info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
"The Party Of No" Is Hurting America
10 views
Skip to first unread message
Lee
Feb 22, 2016, 11:08:57 AM2/22/16
to
Senate blocking Obama on judicial confirmation not new
Feb. 16, 2016
Last year, the Republican-controlled Senate confirmed
just 11 federal judges, the fewest in any year since
1960. Only one appeals court judge was confirmed, the
lowest number since 1953.
As a result, there are 76 vacancies (including Scalia’s)
for Article III judgeships, nearly twice as many as there
were when Republicans regained Senate control in January
2015.
Another way to measure just how aggressively Republicans
have obstructed the judicial confirmation process is to
look at the number of “judicial emergencies,” a term used
when judges can’t keep up with growing caseloads. That
figure has nearly tripled over the past year, from 12
in January 2015 to 31 today.
Now, it’s not like Democrats always rubber-stamped
Republican presidents’ judicial nominees (see: Robert
Bork). But this level of jurisprudential sabotage is
nearly unprecedented.
Republican senators have created at least four choke
points in the confirmation pipeline.
In some cases, they’ve delayed setting up the local
committees that vet possible nominees. Sen. Ted Cruz,
and his fellow Republican senator from Texas, John
Cornyn, have used such delays to make their state
ground zero for judicial emergencies.
Elsewhere, Republicans refuse to return “blue slips,”
the century-old forms that give home-state senators
an effective veto over any judicial nominee. In some
instances, senators have publicly endorsed a candidate
but then never actually delivered this paperwork, which
is necessary for the nominee to get a confirmation
hearing. Rubio, for example, publicly recommended Mary
Barzee Flores to fill a district court vacancy in Florida.
But nearly a year after Obama nominated her, Rubio still
hasn’t returned his blue slip.
In other cases, the Senate Judiciary Committee has
received blue slips, but delayed holding hearings or
votes on nominees; or Senate leadership has put off
floor confirmation votes.
The nominees in question don’t look especially
controversial or unqualified either. Last year’s
lucky 11 judges waited an average of 283 days
between their initial nomination and a confirmation
vote, according to the Alliance for Justice, a
coalition of mostly liberal advocacy organizations.
But when they were confirmed, 10 of the 11 were
approved with either unanimous or near-unanimous
support from both parties.
Senate obstructionism isn’t reserved for judicial
branch openings alone. A January analysis from
Politico found that more than a quarter of the
administration’s most senior executive branch jobs —
more than 100 overall — were missing permanent
occupants. It also reported that the Senate in 2015
confirmed the fewest civilian nominations for the
first session of a Congress in nearly three decades.
Meanwhile, senators congratulate themselves for
getting back to the business of governing.
http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/2016/feb/16/supreme-court-nomin
ation-confirmation/
Feb. 16, 2016
Last year, the Republican-controlled Senate confirmed
just 11 federal judges, the fewest in any year since
1960. Only one appeals court judge was confirmed, the
lowest number since 1953.
As a result, there are 76 vacancies (including Scalia’s)
for Article III judgeships, nearly twice as many as there
were when Republicans regained Senate control in January
2015.
Another way to measure just how aggressively Republicans
have obstructed the judicial confirmation process is to
look at the number of “judicial emergencies,” a term used
when judges can’t keep up with growing caseloads. That
figure has nearly tripled over the past year, from 12
in January 2015 to 31 today.
Now, it’s not like Democrats always rubber-stamped
Republican presidents’ judicial nominees (see: Robert
Bork). But this level of jurisprudential sabotage is
nearly unprecedented.
Republican senators have created at least four choke
points in the confirmation pipeline.
In some cases, they’ve delayed setting up the local
committees that vet possible nominees. Sen. Ted Cruz,
and his fellow Republican senator from Texas, John
Cornyn, have used such delays to make their state
ground zero for judicial emergencies.
Elsewhere, Republicans refuse to return “blue slips,”
the century-old forms that give home-state senators
an effective veto over any judicial nominee. In some
instances, senators have publicly endorsed a candidate
but then never actually delivered this paperwork, which
is necessary for the nominee to get a confirmation
hearing. Rubio, for example, publicly recommended Mary
Barzee Flores to fill a district court vacancy in Florida.
But nearly a year after Obama nominated her, Rubio still
hasn’t returned his blue slip.
In other cases, the Senate Judiciary Committee has
received blue slips, but delayed holding hearings or
votes on nominees; or Senate leadership has put off
floor confirmation votes.
The nominees in question don’t look especially
controversial or unqualified either. Last year’s
lucky 11 judges waited an average of 283 days
between their initial nomination and a confirmation
vote, according to the Alliance for Justice, a
coalition of mostly liberal advocacy organizations.
But when they were confirmed, 10 of the 11 were
approved with either unanimous or near-unanimous
support from both parties.
Senate obstructionism isn’t reserved for judicial
branch openings alone. A January analysis from
Politico found that more than a quarter of the
administration’s most senior executive branch jobs —
more than 100 overall — were missing permanent
occupants. It also reported that the Senate in 2015
confirmed the fewest civilian nominations for the
first session of a Congress in nearly three decades.
Meanwhile, senators congratulate themselves for
getting back to the business of governing.
http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/2016/feb/16/supreme-court-nomin
ation-confirmation/
Beam Me Up Scotty
Feb 22, 2016, 1:02:34 PM2/22/16
to
a judge their nomination, all the facts have to be considered like they
did for Clarance Thomas... That's a lot of Coke can's that have to be
inspected for pubic hairs you know?
--
That's Karma
Mr. B1ack
Feb 22, 2016, 5:42:11 PM2/22/16
to
On Mon, 22 Feb 2016 10:08:55 -0600, "Lee" <cle...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Senate blocking Obama on judicial confirmation not new
>Feb. 16, 2016
No, it's not new - and if Obama was expecting a
>Senate blocking Obama on judicial confirmation not new
>Feb. 16, 2016
Dem-heavy senate for his 2nd term he'd have
delayed offering judicial candidates. It's called
political strategy.
As for the "Party Of NO" ... actually it's doing exactly
what it's SUPPOSED to be doing - making sure the
opposition doesn't get away with anything stupid or
damagingly ultrapartisan.
We don't pay lawmakers to make laws 24/7/365 ...
we pay them to make GOOD laws and GOOD
decisions. Until such things present themselves
they can just hang out at the country club for all
I care. Far better/safer to do nothing than to do the
wrong thing.
Typically when something REALLY important and
worthwhile needs to be done, both parties WILL
agree on it with minimal drama involved.
This is a good reason to have at least two parties
with some ideological distinctions - what they CAN
agree on is almost certainly gonna be a pretty good
law/policy/reg and We The People will benefit.
But when one party can just slam stuff through ...
then we get lots of BS law and the negative fallout.
Governor Swill
Feb 23, 2016, 9:25:02 AM2/23/16
to
On Mon, 22 Feb 2016 17:42:08 -0500, Mr. B1ack <now...@nada.net>
wrote:
>On Mon, 22 Feb 2016 10:08:55 -0600, "Lee" <cle...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Senate blocking Obama on judicial confirmation not new
>>Feb. 16, 2016
>
> No, it's not new - and if Obama was expecting a
> Dem-heavy senate for his 2nd term he'd have
> delayed offering judicial candidates. It's called
> political strategy.
"Since the Senate is currently Republican and I expect my Democratic
successor to have a Democratic Senate, I'm not going to bother
nominating anyone. I'll just leave it to Hil or Bern."
Really? The seat is vacant, the President nominates, the Senate
confirms or rejects. It's in the Constitution.
> As for the "Party Of NO" ... actually it's doing exactly
> what it's SUPPOSED to be doing - making sure the
> opposition doesn't get away with anything stupid or
> damagingly ultrapartisan.
Ultrapartisan? Announcing you're not going to consider any nominee
sent by an opposition President isn't ultrapartisan? THE BODY WAS
STILL WARM!
> We don't pay lawmakers to make laws 24/7/365 ...
> we pay them to make GOOD laws and GOOD
> decisions. Until such things present themselves
> they can just hang out at the country club for all
> I care. Far better/safer to do nothing than to do the
> wrong thing.
Not always. The current makeup of the SCOTUS gives liberal justices
the edge.
> Typically when something REALLY important and
> worthwhile needs to be done, both parties WILL
> agree on it with minimal drama involved.
Like passing Boehner's spending plan?
> This is a good reason to have at least two parties
> with some ideological distinctions - what they CAN
> agree on is almost certainly gonna be a pretty good
> law/policy/reg and We The People will benefit.
