken him so long – nearly a year since Wright’s remarks became public – to dissociate himself from them.
4. Watching this all at home were members of Journolist, a listserv comprised of several hundred liberal journalists, as well as like-minded professors and activists. The tough questioning from the ABC anchors left many of them outraged.
5. …at several points during the 2008 presidential campaign a group of liberal journalists took radical steps to protect their favored candidate. Employees of news organizations including Time, Politico, the Huffington Post, the Baltimore Sun, the Guardian, Salon and the New Republic participated in outpourings of anger over how Obama had been treated in the media, and in some cases plotted to fix the damage.
6. Spencer Ackerman of the Washington Independent urged his colleagues to deflect attention from Obama’s relationship with Wright by changing the subject. Pick one of Obama’s conservative critics, Ackerman wrote, “Fred Barnes, Karl Rove, who cares — and call them racists.”
7. Journolist members collaborated on an open letter criticizing ABC’s Charlie Gibson for asking questions about Wright during ABC’s presidential debate between Obama and Hillary Clinton….a campaign by professional journalists to tell ABC not to ask tough questions about a candidate’s links to radicals…
8. Ackerman appealed to the other members of the Journolist group: “If the right forces us all to either defend Wright or tear him down, no matter what we choose, we lose the game they’ve put upon us. Instead, take one of them — Fred Barnes, Karl Rove, who cares — and call them racists. Ask: why do they have such a deep-seated problem with a black politician who unites the country? What lurks behind those problems? This makes *them* sputter with rage, which in turn leads to overreaction and self-destruction.”
9. It certainly puts efforts by the Left to paint the Tea Party as racist in an entirely new light. It also calls into question the ethics and judgment of anyone who participated in that Ackerman thread.

Daily Caller discovers Journolist plot to spike Wright story, smear conservatives as racists - Hot Air


I'd be happy to provide more examples.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Sounds like desperation. Most Dem-Bots are realizing they're gonna be stuck with Hillary Clinton. They're bummin. They know hey're gonna be ordered to get out there and support a corrupt incompetent asshole. I'd be grasping at any possible reason to get 'Energized' too.

They don't care.

They voted in racists, rapists and traitors.

"Principle is nothing to liberals. Winning is everything."
Coulter

 

[paulitician]

Sounds like desperation. Most Dem-Bots are realizing they're gonna be stuck with Hillary Clinton. They're bummin. They know hey're gonna be ordered to get out there and support a corrupt incompetent asshole. I'd be grasping at any possible reason to get 'Energized' too.

They don't care.

They voted in racists, rapists and traitors.

"Principle is nothing to liberals. Winning is everything."
Coulter

I hear ya, but they're gonna have to try and pretend they're fired up to support the corrupt asshole. They're supporting a very bad person, and deep down they know it.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Sounds like desperation. Most Dem-Bots are realizing they're gonna be stuck with Hillary Clinton. They're bummin. They know hey're gonna be ordered to get out there and support a corrupt incompetent asshole. I'd be grasping at any possible reason to get 'Energized' too.

They don't care.

They voted in racists, rapists and traitors.

"Principle is nothing to liberals. Winning is everything."
Coulter

I hear ya, but they're gonna have to try and pretend they're fired up to support the corrupt asshole. They're supporting a very bad person, and deep down they know it.

So true.

But it's the reason we are living in the end times of the once great nation of America.

65,915,796 voted for the fraud and failure in the White House.

 

[Correll]

There has never been activist before, in either party,? really? I never realize that. Seems to me I remember a very successful contract with America not so many years ago. You and me bitch about what they are doing in WH, we do it everyday. Yet when people want to hold their officials accountable you seem to have a problem with them doing so? If an elected official is NOT representing what the people want, what do you suppose they should be threatened with?

The whole political spectrum has swung left. What is considered a moderate today was a flaming liberal not too long ago. What you are proposing is that the right swing even more left then they already have. The country is going into the dumpster and it isn't because the right has won any recent victories. The left wing has won almost everything but the right still gets the blame. BS.

We want them to vote against bad democrat initiatives. We wanted them to vote no for Obamacare. It is not like Congress has not passed laws. They are passing them at about the same rate as any other congress. It is just that some of the things that the democrats want to do is so radical we want them to vote against them in a block. That said, I can't think of any initiative that the democrats wanted they didn't get. Maybe not lock stock and barrel but they got almost everything they wanted.