>
> But when one party can just slam stuff through ...
> then we get lots of BS law and the negative fallout.
Who's talking about slamming anything through? It's about the
President nominating a Justice and the Senate considering the nominee.
Unfortunately for America, the ultrapartisan Republicans announced
less than an hour after the news of Scalia's death broke, that they
would refuse to consider *any* nominee sent them by an Obama White
House.
My god! Couldn't they have waited until the body was cold? What
vicious sons of bitches! They issued a statement on Scalia's
replacement process before issuing a statement marking his death!
At least the White House waited until late in the evening to issue
it's official comment on Scalia's untimely death.
Swill
--
"Fact Sheet: President Obama Signs Executive Order to Improve Access to Mental Health Services for Veterans, Service Members, and Military Families"
https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2012/08/31/fact-sheet-president-obama-signs-executive-order-improve-access-mental-h
Obama's record on Veterans turns out to be quite good.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/subjects/veterans/
wrote:
>On Mon, 22 Feb 2016 10:08:55 -0600, "Lee" <cle...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Senate blocking Obama on judicial confirmation not new
>>Feb. 16, 2016
>
> No, it's not new - and if Obama was expecting a
> Dem-heavy senate for his 2nd term he'd have
> delayed offering judicial candidates. It's called
> political strategy.
successor to have a Democratic Senate, I'm not going to bother
nominating anyone. I'll just leave it to Hil or Bern."
Really? The seat is vacant, the President nominates, the Senate
confirms or rejects. It's in the Constitution.
> As for the "Party Of NO" ... actually it's doing exactly
> what it's SUPPOSED to be doing - making sure the
> opposition doesn't get away with anything stupid or
> damagingly ultrapartisan.
sent by an opposition President isn't ultrapartisan? THE BODY WAS
STILL WARM!
> We don't pay lawmakers to make laws 24/7/365 ...
> we pay them to make GOOD laws and GOOD
> decisions. Until such things present themselves
> they can just hang out at the country club for all
> I care. Far better/safer to do nothing than to do the
> wrong thing.
the edge.
> Typically when something REALLY important and
> worthwhile needs to be done, both parties WILL
> agree on it with minimal drama involved.
> This is a good reason to have at least two parties
> with some ideological distinctions - what they CAN
> agree on is almost certainly gonna be a pretty good
> law/policy/reg and We The People will benefit.
>
> But when one party can just slam stuff through ...
> then we get lots of BS law and the negative fallout.
President nominating a Justice and the Senate considering the nominee.
Unfortunately for America, the ultrapartisan Republicans announced
less than an hour after the news of Scalia's death broke, that they
would refuse to consider *any* nominee sent them by an Obama White
House.
My god! Couldn't they have waited until the body was cold? What
vicious sons of bitches! They issued a statement on Scalia's
replacement process before issuing a statement marking his death!
At least the White House waited until late in the evening to issue
it's official comment on Scalia's untimely death.
Swill
--
"Fact Sheet: President Obama Signs Executive Order to Improve Access to Mental Health Services for Veterans, Service Members, and Military Families"
https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2012/08/31/fact-sheet-president-obama-signs-executive-order-improve-access-mental-h
Obama's record on Veterans turns out to be quite good.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/subjects/veterans/
Beam Me Up Scotty
Feb 23, 2016, 11:05:30 AM2/23/16
to
On 02/23/2016 09:25 AM, Governor Swill wrote:
> On Mon, 22 Feb 2016 17:42:08 -0500, Mr. B1ack <now...@nada.net>
> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 22 Feb 2016 10:08:55 -0600, "Lee" <cle...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Senate blocking Obama on judicial confirmation not new
>>> Feb. 16, 2016
>>
>> No, it's not new - and if Obama was expecting a
>> Dem-heavy senate for his 2nd term he'd have
>> delayed offering judicial candidates. It's called
>> political strategy.
>
> "Since the Senate is currently Republican and I expect my Democratic
> successor to have a Democratic Senate, I'm not going to bother
> nominating anyone. I'll just leave it to Hil or Bern."
>
> Really? The seat is vacant, the President nominates, the Senate
> confirms or rejects. It's in the Constitution.
>
>> As for the "Party Of NO" ... actually it's doing exactly
>> what it's SUPPOSED to be doing - making sure the
>> opposition doesn't get away with anything stupid or
>> damagingly ultrapartisan.
>
> Ultrapartisan? Announcing you're not going to consider any nominee
> sent by an opposition President isn't ultrapartisan? THE BODY WAS
> STILL WARM!
Since you don't know who will win the election it seems anti partisan.
> On Mon, 22 Feb 2016 17:42:08 -0500, Mr. B1ack <now...@nada.net>
> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 22 Feb 2016 10:08:55 -0600, "Lee" <cle...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Senate blocking Obama on judicial confirmation not new
>>> Feb. 16, 2016
>>
>> No, it's not new - and if Obama was expecting a
>> Dem-heavy senate for his 2nd term he'd have
>> delayed offering judicial candidates. It's called
>> political strategy.
>
> "Since the Senate is currently Republican and I expect my Democratic
> successor to have a Democratic Senate, I'm not going to bother
> nominating anyone. I'll just leave it to Hil or Bern."
>
> Really? The seat is vacant, the President nominates, the Senate
> confirms or rejects. It's in the Constitution.
>
>> As for the "Party Of NO" ... actually it's doing exactly
>> what it's SUPPOSED to be doing - making sure the
>> opposition doesn't get away with anything stupid or
>> damagingly ultrapartisan.
>
> Ultrapartisan? Announcing you're not going to consider any nominee
> sent by an opposition President isn't ultrapartisan? THE BODY WAS
> STILL WARM!
Did you just admit the Democrats and their anti-American views and
Socialist candidates are guaranteed to lose this election?
--
That's Karma
If a marriage license *can't* tell you who you *must marry*
depending on sexual identity... how can a business license tell
you who you *Must engage in commerce with* depending on sexual
identity?
*Liberalism is unsustainable, self destructive and contradicting*
Mr. B1ack
Feb 23, 2016, 4:38:08 PM2/23/16
to
On Tue, 23 Feb 2016 09:25:06 -0500, Governor Swill
<governo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Mon, 22 Feb 2016 17:42:08 -0500, Mr. B1ack <now...@nada.net>
>wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 22 Feb 2016 10:08:55 -0600, "Lee" <cle...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Senate blocking Obama on judicial confirmation not new
>>>Feb. 16, 2016
>>
>> No, it's not new - and if Obama was expecting a
>> Dem-heavy senate for his 2nd term he'd have
>> delayed offering judicial candidates. It's called
>> political strategy.
>
>"Since the Senate is currently Republican and I expect my Democratic
>successor to have a Democratic Senate, I'm not going to bother
>nominating anyone. I'll just leave it to Hil or Bern."
>
>Really? The seat is vacant, the President nominates, the Senate
>confirms or rejects. It's in the Constitution.
Yep ... but there's no suggested timetable whatsoever.
<governo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Mon, 22 Feb 2016 17:42:08 -0500, Mr. B1ack <now...@nada.net>
>wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 22 Feb 2016 10:08:55 -0600, "Lee" <cle...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Senate blocking Obama on judicial confirmation not new
>>>Feb. 16, 2016
>>
>> No, it's not new - and if Obama was expecting a
>> Dem-heavy senate for his 2nd term he'd have
>> delayed offering judicial candidates. It's called
>> political strategy.
>
>"Since the Senate is currently Republican and I expect my Democratic
>successor to have a Democratic Senate, I'm not going to bother
>nominating anyone. I'll just leave it to Hil or Bern."
>
>Really? The seat is vacant, the President nominates, the Senate
>confirms or rejects. It's in the Constitution.
The process could take years and still be perfectly legal.
If it said "Within 90 days" ... but it doesn't.
An Biden himself once said that it was bad business to
do USSC judges in an election year - so we'll just go by
the veeps judgement, OK ? :-)
And no, he doesn't get to change his mind now when
it'd be politically convenient ....
>> As for the "Party Of NO" ... actually it's doing exactly
>> what it's SUPPOSED to be doing - making sure the
>> opposition doesn't get away with anything stupid or
>> damagingly ultrapartisan.
>
>Ultrapartisan? Announcing you're not going to consider any nominee
>sent by an opposition President isn't ultrapartisan? THE BODY WAS
>STILL WARM!
>> We don't pay lawmakers to make laws 24/7/365 ...
>> we pay them to make GOOD laws and GOOD
>> decisions. Until such things present themselves
>> they can just hang out at the country club for all
>> I care. Far better/safer to do nothing than to do the
>> wrong thing.
>
>Not always. The current makeup of the SCOTUS gives liberal justices
>the edge.
But no reason to risk making that DEFINITELY
NOT 50/50. So, wait. Maybe Trump or Cruz or
even Rubio will be the next prez. Maybe not, but
maybe.
Hmm ... and old Ruthie ain't lookin' so well
lately either. I'll tell you - if SHE has to exit
before inauguration day we'll just give Obama
his ONE choice ... ok if it's a kinda 'liberal' one ...
and save Ruthies replacement for later.
It'd be nice if there was a list of known
ideologically-neutral judges to draw from,
but there doesn't seem to be one. You
know, people neither libs or cons could
really hate very much. A seriously neutral
USSC would likely be better for the country
long-term - but instead we're just gonna
get judges with definite ideological biases
it seems.
They'll all eventually be replaced by a
Judge-o-Matic 7000 .... pure law and
original intent every time :-)
>> Typically when something REALLY important and
>> worthwhile needs to be done, both parties WILL
>> agree on it with minimal drama involved.
>
>Like passing Boehner's spending plan?
Not super-great for practical reasons, but if
we'd had a big stall-out during an election year
likely the dominant party would have become
the target of some very negative campaign
rhetoric.
Some of the worst of it can be fixed-up next term.
I do hate rush-jobs. The Fed is incompetent enough
as is ... make 'em hurry and we all get screwed.
>> This is a good reason to have at least two parties
>> with some ideological distinctions - what they CAN
>> agree on is almost certainly gonna be a pretty good
>> law/policy/reg and We The People will benefit.
>>
>> But when one party can just slam stuff through ...
>> then we get lots of BS law and the negative fallout.
>
>Who's talking about slamming anything through? It's about the
>President nominating a Justice and the Senate considering the nominee.
dead next week. Now there'd be TWO open seats.
Stuff both of them with ultralibs (or ultracons) and
you'd have a seriously biased court that would be
the pawn of one or the other political party - its
rubber-stamp.
I'd rather have a one-seat biased 'conservative'
court - and not entirely for the reasons you think.
Change is SUPPOSED to come slowly in the US
system of govt - it greatly enhances social/political
stability here and also makes things less risky for
foreign investors. A lightly 'conservative' court is
one facet in this stability equation. You don't want
the court to be TOO right-wing though ... just
a scooch.
>Unfortunately for America, the ultrapartisan Republicans announced
>less than an hour after the news of Scalia's death broke, that they
>would refuse to consider *any* nominee sent them by an Obama White
>House.
>
>My god! Couldn't they have waited until the body was cold?
give the opposition any time to draw up strategy ! :-)
>What
>vicious sons of bitches!
for grown-ups, played for keeps.
>They issued a statement on Scalia's
>replacement process before issuing a statement marking his death!
>
>At least the White House waited until late in the evening to issue
>it's official comment on Scalia's untimely death.
First Post
Feb 23, 2016, 6:59:29 PM2/23/16
to
On Tue, 23 Feb 2016 11:05:17 -0500, Beam Me Up Scotty
<Alinskyite-Liberals-attack-the-messenger-w...@blackhole.nebulax.com>
wrote:
Don't be so sure. Just look at how many conservatives are now making
hair brained statements like "Sanders or Clinton would be a better
president than Trump".
You got idiots like Glenn Beck, Krauthammer, Rove and almost every
other Republican pundit calling Both Trump and Cruz supporters
(depending on who you ask) idiots and even suggesting that
conservatives stay at home if Trump in particular wins the nomination.
Seems they have the opinion that if you don't have an "establishment
Republican" running then it's worse than a democrat winning.
Indeed, it is the Republicans that seem to be hell bent on losing the
election over internal partisanship.
As you and everyone else with any sense well knows, the dems will come
out and vote for any idiot with a "D" by their name. Hell they would
show up en masse to vote for SpongeBob Squarepants if it was
nominated.
Republicans on the other hand have turned into beings that I don't
even recognize anymore, willing to place warped principals above the
best interest of the nation and their own lives. As I've said many
times, they are acting like spoiled little children with the attitude
of "If I can't have another Reagan or better then I would rather have
nothing". It reminds me of those YouTube clips of spoiled rich kids
receiving a new car for graduation or whatever and then cussing their
parents for it not being the perfect color or missing some other
option. They demand perfection or nothing.
The last two presidential elections were the exact result of
dumbassed, arrogant, pompous Republicans making the same stupid assed
decisions that they are trying to make now.
And you see what the results have been.
Neither McCain nor Romney would have rammed anything like Obamacare
down our throats nor would they have set out to destroy the business
sector or sucked up to our worst enemies.
But Republicans(not all but many) chose to sit at home and not vote
because "there's just something I don't like about McCain/Romney."
Really? Something worse than what Obama has done or what Hillary or
Sanders will likely do?
And now we are hearing more of the same bullshit excuses to not vote
because the two most popular candidates in the polls aren't walking
talking incarnations of Reagan.
BTW, there will probably never be another Reagan because his ideology
came from the era in which he came up.
Reagan was an old school conservative with classic conservative
values. Values that reflected a time period of America that has long
disappeared and now replaced by the new age, always be willing to
compromise mentality which has given us the RINO congress that has
given Obama and the left everything they wanted for the sake of
possibly be liked by the left. Yeah yeah, sure sure, liked by the
left that has never and will never bend an inch when that show is on
the other foot.
So keep you fingers crossed that the conservative public will bite the
bullet, hold their noses, whatever, to insure that the democrats do
not get the white house for another term. If they don't then this may
very well be the end of the Republican party as well as the end of
free elections in the USA for decades to come.
<Alinskyite-Liberals-attack-the-messenger-w...@blackhole.nebulax.com>
wrote:
hair brained statements like "Sanders or Clinton would be a better
president than Trump".
You got idiots like Glenn Beck, Krauthammer, Rove and almost every
other Republican pundit calling Both Trump and Cruz supporters
(depending on who you ask) idiots and even suggesting that
conservatives stay at home if Trump in particular wins the nomination.
Seems they have the opinion that if you don't have an "establishment
Republican" running then it's worse than a democrat winning.
Indeed, it is the Republicans that seem to be hell bent on losing the
election over internal partisanship.
As you and everyone else with any sense well knows, the dems will come
out and vote for any idiot with a "D" by their name. Hell they would
show up en masse to vote for SpongeBob Squarepants if it was
nominated.
Republicans on the other hand have turned into beings that I don't
even recognize anymore, willing to place warped principals above the
best interest of the nation and their own lives. As I've said many
times, they are acting like spoiled little children with the attitude
of "If I can't have another Reagan or better then I would rather have
nothing". It reminds me of those YouTube clips of spoiled rich kids
receiving a new car for graduation or whatever and then cussing their
parents for it not being the perfect color or missing some other
option. They demand perfection or nothing.
The last two presidential elections were the exact result of
dumbassed, arrogant, pompous Republicans making the same stupid assed
decisions that they are trying to make now.
And you see what the results have been.
Neither McCain nor Romney would have rammed anything like Obamacare
down our throats nor would they have set out to destroy the business
sector or sucked up to our worst enemies.
But Republicans(not all but many) chose to sit at home and not vote
because "there's just something I don't like about McCain/Romney."
Really? Something worse than what Obama has done or what Hillary or
Sanders will likely do?
And now we are hearing more of the same bullshit excuses to not vote
because the two most popular candidates in the polls aren't walking
talking incarnations of Reagan.
BTW, there will probably never be another Reagan because his ideology
came from the era in which he came up.
Reagan was an old school conservative with classic conservative
values. Values that reflected a time period of America that has long
disappeared and now replaced by the new age, always be willing to
compromise mentality which has given us the RINO congress that has
given Obama and the left everything they wanted for the sake of
possibly be liked by the left. Yeah yeah, sure sure, liked by the
left that has never and will never bend an inch when that show is on
the other foot.
So keep you fingers crossed that the conservative public will bite the
bullet, hold their noses, whatever, to insure that the democrats do
not get the white house for another term. If they don't then this may
very well be the end of the Republican party as well as the end of
free elections in the USA for decades to come.
Beam Me Up Scotty
Feb 23, 2016, 7:50:37 PM2/23/16
to
have no idea what party will win the opportunity to nominate that judge.