I described the "what", you're explaining the "why".

If you're right that the whole political spectrum has swung left, and I agree, some self-inspection might be helpful. The usual memes - the press, lying Democrats - notwithstanding, conservatives might want to consider what failures in messaging they can address on their own.
.

We are importing a million Third World voters a year.

This is not about messaging.

You're right. It's about the bedrock conservative principles being outdated due to their shortsightedness, their dyed-in-the-wool hate aspect, and frankly their "our way is better because we say so" nonsense. The messengers such as yourself and the other morons on this and other message boards do not help the matter. Case in point, the post I'm responding to; pulled right out of thin air, zero citations, and totally hateful.

There is nothing "hateful" about pointing out that Third World Immigrants find the Democratic policies more to their liking.

Just calling people "third world immigrants" is hateful enough. Thanks for upholding the GOP/Conserve-Hate-Ive tradition of hating all who are different.

Slamming down every attempt at a serious discussion by calling people vile names, that "divides" people.
And to dumb it down to make sure you don't play dumb,
I'm talking about you and yours.

So whenever I wish to have a "serious" discussion about the GOP, I should refer to whom they court as redneck inbreds before the "serious" discussion takes place?

1. Referring to Third World Immigrants as Third World Immigrants is not hateful. That you claim it is reveals you to be a dishonest asshole.

2. You show that you do NOT wish to have a serious and honest discussion by insisting on using the Logical Fallacy of Ad Hominem, or personal attack in every single discussion.

 

[Correll]

We are importing a million Third World voters a year.

This is not about messaging.

You're right. It's about the bedrock conservative principles being outdated due to their shortsightedness, their dyed-in-the-wool hate aspect, and frankly their "our way is better because we say so" nonsense. The messengers such as yourself and the other morons on this and other message boards do not help the matter. Case in point, the post I'm responding to; pulled right out of thin air, zero citations, and totally hateful.

There is nothing "hateful" about pointing out that Third World Immigrants find the Democratic policies more to their liking.

Just calling people "third world immigrants" is hateful enough. Thanks for upholding the GOP/Conserve-Hate-Ive tradition of hating all who are different.

Slamming down every attempt at a serious discussion by calling people vile names, that "divides" people.
And to dumb it down to make sure you don't play dumb,
I'm talking about you and yours.

So whenever I wish to have a "serious" discussion about the GOP, I should refer to whom they court as redneck inbreds before the "serious" discussion takes place?

So you are saying that they are not immigrants and they are not coming from a third world country? Really? Is that what you are saying?

First of all, I do not know who "they" are. Some doofus said that we are "importing 1,000,000" Third World Voters a year. Which is amazing seeing as how many Americans are not even registered to vote, seeing as how it's exactly one million, and seeing as how they all seem to come from 3rd world nations.

Second of all, there is no metric that measures whom a new citizen will vote for. If the GOP's policies are so silly that a disinterested 3rd party who comes in with no leniency (from previous family voting history) looks at what the GOP supports and what the Dems support and goes for the Dems...it's strictly the fault of the GOP.

Thirdly...if there is a 3rd world person who becomes a citizen and is confronted by those who want you to carry around a gun for protection, confronted by those who want to make sure no publicly funded item is printed in your native language, confronted by those who think you're a 2nd class citizen because of your skin color...I can't blame them for gravitating to the other side.

1. Our immigration policy is designed to import mostly Third World immigrants. If you really don't know that I will be happy to provide a link.

2. Are you seriously disputing the fact that Third World Immigrants voting in the great majority for dems? It is not credible that you don't know that, but if you are really that ignorant of the facts, I can provide a link on that too. YOur spin on the issue is noted.

3. And Race Card play, of course.

 

[Dot Com]

Funny watching the sheep on the left pretend as though they have independent thought.

And, they pretend to honor character and veracity....but vote for racists, rapists, and treasonous individuals.

We don't vote for people who start wars based on lies. I think that "Trumps" your zany comment Sugar Tits

Did you hear about this? PoliticalChic

The Great Iraq Mistake

AND you people reelected him and his lousy cabinet

 

[Correll]

There has never been activist before, in either party,? really? I never realize that. Seems to me I remember a very successful contract with America not so many years ago. You and me bitch about what they are doing in WH, we do it everyday. Yet when people want to hold their officials accountable you seem to have a problem with them doing so? If an elected official is NOT representing what the people want, what do you suppose they should be threatened with?