It may well be payback for the Democrats and Obama's other slimy doings
but that's another story. Then it's just a black eye for them for their
lack of congeniality. They deserve to be labeled as... unable to play
well with others.
> As you and everyone else with any sense well knows, the dems will come
> out and vote for any idiot with a "D" by their name. Hell they would
> show up en masse to vote for SpongeBob Squarepants if it was
> nominated.
failure. Obama was just today trying a *Hail Marry play* to get rid of
GITMO and return it to Fidel. Because he has NOTHING to show for 7 years
in office. he need something he can point to and say I did something.
Reality is that NOTHING Obama does will be good for America.
> Republicans on the other hand have turned into beings that I don't
> even recognize anymore, willing to place warped principals above the
> best interest of the nation and their own lives. As I've said many
> times, they are acting like spoiled little children with the attitude
> of "If I can't have another Reagan or better then I would rather have
> nothing".
More of these same Republicans is no better than having Liberal idiots.
In fact I'd rather have the Liberals and let them destroy it all and
start over than to continue to limp along in a constant state of
failure. I calculate that in 3 years we will be circling the drain and
NO one will stop it so it really doesn't matter who's in office but
Trump will at least be fun to watch while we all circle that drain and
slip quietly into an economic hell.
> It reminds me of those YouTube clips of spoiled rich kids
> receiving a new car for graduation or whatever and then cussing their
> parents for it not being the perfect color or missing some other
> option. They demand perfection or nothing.
>
> The last two presidential elections were the exact result of
> dumbassed, arrogant, pompous Republicans making the same stupid assed
> decisions that they are trying to make now.
more spending and more wars and NATION BUILDING? More Liberal school
programs? Just what did Obama do that Bush wouldn't have done... Bush
even initiated all the spending with that enormous bailout of the
bankers and Wall Street.
> And you see what the results have been.
> Neither McCain nor Romney would have rammed anything like Obamacare
> down our throats nor would they have set out to destroy the business
> sector or sucked up to our worst enemies.
Massachusetts. They might have done it slightly different but the same
IRS with the same hate for Americans and wanting more Socialism and they
would have allowed it just like Beohner allowed that Budget deal that
gave Obama everything he wanted. To this point it might as well have
been Liberal/Democrats running the congress... we elected Republicans
and they instantly turned into Democrats.
> But Republicans(not all but many) chose to sit at home and not vote
> because "there's just something I don't like about McCain/Romney."
> Really? Something worse than what Obama has done or what Hillary or
> Sanders will likely do?
> And now we are hearing more of the same bullshit excuses to not vote
> because the two most popular candidates in the polls aren't walking
> talking incarnations of Reagan.
>
> BTW, there will probably never be another Reagan because his ideology
> came from the era in which he came up.
> Reagan was an old school conservative with classic conservative
> values. Values that reflected a time period of America that has long
> disappeared and now replaced by the new age, always be willing to
> compromise mentality which has given us the RINO congress that has
> given Obama and the left everything they wanted for the sake of
> possibly be liked by the left. Yeah yeah, sure sure, liked by the
> left that has never and will never bend an inch when that show is on
> the other foot.
telling Liberals to piss up a rope.... maybe he can keep it going.
>
> So keep you fingers crossed that the conservative public will bite the
> bullet, hold their noses, whatever, to insure that the democrats do
> not get the white house for another term. If they don't then this may
> very well be the end of the Republican party as well as the end of
> free elections in the USA for decades to come.
>
>
the nomination at the Republican convention and nominate *Paul Ryan* as
their *establishment* candidate, then look for wholesale abandonment of
the Republican party, they'll be leaving in all directions and the
Republicans will slide into obscurity and a 3rd party will rise from the
ashes.
--
That's Karma
First Post
Feb 23, 2016, 8:46:07 PM2/23/16
to
On Tue, 23 Feb 2016 19:50:24 -0500, Beam Me Up Scotty
America needs a "Conservative" party that actually is all about
conservative ideas and policy.
What the two existing parties have turned into is democrat and
democrat-lite.
One party is pro abortion, pro socialism, pro more government spending
and more government, pro higher taxation, pro LGBT agenda and pro
Islam. The other party is willing to tolerate and accept all of those
pros while only giving lip service alone to its' constituents..
conservative ideas and policy.
What the two existing parties have turned into is democrat and
democrat-lite.
One party is pro abortion, pro socialism, pro more government spending
and more government, pro higher taxation, pro LGBT agenda and pro
Islam. The other party is willing to tolerate and accept all of those
pros while only giving lip service alone to its' constituents..
Governor Swill
Feb 23, 2016, 11:21:24 PM2/23/16
to
On Tue, 23 Feb 2016 16:38:04 -0500, Mr. B1ack <now...@nada.net>
consider an Obama nominee annoy enough swing voters to cost the GOP
the election. They're going to be polling heavily for that. Can they
keep the Senate? Last time around the Dems were especially vulnerable
due to the characteristics of that class. What if it's a Rep
vulnerable Senate class this time? What if the Dems fight hard for
Senate seats and let the White House go where it will. I suspect if
they see a chance to regain the Senate, the Dems won't care if it's
Bernie, Hil or Don as long as it isn't Ted or Marc.
> An Biden himself once said that it was bad business to
> do USSC judges in an election year - so we'll just go by
> the veeps judgement, OK ? :-)
That's a switch!
> And no, he doesn't get to change his mind now when
> it'd be politically convenient ....
Why not? The Republicans do!
>>> As for the "Party Of NO" ... actually it's doing exactly
>>> what it's SUPPOSED to be doing - making sure the
>>> opposition doesn't get away with anything stupid or
>>> damagingly ultrapartisan.
>>
>>Ultrapartisan? Announcing you're not going to consider any nominee
>>sent by an opposition President isn't ultrapartisan? THE BODY WAS
>>STILL WARM!
>
> That's regular partisan :-)
Lol! Sorry, gonna disagree with you there. This is unprecedented.
Yeah, the Dems SAID that to Reagan once but didn't make good on it.
They nominated his third choice.
>>> We don't pay lawmakers to make laws 24/7/365 ...
>>> we pay them to make GOOD laws and GOOD
>>> decisions. Until such things present themselves
>>> they can just hang out at the country club for all
>>> I care. Far better/safer to do nothing than to do the
>>> wrong thing.
>>
>>Not always. The current makeup of the SCOTUS gives liberal justices
>>the edge.
>
> Well, theoretically 50/50.
Nope. 3 con, 4 lib, 1 swing. Kennedy votes con, it's a tie. Kennedy
votes lib, it's a 5-3 liberal decision.
> But no reason to risk making that DEFINITELY
> NOT 50/50. So, wait. Maybe Trump or Cruz or
> even Rubio will be the next prez. Maybe not, but
> maybe.
Can't be 50/50 because vote #9 isn't reliable for either side.
> Hmm ... and old Ruthie ain't lookin' so well
> lately either. I'll tell you - if SHE has to exit
> before inauguration day we'll just give Obama
> his ONE choice ... ok if it's a kinda 'liberal' one ...
> and save Ruthies replacement for later.
Lots of folks expected her retirement but she waited too long, the GOP
took the Senate in 2011.
> It'd be nice if there was a list of known
> ideologically-neutral judges to draw from,
> but there doesn't seem to be one. You
> know, people neither libs or cons could
> really hate very much. A seriously neutral
> USSC would likely be better for the country
> long-term - but instead we're just gonna
> get judges with definite ideological biases
> it seems.
I remarked in another thread that we needed 9 Anthony Kennedys and
somebody made a clone joke. hehe
> They'll all eventually be replaced by a
> Judge-o-Matic 7000 .... pure law and
> original intent every time :-)
Until it says the 14th amendment protects the right of men to have
babies. Lol!
>>> Typically when something REALLY important and
>>> worthwhile needs to be done, both parties WILL
>>> agree on it with minimal drama involved.
>>
>>Like passing Boehner's spending plan?
>
> I think it HAD to be done for political reasons.
> Not super-great for practical reasons, but if
> we'd had a big stall-out during an election year
> likely the dominant party would have become
> the target of some very negative campaign
> rhetoric.
But that was true from the start. Yes, it HAD to pass for political
reasons. The Republicans spend for the same reason Dems do. To buy
votes.
> Some of the worst of it can be fixed-up next term.
I wouldn't count on the Republicans fixing it. Have you looked at
their tax plans. One of them as a trillion dollar a year deficit
built in and asshole Cruz claims is deficit ridden tax plan can be
paid for with "discretionary spending cuts". Dude, discretionary
spending is like, a quarter or less of the budget!