The whole political spectrum has swung left. What is considered a moderate today was a flaming liberal not too long ago. What you are proposing is that the right swing even more left then they already have. The country is going into the dumpster and it isn't because the right has won any recent victories. The left wing has won almost everything but the right still gets the blame. BS.

We want them to vote against bad democrat initiatives. We wanted them to vote no for Obamacare. It is not like Congress has not passed laws. They are passing them at about the same rate as any other congress. It is just that some of the things that the democrats want to do is so radical we want them to vote against them in a block. That said, I can't think of any initiative that the democrats wanted they didn't get. Maybe not lock stock and barrel but they got almost everything they wanted.

I described the "what", you're explaining the "why".

If you're right that the whole political spectrum has swung left, and I agree, some self-inspection might be helpful. The usual memes - the press, lying Democrats - notwithstanding, conservatives might want to consider what failures in messaging they can address on their own.
.

We are importing a million Third World voters a year.

This is not about messaging.

You're right. It's about the bedrock conservative principles being outdated due to their shortsightedness, their dyed-in-the-wool hate aspect, and frankly their "our way is better because we say so" nonsense. The messengers such as yourself and the other morons on this and other message boards do not help the matter. Case in point, the post I'm responding to; pulled right out of thin air, zero citations, and totally hateful.

What is with the left that they have to invoke hate into every one of their responses? Do you understand how HATEFUL you sound?

When you comment on hateful policies...you have to mention the word "hate". Sorry. Change your policies, and I'll change my rhetoric.

"Hate", like referring to Third World Immigrants as THird World Immigrants...

You are so full of shit.

 

[Correll]

They were definitely not obstructionist enough, but the left wing sold the lie and a whole lot of folks repeat it.

Look at the behavior of the GOP over the last eight years:

• Activists shoving absolutist "pledges" in the face of their candidates, threatening to "primary" anyone who didn't sign them
• Attacking any Republican who showed any moderation as a RINO
• Loudly declaring any hint of cooperation with Democrats as unacceptable
• Screaming "socialism" and/or "communism" at any number of existing government programs, wanting to shut down any number of departments
  
• Voting as a bloc against virtually any Democrat initiative

The public sees this. They don't see the Democrats doing this. It's not difficult to characterize that behavior as obstructionist.
.

Then again every one of those bullet points are accurate. Does that count for anything?

What I cannot tell about people like you, who insist riding the fence is a good thing, is if you have think having a one party system is a good thing.

Republicrat or demican? No opposition party to obvious socialist policies? Big government rule? The democrats obvious victimology strategy where they use all minorities as pawns for political gain and nothing else?

You feel that kind of patronizing is good for America?

I really cannot tell. Btw, those fucking rinos do not do shit in the way of blocking socialist policies. You do not think that is true? Just cannot tell what your position is other than telling us they are all corrupt.

I made a point, and it looks like you're not disagreeing with it or denying it. Good.

We all sit on fences. Some are way off to the left of the playground, some are off to the right of the playground. Those folks have a great view of their little part of the playground, but their view of the whole thing is pretty lousy. I wouldn't bother consulting with them if I needed a good, accurate view of the whole playground.

I like where mine is, just fine.
.

You don't think our elected representatives ought to obstruct policies they deem as bad for america? Or are we all just suppose to expect them to take anything some fucking democrat American hating sack of socialist shit's word for it and simply sign on the dotted line. Pass all of their fucked up policies in order to not offend the minorities that prop up as pawns?

I still cannot tell what you expect.

If a party doesn't have enough votes in Congress to get what it wants, that means it has failed to attract/convince enough voters to vote for their party. And/or, it can also win the White House.

That party can either admit that or it can take its toys and go home. The GOP made its choice, and that's fine, but if they are perceived as obstructionists by the public, and if that damages their brand, they need to look in the mirror.

So I think they should vote and act as they please, and we'll see how the chips fall. I'm lousy at predicting politics.
.

Even if that minority party is in the minority, they still have a responsibility to represent the interests of their constituents.

And if the best way to do that is to obstruct policies that are harmful to those interests than that is what they should do.


If the media lies to the people about what is going on, such as claiming that it is motivated by racism, and the people never hear anything else,

there is nothing to be done about that.

How many times have you failed to get your message across to someone on this very site?

 

[Mac1958]

Look at the behavior of the GOP over the last eight years:

• Activists shoving absolutist "pledges" in the face of their candidates, threatening to "primary" anyone who didn't sign them
• Attacking any Republican who showed any moderation as a RINO
• Loudly declaring any hint of cooperation with Democrats as unacceptable
• Screaming "socialism" and/or "communism" at any number of existing government programs, wanting to shut down any number of departments
  
• Voting as a bloc against virtually any Democrat initiative

The public sees this. They don't see the Democrats doing this. It's not difficult to characterize that behavior as obstructionist.
.

Then again every one of those bullet points are accurate. Does that count for anything?

What I cannot tell about people like you, who insist riding the fence is a good thing, is if you have think having a one party system is a good thing.

Republicrat or demican? No opposition party to obvious socialist policies? Big government rule? The democrats obvious victimology strategy where they use all minorities as pawns for political gain and nothing else?

You feel that kind of patronizing is good for America?

I really cannot tell. Btw, those fucking rinos do not do shit in the way of blocking socialist policies. You do not think that is true? Just cannot tell what your position is other than telling us they are all corrupt.

I made a point, and it looks like you're not disagreeing with it or denying it. Good.

We all sit on fences. Some are way off to the left of the playground, some are off to the right of the playground. Those folks have a great view of their little part of the playground, but their view of the whole thing is pretty lousy. I wouldn't bother consulting with them if I needed a good, accurate view of the whole playground.

I like where mine is, just fine.
.

You don't think our elected representatives ought to obstruct policies they deem as bad for america? Or are we all just suppose to expect them to take anything some fucking democrat American hating sack of socialist shit's word for it and simply sign on the dotted line. Pass all of their fucked up policies in order to not offend the minorities that prop up as pawns?

I still cannot tell what you expect.

If a party doesn't have enough votes in Congress to get what it wants, that means it has failed to attract/convince enough voters to vote for their party. And/or, it can also win the White House.

That party can either admit that or it can take its toys and go home. The GOP made its choice, and that's fine, but if they are perceived as obstructionists by the public, and if that damages their brand, they need to look in the mirror.

So I think they should vote and act as they please, and we'll see how the chips fall. I'm lousy at predicting politics.
.

Even if that minority party is in the minority, they still have a responsibility to represent the interests of their constituents.

And if the best way to do that is to obstruct policies that are harmful to those interests than that is what they should do.


If the media lies to the people about what is going on, such as claiming that it is motivated by racism, and the people never hear anything else,

there is nothing to be done about that.

How many times have you failed to get your message across to someone on this very site?

That's all perfectly fine. My point continues to be that there may be a cost to be paid for that at the polls.

Again, I'm lousy at predicting this stuff.
.

 

[rightwinger]

Then again every one of those bullet points are accurate. Does that count for anything?

What I cannot tell about people like you, who insist riding the fence is a good thing, is if you have think having a one party system is a good thing.

Republicrat or demican? No opposition party to obvious socialist policies? Big government rule? The democrats obvious victimology strategy where they use all minorities as pawns for political gain and nothing else?

You feel that kind of patronizing is good for America?

I really cannot tell. Btw, those fucking rinos do not do shit in the way of blocking socialist policies. You do not think that is true? Just cannot tell what your position is other than telling us they are all corrupt.

I made a point, and it looks like you're not disagreeing with it or denying it. Good.

We all sit on fences. Some are way off to the left of the playground, some are off to the right of the playground. Those folks have a great view of their little part of the playground, but their view of the whole thing is pretty lousy. I wouldn't bother consulting with them if I needed a good, accurate view of the whole playground.

I like where mine is, just fine.
.

You don't think our elected representatives ought to obstruct policies they deem as bad for america? Or are we all just suppose to expect them to take anything some fucking democrat American hating sack of socialist shit's word for it and simply sign on the dotted line. Pass all of their fucked up policies in order to not offend the minorities that prop up as pawns?

I still cannot tell what you expect.

If a party doesn't have enough votes in Congress to get what it wants, that means it has failed to attract/convince enough voters to vote for their party. And/or, it can also win the White House.

That party can either admit that or it can take its toys and go home. The GOP made its choice, and that's fine, but if they are perceived as obstructionists by the public, and if that damages their brand, they need to look in the mirror.

So I think they should vote and act as they please, and we'll see how the chips fall. I'm lousy at predicting politics.
.

Even if that minority party is in the minority, they still have a responsibility to represent the interests of their constituents.