> I do hate rush-jobs. The Fed is incompetent enough
> as is ... make 'em hurry and we all get screwed.
They're gonna screw us anyway. Time to lay in a supply of KY while
it's still cheap. :)
>>> This is a good reason to have at least two parties
>>> with some ideological distinctions - what they CAN
>>> agree on is almost certainly gonna be a pretty good
>>> law/policy/reg and We The People will benefit.
>>>
>>> But when one party can just slam stuff through ...
>>> then we get lots of BS law and the negative fallout.
>>
>>Who's talking about slamming anything through? It's about the
>>President nominating a Justice and the Senate considering the nominee.
>
> I'm talking about AFTERWARDS. Say Ruthie drops
> dead next week. Now there'd be TWO open seats.
> Stuff both of them with ultralibs (or ultracons) and
> you'd have a seriously biased court that would be
> the pawn of one or the other political party - its
> rubber-stamp.
Ok. Yeah, we don't need a LIBERAL court anymore than we need a
CONSERVATIVE one. But Scalia was more than a con vote, he was a con
leader who influenced other Justices' thinking.
> I'd rather have a one-seat biased 'conservative'
> court - and not entirely for the reasons you think.
> Change is SUPPOSED to come slowly in the US
> system of govt - it greatly enhances social/political
> stability here and also makes things less risky for
> foreign investors. A lightly 'conservative' court is
> one facet in this stability equation. You don't want
> the court to be TOO right-wing though ... just
> a scooch.
I don't think speed is an issue. Conservatives naturally want change
to be slow. Liberals want it fast. Society changes as fast as it
wants to and the primary driver of change is, and has always been,
technology.
>>Unfortunately for America, the ultrapartisan Republicans announced
>>less than an hour after the news of Scalia's death broke, that they
>>would refuse to consider *any* nominee sent them by an Obama White
>>House.
>>
>>My god! Couldn't they have waited until the body was cold?
>
> Hell no ! Strike while the corpse is hot !!! Don't
> give the opposition any time to draw up strategy ! :-)
Yeah, funny BUT. It still kinda pisses me off. How can anybody claim
conservative social values when they're planning the reading of the
will before 9/11 shows up to take the body?
>>What
>>vicious sons of bitches!
>
> That's politics ... ancient and wicked. A game
> for grown-ups, played for keeps.
Yes, I understand that. But it wasn't just the politicos. It was the
media and did you see some of the stuff posted in here that night? My
god! You'd think Scalia was Adolf Hitler and Joseph Stalin's love
child by Jesus!
>>They issued a statement on Scalia's
>>replacement process before issuing a statement marking his death!
>>
>>At least the White House waited until late in the evening to issue
>>it's official comment on Scalia's untimely death.
>
> Obama was probably busy playing golf or something ...
No, he was there. But I bet the speech writers got called before they
heard about it on the news. :)
wrote:
>On Tue, 23 Feb 2016 09:25:06 -0500, Governor Swill
><governo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 22 Feb 2016 17:42:08 -0500, Mr. B1ack <now...@nada.net>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Mon, 22 Feb 2016 10:08:55 -0600, "Lee" <cle...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Senate blocking Obama on judicial confirmation not new
>>>>Feb. 16, 2016
>>>
>>> No, it's not new - and if Obama was expecting a
>>> Dem-heavy senate for his 2nd term he'd have
>>> delayed offering judicial candidates. It's called
>>> political strategy.
>>
>>"Since the Senate is currently Republican and I expect my Democratic
>>successor to have a Democratic Senate, I'm not going to bother
>>nominating anyone. I'll just leave it to Hil or Bern."
>>
>>Really? The seat is vacant, the President nominates, the Senate
>>confirms or rejects. It's in the Constitution.
>
> Yep ... but there's no suggested timetable whatsoever.
> The process could take years and still be perfectly legal.
> If it said "Within 90 days" ... but it doesn't.
Depends on so much. This is such an odd situation. Will refusing to
>On Tue, 23 Feb 2016 09:25:06 -0500, Governor Swill
><governo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 22 Feb 2016 17:42:08 -0500, Mr. B1ack <now...@nada.net>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Mon, 22 Feb 2016 10:08:55 -0600, "Lee" <cle...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Senate blocking Obama on judicial confirmation not new
>>>>Feb. 16, 2016
>>>
>>> No, it's not new - and if Obama was expecting a
>>> Dem-heavy senate for his 2nd term he'd have
>>> delayed offering judicial candidates. It's called
>>> political strategy.
>>
>>"Since the Senate is currently Republican and I expect my Democratic
>>successor to have a Democratic Senate, I'm not going to bother
>>nominating anyone. I'll just leave it to Hil or Bern."
>>
>>Really? The seat is vacant, the President nominates, the Senate
>>confirms or rejects. It's in the Constitution.
>
> Yep ... but there's no suggested timetable whatsoever.
> The process could take years and still be perfectly legal.
> If it said "Within 90 days" ... but it doesn't.
consider an Obama nominee annoy enough swing voters to cost the GOP
the election. They're going to be polling heavily for that. Can they
keep the Senate? Last time around the Dems were especially vulnerable
due to the characteristics of that class. What if it's a Rep
vulnerable Senate class this time? What if the Dems fight hard for
Senate seats and let the White House go where it will. I suspect if
they see a chance to regain the Senate, the Dems won't care if it's
Bernie, Hil or Don as long as it isn't Ted or Marc.
> An Biden himself once said that it was bad business to
> do USSC judges in an election year - so we'll just go by
> the veeps judgement, OK ? :-)
> And no, he doesn't get to change his mind now when
> it'd be politically convenient ....
>>> As for the "Party Of NO" ... actually it's doing exactly
>>> what it's SUPPOSED to be doing - making sure the
>>> opposition doesn't get away with anything stupid or
>>> damagingly ultrapartisan.
>>
>>Ultrapartisan? Announcing you're not going to consider any nominee
>>sent by an opposition President isn't ultrapartisan? THE BODY WAS
>>STILL WARM!
>
> That's regular partisan :-)
Yeah, the Dems SAID that to Reagan once but didn't make good on it.
They nominated his third choice.
>>> We don't pay lawmakers to make laws 24/7/365 ...
>>> we pay them to make GOOD laws and GOOD
>>> decisions. Until such things present themselves
>>> they can just hang out at the country club for all
>>> I care. Far better/safer to do nothing than to do the
>>> wrong thing.
>>
>>Not always. The current makeup of the SCOTUS gives liberal justices
>>the edge.
>
> Well, theoretically 50/50.
votes lib, it's a 5-3 liberal decision.
> But no reason to risk making that DEFINITELY
> NOT 50/50. So, wait. Maybe Trump or Cruz or
> even Rubio will be the next prez. Maybe not, but
> maybe.
> Hmm ... and old Ruthie ain't lookin' so well
> lately either. I'll tell you - if SHE has to exit
> before inauguration day we'll just give Obama
> his ONE choice ... ok if it's a kinda 'liberal' one ...
> and save Ruthies replacement for later.
took the Senate in 2011.
> It'd be nice if there was a list of known
> ideologically-neutral judges to draw from,
> but there doesn't seem to be one. You
> know, people neither libs or cons could
> really hate very much. A seriously neutral
> USSC would likely be better for the country
> long-term - but instead we're just gonna
> get judges with definite ideological biases
> it seems.
somebody made a clone joke. hehe
> They'll all eventually be replaced by a
> Judge-o-Matic 7000 .... pure law and
> original intent every time :-)
babies. Lol!
>>> Typically when something REALLY important and
>>> worthwhile needs to be done, both parties WILL
>>> agree on it with minimal drama involved.
>>
>>Like passing Boehner's spending plan?
>
> I think it HAD to be done for political reasons.
> Not super-great for practical reasons, but if
> we'd had a big stall-out during an election year
> likely the dominant party would have become
> the target of some very negative campaign
> rhetoric.
reasons. The Republicans spend for the same reason Dems do. To buy
votes.
> Some of the worst of it can be fixed-up next term.
their tax plans. One of them as a trillion dollar a year deficit
built in and asshole Cruz claims is deficit ridden tax plan can be
paid for with "discretionary spending cuts". Dude, discretionary
spending is like, a quarter or less of the budget!
> I do hate rush-jobs. The Fed is incompetent enough
> as is ... make 'em hurry and we all get screwed.
it's still cheap. :)
>>> This is a good reason to have at least two parties
>>> with some ideological distinctions - what they CAN
>>> agree on is almost certainly gonna be a pretty good
>>> law/policy/reg and We The People will benefit.