And if the best way to do that is to obstruct policies that are harmful to those interests than that is what they should do.


If the media lies to the people about what is going on, such as claiming that it is motivated by racism, and the people never hear anything else,

there is nothing to be done about that.

How many times have you failed to get your message across to someone on this very site?

That's all perfectly fine. My point continues to be that there may be a cost to be paid for that at the polls.

Again, I'm lousy at predicting this stuff.
.

There is nothing dumber than McConnell coming out and saying Republicans will block the nomination until Obama is no longer President

Almost as dumb as his declaration to make Obama a one term president

Makes clear the motives of every future Republican action

 

[Theowl32]

Then again every one of those bullet points are accurate. Does that count for anything?

What I cannot tell about people like you, who insist riding the fence is a good thing, is if you have think having a one party system is a good thing.

Republicrat or demican? No opposition party to obvious socialist policies? Big government rule? The democrats obvious victimology strategy where they use all minorities as pawns for political gain and nothing else?

You feel that kind of patronizing is good for America?

I really cannot tell. Btw, those fucking rinos do not do shit in the way of blocking socialist policies. You do not think that is true? Just cannot tell what your position is other than telling us they are all corrupt.

I made a point, and it looks like you're not disagreeing with it or denying it. Good.

We all sit on fences. Some are way off to the left of the playground, some are off to the right of the playground. Those folks have a great view of their little part of the playground, but their view of the whole thing is pretty lousy. I wouldn't bother consulting with them if I needed a good, accurate view of the whole playground.

I like where mine is, just fine.
.

You don't think our elected representatives ought to obstruct policies they deem as bad for america? Or are we all just suppose to expect them to take anything some fucking democrat American hating sack of socialist shit's word for it and simply sign on the dotted line. Pass all of their fucked up policies in order to not offend the minorities that prop up as pawns?

I still cannot tell what you expect.

If a party doesn't have enough votes in Congress to get what it wants, that means it has failed to attract/convince enough voters to vote for their party. And/or, it can also win the White House.

That party can either admit that or it can take its toys and go home. The GOP made its choice, and that's fine, but if they are perceived as obstructionists by the public, and if that damages their brand, they need to look in the mirror.

So I think they should vote and act as they please, and we'll see how the chips fall. I'm lousy at predicting politics.
.

Even if that minority party is in the minority, they still have a responsibility to represent the interests of their constituents.

And if the best way to do that is to obstruct policies that are harmful to those interests than that is what they should do.


If the media lies to the people about what is going on, such as claiming that it is motivated by racism, and the people never hear anything else,

there is nothing to be done about that.

How many times have you failed to get your message across to someone on this very site?

That's all perfectly fine. My point continues to be that there may be a cost to be paid for that at the polls.

Again, I'm lousy at predicting this stuff.
.

Cost at the polls is right. Then again I am still not quite sure what your stance is. You think an opposition party is bad? One party system is good? Using all minorities as props for political expediency is good?

Socialism is good? Do you buy into it as a utopia? You think America is really such a lousy place to live for poor people as opposed to say........Cuba?

Not 100% sure if you are capable of picking a side here. Seems to me that you feel picking a side is bad.

You are confusing.

 

[Mac1958]

I made a point, and it looks like you're not disagreeing with it or denying it. Good.

We all sit on fences. Some are way off to the left of the playground, some are off to the right of the playground. Those folks have a great view of their little part of the playground, but their view of the whole thing is pretty lousy. I wouldn't bother consulting with them if I needed a good, accurate view of the whole playground.

I like where mine is, just fine.
.

You don't think our elected representatives ought to obstruct policies they deem as bad for america? Or are we all just suppose to expect them to take anything some fucking democrat American hating sack of socialist shit's word for it and simply sign on the dotted line. Pass all of their fucked up policies in order to not offend the minorities that prop up as pawns?

I still cannot tell what you expect.

If a party doesn't have enough votes in Congress to get what it wants, that means it has failed to attract/convince enough voters to vote for their party. And/or, it can also win the White House.

That party can either admit that or it can take its toys and go home. The GOP made its choice, and that's fine, but if they are perceived as obstructionists by the public, and if that damages their brand, they need to look in the mirror.

So I think they should vote and act as they please, and we'll see how the chips fall. I'm lousy at predicting politics.
.

Even if that minority party is in the minority, they still have a responsibility to represent the interests of their constituents.