>>>
>>> But when one party can just slam stuff through ...
>>> then we get lots of BS law and the negative fallout.
>>
>>Who's talking about slamming anything through? It's about the
>>President nominating a Justice and the Senate considering the nominee.
>
> I'm talking about AFTERWARDS. Say Ruthie drops
> dead next week. Now there'd be TWO open seats.
> Stuff both of them with ultralibs (or ultracons) and
> you'd have a seriously biased court that would be
> the pawn of one or the other political party - its
> rubber-stamp.
CONSERVATIVE one. But Scalia was more than a con vote, he was a con
leader who influenced other Justices' thinking.
> I'd rather have a one-seat biased 'conservative'
> court - and not entirely for the reasons you think.
> Change is SUPPOSED to come slowly in the US
> system of govt - it greatly enhances social/political
> stability here and also makes things less risky for
> foreign investors. A lightly 'conservative' court is
> one facet in this stability equation. You don't want
> the court to be TOO right-wing though ... just
> a scooch.
to be slow. Liberals want it fast. Society changes as fast as it
wants to and the primary driver of change is, and has always been,
technology.
>>Unfortunately for America, the ultrapartisan Republicans announced
>>less than an hour after the news of Scalia's death broke, that they
>>would refuse to consider *any* nominee sent them by an Obama White
>>House.
>>
>>My god! Couldn't they have waited until the body was cold?
>
> Hell no ! Strike while the corpse is hot !!! Don't
> give the opposition any time to draw up strategy ! :-)
conservative social values when they're planning the reading of the
will before 9/11 shows up to take the body?
>>What
>>vicious sons of bitches!
>
> That's politics ... ancient and wicked. A game
> for grown-ups, played for keeps.
media and did you see some of the stuff posted in here that night? My
god! You'd think Scalia was Adolf Hitler and Joseph Stalin's love
child by Jesus!
>>They issued a statement on Scalia's
>>replacement process before issuing a statement marking his death!
>>
>>At least the White House waited until late in the evening to issue
>>it's official comment on Scalia's untimely death.
>
> Obama was probably busy playing golf or something ...
heard about it on the news. :)
Bert
Feb 24, 2016, 3:34:12 PM2/24/16
to
In news:nemdnRz0K48Kr1bL...@giganews.com "Lee"
was viewed as a problem to be solved.
The method for amending the Constitution is well known; if you don't
like the way it's written, get busy.
--
be...@iphouse.com St. Paul, MN
<cle...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Republican senators have created at least four choke
> points in the confirmation pipeline.
I hadn't realized that Senators exercising their Constitutional powers
> Republican senators have created at least four choke
> points in the confirmation pipeline.
was viewed as a problem to be solved.
The method for amending the Constitution is well known; if you don't
like the way it's written, get busy.
--
be...@iphouse.com St. Paul, MN
Mitchell Holman
Feb 24, 2016, 7:13:29 PM2/24/16
to
Bert <be...@iphouse.com> wrote in news:XnsA5B8943572192VeebleFetzer@
127.0.0.1:
> In news:nemdnRz0K48Kr1bL...@giganews.com "Lee"
> <cle...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Republican senators have created at least four choke
>> points in the confirmation pipeline.
>
> I hadn't realized that Senators exercising their Constitutional powers
> was viewed as a problem to be solved.
>
It was a problem enough for Bush, and that was
when his own party controlled the Senate.
"Every judicial nominee deserves an up or down vote."
George Bush, 2005 State of the Union address.
127.0.0.1:
> In news:nemdnRz0K48Kr1bL...@giganews.com "Lee"
> <cle...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Republican senators have created at least four choke
>> points in the confirmation pipeline.
>
> I hadn't realized that Senators exercising their Constitutional powers
> was viewed as a problem to be solved.
>
when his own party controlled the Senate.
"Every judicial nominee deserves an up or down vote."
George Bush, 2005 State of the Union address.
Governor Swill
Feb 24, 2016, 8:32:03 PM2/24/16
to
On Tue, 23 Feb 2016 17:59:20 -0600, First Post wrote:
after November. Not confirming is one thing, refusing to even
consider is ultrapartisan. What are you going to do with President
Clinton and her Dem Senate? Go back to issuing filibusters every time
you change your socks?
>>Did you just admit the Democrats and their anti-American views and
>>Socialist candidates are guaranteed to lose this election?
>
>Don't be so sure. Just look at how many conservatives are now making
>hair brained statements like "Sanders or Clinton would be a better
>president than Trump".
Not better, just more predictable. They can plan how to thwart either
of them because they know their priorities and records. They can't do
that with Trump.
Trump was raised a New York Democrat. He changed to Reform Party in
the eighties, back to Dem and finally, has moved to the GOP.
>You got idiots like Glenn Beck, Krauthammer, Rove
I'll remind you some day you called Beck, Krauthammer and Rove
"idiots". ;)
>and almost every
>other Republican pundit calling Both Trump and Cruz supporters
>(depending on who you ask) idiots and even suggesting that
>conservatives stay at home if Trump in particular wins the nomination.
>Seems they have the opinion that if you don't have an "establishment
>Republican" running then it's worse than a democrat winning.
>Indeed, it is the Republicans that seem to be hell bent on losing the
>election over internal partisanship.
That's because he's not a Republican. I'm aware that GOP voters are
angry at the party and Trump is their means of punishment. But the
fact remains that crediting him with conservative values he doesn't
hold doesn't help your case.
>As you and everyone else with any sense well knows, the dems will come
>out and vote for any idiot with a "D" by their name.
IF they come out. Dem voters are lazy. But deny it if you like, so
will Republicans. And btw, that didn't help Dukakis or Carter much,
did it?
>Hell they would
>show up en masse to vote for SpongeBob Squarepants if it was
>nominated.
And Republicans would show up to vote for Lucifer if he ran. Oh,
wait, 2000 . . .
>Republicans on the other hand have turned into beings that I don't
>even recognize anymore, willing to place warped principals above the
>best interest of the nation and their own lives.
The GOP is damned if it does and damned if it doesn't. If it's
obstructionist, it's the Party of No and their voters get angry
because they didn't pass conservative legislation.
If they compromise to get at least *some* conservative legislation
passed, their voters get angry because they compromised.
And let's not forget that the economy IS better and there still has
been no successful foreign terrorist attack in the homeland.
> As I've said many
>times, they are acting like spoiled little children with the attitude
>of "If I can't have another Reagan or better then I would rather have
>nothing". It reminds me of those YouTube clips of spoiled rich kids
>receiving a new car for graduation or whatever and then cussing their
>parents for it not being the perfect color or missing some other
>option. They demand perfection or nothing.
Which is exactly what the libs have been saying about the GOP for
years now. "My way or the highway" is what the GOP has been doing
under the ultra conservative influence of the Tea Party. Then, when
they bypass the Tea Party and compromise, you're not happy either.
>The last two presidential elections were the exact result of
>dumbassed, arrogant, pompous Republicans making the same stupid assed
>decisions that they are trying to make now.
What they did was select moderate conservatives with records that
would attract the base but still be acceptable to the middle. You
can't win without the swing voters in the middle. That's why I find
it so amusing when hard rightists and hard leftists go out of their
way to piss off the centrists in here. WE are the ones whose votes
you need.
>And you see what the results have been.
>Neither McCain nor Romney would have rammed anything like Obamacare
>down our throats
And you have only yourselves to blame. Had Republicans recognized
voter demand for health care reform and come to the table in good
faith from day one to help craft a better bill, they wouldn't have
gotten Ocare. Instead they acted "like spoiled little children with
> or sucked up to our worst enemies.
They haven't done that either. Obama's foreign policy has been
outstanding!
Our worst enemies were the Saudis who attacked us repeatedly in the
nineties, refused to neutralize Bin Laden, provided him with cash and
logistical help (via a Wahabbist shell office in the Saudi embassy)
culminating in the 9/11 attack.
Putin decided to act a horse's ass and make trouble in Georgia, Crimea
and Ukraine. Venezuela and Cuba have long been thorns in our sides in
our own hemisphere.
Oil has crashed Putin's plans and forced the Saudis into heavy deficit
spending. They're living on their hump. The SA is now entangled in a
nasty, Vietnam-like civil war in Yemen (gee, weren't the Navy and CIA
spending a LOT of time in Yemen a few years ago?), their borders are
insecure, their hostile Shiite minority is living on top of their oil
fields, they've lost control of OPEC and the GCC, and the whole world
is pointing their fingers at them telling them they need to do
something about ISIS, the terrorist group SA created in the first
place out of the wreckage of Bush's Iraq.