And if the best way to do that is to obstruct policies that are harmful to those interests than that is what they should do.


If the media lies to the people about what is going on, such as claiming that it is motivated by racism, and the people never hear anything else,

there is nothing to be done about that.

How many times have you failed to get your message across to someone on this very site?

That's all perfectly fine. My point continues to be that there may be a cost to be paid for that at the polls.

Again, I'm lousy at predicting this stuff.
.

Cost at the polls is right. Then again I am still not quite sure what your stance is. You think an opposition party is bad? One party system is good? Using all minorities as props for political expediency is good?

Socialism is good? Do you buy into it as a utopia? You think America is really such a lousy place to live for poor people as opposed to say........Cuba?

Not 100% sure if you are capable of picking a side here. Seems to me that you feel picking a side is bad.

You are confusing.

I don't know what's so confusing about this.

If you think this stuff is good, if Republican politicians think it's a good idea, great, go for it. This silly stuff about an opposition party being bad or a one party system being good has nothing to do with this, they're just straw men.

Do it, oppose every last thing Obama does and wants, no matter what. Threaten to primary any Republican who dares to cooperate with other party. Attack any notion of cooperation that pops up. I think it's a bad idea, I'd rather see cooperation, but maybe you're right and maybe you'll win the White House with it.

And oddly, the guy leading the party in the nomination race, by far, has promised to be a deal-maker. That means cooperation, give and take.

I like cooperation, even if I don't always get what I want. I can't make it much more clear than that.
.

 

[Theowl32]

You don't think our elected representatives ought to obstruct policies they deem as bad for america? Or are we all just suppose to expect them to take anything some fucking democrat American hating sack of socialist shit's word for it and simply sign on the dotted line. Pass all of their fucked up policies in order to not offend the minorities that prop up as pawns?

I still cannot tell what you expect.

If a party doesn't have enough votes in Congress to get what it wants, that means it has failed to attract/convince enough voters to vote for their party. And/or, it can also win the White House.

That party can either admit that or it can take its toys and go home. The GOP made its choice, and that's fine, but if they are perceived as obstructionists by the public, and if that damages their brand, they need to look in the mirror.

So I think they should vote and act as they please, and we'll see how the chips fall. I'm lousy at predicting politics.
.

Even if that minority party is in the minority, they still have a responsibility to represent the interests of their constituents.

And if the best way to do that is to obstruct policies that are harmful to those interests than that is what they should do.


If the media lies to the people about what is going on, such as claiming that it is motivated by racism, and the people never hear anything else,

there is nothing to be done about that.

How many times have you failed to get your message across to someone on this very site?

That's all perfectly fine. My point continues to be that there may be a cost to be paid for that at the polls.

Again, I'm lousy at predicting this stuff.
.

Cost at the polls is right. Then again I am still not quite sure what your stance is. You think an opposition party is bad? One party system is good? Using all minorities as props for political expediency is good?

Socialism is good? Do you buy into it as a utopia? You think America is really such a lousy place to live for poor people as opposed to say........Cuba?

Not 100% sure if you are capable of picking a side here. Seems to me that you feel picking a side is bad.

You are confusing.

I don't know what's so confusing about this.

If you think this stuff is good, if Republican politicians think it's a good idea, great, go for it. This silly stuff about an opposition party being bad or a one party system being good has nothing to do with this, they're just straw men.

Do it, oppose every last thing Obama does and wants, no matter what. Threaten to primary any Republican who dares to cooperate with other party. Attack any notion of cooperation that pops up. I think it's a bad idea, I'd rather see cooperation, but maybe you're right and maybe you'll win the White House with it.

And oddly, the guy leading the party in the nomination race, by far, has promised to be a deal-maker. That means cooperation, give and take.

I like cooperation, even if I don't always get what I want. I can't make it much more clear than that.
.

When you say oppose EVERY LAST THING Obama does, give examples of what EVERY LAST THING IS.

I would say MOST THINGS. Hey, got me there. What has he done that you agree with?

Is there anything? Specifically what and specifically why.

Thanks

 

[Correll]

I made a point, and it looks like you're not disagreeing with it or denying it. Good.

We all sit on fences. Some are way off to the left of the playground, some are off to the right of the playground. Those folks have a great view of their little part of the playground, but their view of the whole thing is pretty lousy. I wouldn't bother consulting with them if I needed a good, accurate view of the whole playground.

I like where mine is, just fine.
.