Venezuela is on the edge of becoming a failed state - pundits are
speculating which will collapse first, the economy or the govt - and
since they can't afford to support Cuba anymore like Moscow used to,
the Cubans have had to come to us for survival. Isn't drawing Cuba
into the American sphere of influence and seducing them to capitalism
and market freedom a good idea?
Obama has now drawn India into an American relationship which will
help us with Pakistan, their mortal enemy. It will also help us with
China because India will be the biggest country on earth in a few
decades. And it will help us with terrorism because India has an
Islamist terror problem even worse than our own.
Obama's Asian pivot has been cementing relations all around China's
sphere of influence in Vietnam, Myanmar, Malaysia, Thailand and
Indonesia (the world's biggest Muslim nation in case you missed that)
and reaffirmed our commitment to alliance with the Aussies and New
Zealanders. All of this helps us minimize Chinese influence in the
western Pacific and helps us protect Japan and Korea.
Who'd have thought we would ever encircle China the way we encircled
the USSR?
Seems to me, Obama's and Clinton's foreign policy has been a winner
all around.
>But Republicans(not all but many) chose to sit at home and not vote
>because "there's just something I don't like about McCain/Romney."
>Really? Something worse than what Obama has done or what Hillary or
>Sanders will likely do?
Yes, and it's name was "Sarah Palin". Didn't take more than a few
glimpses of her to realize the GOP had just thrown that election, and
why would they have wanted to win? Under Republican leadership the
economy was a catastrophe, the global economy was affected, the very
banking system was on the brink, our allies were all mad at us (or
maybe you didn't catch how hated Bush was around the world) Iraq was
still a mess, there was no end in sight in Afghanistan, Bin Laden
still hadn't been brought to account and nobody knew how to fix any of
it. Besides, the voters would have elected Hitler in 2008 before
they'd have put another Republican in the White House.
The black junior Senator with the muzzie name won in a landslide
against one of the most respected Republicans in America. Hmm . . .
>And now we are hearing more of the same bullshit excuses to not vote
>because the two most popular candidates in the polls aren't walking
>talking incarnations of Reagan.
The two most popular candidates in the polls are outsiders. The Dems
are pissed at their party too. Why else do you think Sanders is
beating up on Hillary?
Bill Mahr said it best: "Hillary can't campaign. In 2008, she lost
to a black guy with a muslim name. Now she's losing to a 74 year old
Jewish Socialist. Hillary, we're making this as easy as we can, but
you have to help a little."
>BTW, there will probably never be another Reagan because his ideology
>came from the era in which he came up.
The thirties, the era of big government and the turning away from
Republican policies of laissez faire economics and class exclusivity.
Reagan turned twenty the year the Great Depression started. Do you
not think such an event would make an impression on so young a man?
>Reagan was an old school conservative with classic conservative
>values.
Really? Is tripling the national debt a Classic Conservative value?
Or doubling the federal budget in eight years? That's the kind of
stuff cons attribute to FDR!
How about granting amnesty to millions of illegals and inviting
millions more to come? Was it classic conservatism to sell arms to
known terrorists, use the profits to fund other terrorists and hide it
from the public by denying responsibility because he was "out of the
loop"?
Is it a classic conservative value to cut and run when we're attacked?
That's what Reagan did in Lebanon, but before the public realized what
he'd done, he distracted us with an invasion of Grenada. How about
expanding Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid? Are entitlements
classic conservative values too? Is raising taxes 12 times in 8 years
a conservative value?
In the GOP of the past 20 years, Reagan couldn't get elected dog
catcher with his record.
>Values that reflected a time period of America that has long
>disappeared
And will never come back. Yo, man, Leave it To Beaver has been in
reruns for fifty years. In today's world, "all men are created equal"
applies to everybody and everybody gets to choose how they want to
exercise their rights.
> and now replaced by the new age,
>always be willing to compromise mentality
Let me quote *you* from a paragraph above.
"As I've said many times, they are acting like spoiled little children
with the attitude of "If I can't have another Reagan or better then I
would rather have nothing". It reminds me of those YouTube clips of
spoiled rich kids receiving a new car for graduation or whatever and
then cussing their parents for it not being the perfect color or
missing some other option. They demand perfection or nothing."
So which is it? My way or the highway or compromise to get things
done (which Reagan was famous for btw).
>which has given us the RINO congress
RINO? The House is so hard line right the Rep Speaker had to be
replaced and the new Speaker had to bypass his own party and deal with
the Dems to get the Omnibus passed!
>that has
>given Obama and the left everything they wanted for the sake of
>possibly be liked by the left. Yeah yeah, sure sure, liked by the
>left that has never and will never bend an inch when that show is on
>the other foot.
Which is certainly a refreshing improvement over the Party of No that
refused to govern at all. And again, you can't have it both ways.
Either they compromise and govern or they don't do either.
>So keep you fingers crossed that the conservative public will bite the
>bullet, hold their noses, whatever, to insure that the democrats do
>not get the white house for another term. If they don't then this may
>very well be the end of the Republican party
It is the end of them as they've been the last twenty five years. The
GOP is about to shed its radicals, move to the center and take
moderate voters away from the Dems. Do conservatives have the balls
to form their own party, a REAL party and play by the rules?
> as well as the end of
>free elections in the USA for decades to come.
Oh, please. Now you sound like the liberals in 2004. "If Bush wins
this election, he'll declare martial law, suspend the Constitution and
there'll never be another election!" Yeah, they said that, and worse.
My boss at the time was one of them.
Trump says his sister, the partial birth abortion judge, would make a
GREAT Supreme. Are you willing to confirm her to Scalia's seat?
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/423196/trump-praises-his-sister-pro-abortion-extremist-judge-ramesh-ponnuru
http://spectator.org/articles/65018/who-would-donald-trump-appoint-supreme-court
>On Tue, 23 Feb 2016 11:05:17 -0500, Beam Me Up Scotty wrote:
>>On 02/23/2016 09:25 AM, Governor Swill wrote:
>>> On Mon, 22 Feb 2016 Mr. B1ack wrote:
>>On 02/23/2016 09:25 AM, Governor Swill wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 22 Feb 2016 "Lee" wrote:
>>>>> Senate blocking Obama on judicial confirmation not new
>>>>> Feb. 16, 2016
>>>> No, it's not new - and if Obama was expecting a
>>>> Dem-heavy senate for his 2nd term he'd have
>>>> delayed offering judicial candidates. It's called
>>>> political strategy.
>>>
>>> "Since the Senate is currently Republican and I expect my Democratic
>>> successor to have a Democratic Senate, I'm not going to bother
>>> nominating anyone. I'll just leave it to Hil or Bern."
>>>
>>> Really? The seat is vacant, the President nominates, the Senate
>>> confirms or rejects. It's in the Constitution.
>>>
>>>> As for the "Party Of NO" ... actually it's doing exactly
>>>> what it's SUPPOSED to be doing - making sure the
>>>> opposition doesn't get away with anything stupid or
>>>> damagingly ultrapartisan.
>>>
>>> Ultrapartisan? Announcing you're not going to consider any nominee
>>> sent by an opposition President isn't ultrapartisan? THE BODY WAS
>>> STILL WARM!
>>
>>Since you don't know who will win the election it seems anti partisan.
The Senate is Rep, the WH is Dem. There is no guarantee on anything
>>>>> Senate blocking Obama on judicial confirmation not new
>>>>> Feb. 16, 2016
>>>> No, it's not new - and if Obama was expecting a
>>>> Dem-heavy senate for his 2nd term he'd have
>>>> delayed offering judicial candidates. It's called
>>>> political strategy.
>>>
>>> "Since the Senate is currently Republican and I expect my Democratic
>>> successor to have a Democratic Senate, I'm not going to bother
>>> nominating anyone. I'll just leave it to Hil or Bern."
>>>
>>> Really? The seat is vacant, the President nominates, the Senate
>>> confirms or rejects. It's in the Constitution.
>>>
>>>> As for the "Party Of NO" ... actually it's doing exactly
>>>> what it's SUPPOSED to be doing - making sure the
>>>> opposition doesn't get away with anything stupid or
>>>> damagingly ultrapartisan.