You don't think our elected representatives ought to obstruct policies they deem as bad for america? Or are we all just suppose to expect them to take anything some fucking democrat American hating sack of socialist shit's word for it and simply sign on the dotted line. Pass all of their fucked up policies in order to not offend the minorities that prop up as pawns?

I still cannot tell what you expect.

If a party doesn't have enough votes in Congress to get what it wants, that means it has failed to attract/convince enough voters to vote for their party. And/or, it can also win the White House.

That party can either admit that or it can take its toys and go home. The GOP made its choice, and that's fine, but if they are perceived as obstructionists by the public, and if that damages their brand, they need to look in the mirror.

So I think they should vote and act as they please, and we'll see how the chips fall. I'm lousy at predicting politics.
.

Even if that minority party is in the minority, they still have a responsibility to represent the interests of their constituents.

And if the best way to do that is to obstruct policies that are harmful to those interests than that is what they should do.


If the media lies to the people about what is going on, such as claiming that it is motivated by racism, and the people never hear anything else,

there is nothing to be done about that.

How many times have you failed to get your message across to someone on this very site?

That's all perfectly fine. My point continues to be that there may be a cost to be paid for that at the polls.

Again, I'm lousy at predicting this stuff.
.

There is nothing dumber than McConnell coming out and saying Republicans will block the nomination until Obama is no longer President

Almost as dumb as his declaration to make Obama a one term president

Makes clear the motives of every future Republican action

There is nothing dumb about it at all.

 

[rightwinger]

You don't think our elected representatives ought to obstruct policies they deem as bad for america? Or are we all just suppose to expect them to take anything some fucking democrat American hating sack of socialist shit's word for it and simply sign on the dotted line. Pass all of their fucked up policies in order to not offend the minorities that prop up as pawns?

I still cannot tell what you expect.

If a party doesn't have enough votes in Congress to get what it wants, that means it has failed to attract/convince enough voters to vote for their party. And/or, it can also win the White House.

That party can either admit that or it can take its toys and go home. The GOP made its choice, and that's fine, but if they are perceived as obstructionists by the public, and if that damages their brand, they need to look in the mirror.

So I think they should vote and act as they please, and we'll see how the chips fall. I'm lousy at predicting politics.
.

Even if that minority party is in the minority, they still have a responsibility to represent the interests of their constituents.

And if the best way to do that is to obstruct policies that are harmful to those interests than that is what they should do.


If the media lies to the people about what is going on, such as claiming that it is motivated by racism, and the people never hear anything else,

there is nothing to be done about that.

How many times have you failed to get your message across to someone on this very site?

That's all perfectly fine. My point continues to be that there may be a cost to be paid for that at the polls.

Again, I'm lousy at predicting this stuff.
.

There is nothing dumber than McConnell coming out and saying Republicans will block the nomination until Obama is no longer President

Almost as dumb as his declaration to make Obama a one term president

Makes clear the motives of every future Republican action

There is nothing dumb about it at all.

OK ...what did McConnell gain by showing his cards so early?

 

[Correll]

If a party doesn't have enough votes in Congress to get what it wants, that means it has failed to attract/convince enough voters to vote for their party. And/or, it can also win the White House.

That party can either admit that or it can take its toys and go home. The GOP made its choice, and that's fine, but if they are perceived as obstructionists by the public, and if that damages their brand, they need to look in the mirror.

So I think they should vote and act as they please, and we'll see how the chips fall. I'm lousy at predicting politics.
.

Even if that minority party is in the minority, they still have a responsibility to represent the interests of their constituents.

And if the best way to do that is to obstruct policies that are harmful to those interests than that is what they should do.


If the media lies to the people about what is going on, such as claiming that it is motivated by racism, and the people never hear anything else,

there is nothing to be done about that.

How many times have you failed to get your message across to someone on this very site?

That's all perfectly fine. My point continues to be that there may be a cost to be paid for that at the polls.

Again, I'm lousy at predicting this stuff.
.

There is nothing dumber than McConnell coming out and saying Republicans will block the nomination until Obama is no longer President

Almost as dumb as his declaration to make Obama a one term president

Makes clear the motives of every future Republican action

There is nothing dumb about it at all.

OK ...what did McConnell gain by showing his cards so early?

Giving his troops their marching orders. Giving the appearance of taking a strong stand.

Giving GOP senators a strong stand to join or risk sabotaging.