>>>
>>> Ultrapartisan? Announcing you're not going to consider any nominee
>>> sent by an opposition President isn't ultrapartisan? THE BODY WAS
>>> STILL WARM!
>>
>>Since you don't know who will win the election it seems anti partisan.
after November. Not confirming is one thing, refusing to even
consider is ultrapartisan. What are you going to do with President
Clinton and her Dem Senate? Go back to issuing filibusters every time
you change your socks?
>>Did you just admit the Democrats and their anti-American views and
>>Socialist candidates are guaranteed to lose this election?
>
>Don't be so sure. Just look at how many conservatives are now making
>hair brained statements like "Sanders or Clinton would be a better
>president than Trump".
of them because they know their priorities and records. They can't do
that with Trump.
Trump was raised a New York Democrat. He changed to Reform Party in
the eighties, back to Dem and finally, has moved to the GOP.
>You got idiots like Glenn Beck, Krauthammer, Rove
"idiots". ;)
>and almost every
>other Republican pundit calling Both Trump and Cruz supporters
>(depending on who you ask) idiots and even suggesting that
>conservatives stay at home if Trump in particular wins the nomination.
>Seems they have the opinion that if you don't have an "establishment
>Republican" running then it's worse than a democrat winning.
>Indeed, it is the Republicans that seem to be hell bent on losing the
>election over internal partisanship.
angry at the party and Trump is their means of punishment. But the
fact remains that crediting him with conservative values he doesn't
hold doesn't help your case.
>As you and everyone else with any sense well knows, the dems will come
>out and vote for any idiot with a "D" by their name.
will Republicans. And btw, that didn't help Dukakis or Carter much,
did it?
>Hell they would
>show up en masse to vote for SpongeBob Squarepants if it was
>nominated.
wait, 2000 . . .
>Republicans on the other hand have turned into beings that I don't
>even recognize anymore, willing to place warped principals above the
>best interest of the nation and their own lives.
obstructionist, it's the Party of No and their voters get angry
because they didn't pass conservative legislation.
If they compromise to get at least *some* conservative legislation
passed, their voters get angry because they compromised.
And let's not forget that the economy IS better and there still has
been no successful foreign terrorist attack in the homeland.
> As I've said many
>times, they are acting like spoiled little children with the attitude
>of "If I can't have another Reagan or better then I would rather have
>nothing". It reminds me of those YouTube clips of spoiled rich kids
>receiving a new car for graduation or whatever and then cussing their
>parents for it not being the perfect color or missing some other
>option. They demand perfection or nothing.
years now. "My way or the highway" is what the GOP has been doing
under the ultra conservative influence of the Tea Party. Then, when
they bypass the Tea Party and compromise, you're not happy either.
>The last two presidential elections were the exact result of
>dumbassed, arrogant, pompous Republicans making the same stupid assed
>decisions that they are trying to make now.
would attract the base but still be acceptable to the middle. You
can't win without the swing voters in the middle. That's why I find
it so amusing when hard rightists and hard leftists go out of their
way to piss off the centrists in here. WE are the ones whose votes
you need.
>And you see what the results have been.
>Neither McCain nor Romney would have rammed anything like Obamacare
>down our throats
voter demand for health care reform and come to the table in good
faith from day one to help craft a better bill, they wouldn't have
gotten Ocare. Instead they acted "like spoiled little children with
the attitude of "If I can't have another Reagan or better then I would
rather have nothing".
rather have nothing".
> nor would they have set out to destroy the business
>sector
Which they haven't done. Don't believe the spin, look at the numbers.
>sector
> or sucked up to our worst enemies.
outstanding!
Our worst enemies were the Saudis who attacked us repeatedly in the
nineties, refused to neutralize Bin Laden, provided him with cash and
logistical help (via a Wahabbist shell office in the Saudi embassy)
culminating in the 9/11 attack.
Putin decided to act a horse's ass and make trouble in Georgia, Crimea
and Ukraine. Venezuela and Cuba have long been thorns in our sides in
our own hemisphere.
Oil has crashed Putin's plans and forced the Saudis into heavy deficit
spending. They're living on their hump. The SA is now entangled in a
nasty, Vietnam-like civil war in Yemen (gee, weren't the Navy and CIA
spending a LOT of time in Yemen a few years ago?), their borders are
insecure, their hostile Shiite minority is living on top of their oil
fields, they've lost control of OPEC and the GCC, and the whole world
is pointing their fingers at them telling them they need to do
something about ISIS, the terrorist group SA created in the first
place out of the wreckage of Bush's Iraq.
Venezuela is on the edge of becoming a failed state - pundits are
speculating which will collapse first, the economy or the govt - and
since they can't afford to support Cuba anymore like Moscow used to,
the Cubans have had to come to us for survival. Isn't drawing Cuba
into the American sphere of influence and seducing them to capitalism
and market freedom a good idea?
Obama has now drawn India into an American relationship which will
help us with Pakistan, their mortal enemy. It will also help us with
China because India will be the biggest country on earth in a few
decades. And it will help us with terrorism because India has an
Islamist terror problem even worse than our own.
Obama's Asian pivot has been cementing relations all around China's
sphere of influence in Vietnam, Myanmar, Malaysia, Thailand and
Indonesia (the world's biggest Muslim nation in case you missed that)
and reaffirmed our commitment to alliance with the Aussies and New
Zealanders. All of this helps us minimize Chinese influence in the
western Pacific and helps us protect Japan and Korea.
Who'd have thought we would ever encircle China the way we encircled
the USSR?
Seems to me, Obama's and Clinton's foreign policy has been a winner
all around.
>But Republicans(not all but many) chose to sit at home and not vote
>because "there's just something I don't like about McCain/Romney."
>Really? Something worse than what Obama has done or what Hillary or
>Sanders will likely do?
glimpses of her to realize the GOP had just thrown that election, and
why would they have wanted to win? Under Republican leadership the
economy was a catastrophe, the global economy was affected, the very
banking system was on the brink, our allies were all mad at us (or
maybe you didn't catch how hated Bush was around the world) Iraq was
still a mess, there was no end in sight in Afghanistan, Bin Laden
still hadn't been brought to account and nobody knew how to fix any of
it. Besides, the voters would have elected Hitler in 2008 before
they'd have put another Republican in the White House.
The black junior Senator with the muzzie name won in a landslide
against one of the most respected Republicans in America. Hmm . . .
>And now we are hearing more of the same bullshit excuses to not vote
>because the two most popular candidates in the polls aren't walking
>talking incarnations of Reagan.
are pissed at their party too. Why else do you think Sanders is
beating up on Hillary?
Bill Mahr said it best: "Hillary can't campaign. In 2008, she lost
to a black guy with a muslim name. Now she's losing to a 74 year old
Jewish Socialist. Hillary, we're making this as easy as we can, but
you have to help a little."
>BTW, there will probably never be another Reagan because his ideology
>came from the era in which he came up.
Republican policies of laissez faire economics and class exclusivity.
Reagan turned twenty the year the Great Depression started. Do you
not think such an event would make an impression on so young a man?
>Reagan was an old school conservative with classic conservative
>values.
Or doubling the federal budget in eight years? That's the kind of
stuff cons attribute to FDR!
How about granting amnesty to millions of illegals and inviting
millions more to come? Was it classic conservatism to sell arms to
known terrorists, use the profits to fund other terrorists and hide it
from the public by denying responsibility because he was "out of the
loop"?
Is it a classic conservative value to cut and run when we're attacked?
That's what Reagan did in Lebanon, but before the public realized what
he'd done, he distracted us with an invasion of Grenada. How about
expanding Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid? Are entitlements
classic conservative values too? Is raising taxes 12 times in 8 years
a conservative value?
In the GOP of the past 20 years, Reagan couldn't get elected dog
catcher with his record.
>Values that reflected a time period of America that has long
>disappeared
reruns for fifty years. In today's world, "all men are created equal"
applies to everybody and everybody gets to choose how they want to
exercise their rights.
> and now replaced by the new age,
>always be willing to compromise mentality
"As I've said many times, they are acting like spoiled little children
with the attitude of "If I can't have another Reagan or better then I
would rather have nothing". It reminds me of those YouTube clips of
spoiled rich kids receiving a new car for graduation or whatever and
then cussing their parents for it not being the perfect color or
missing some other option. They demand perfection or nothing."
done (which Reagan was famous for btw).
>which has given us the RINO congress
replaced and the new Speaker had to bypass his own party and deal with
the Dems to get the Omnibus passed!
>that has
>given Obama and the left everything they wanted for the sake of
>possibly be liked by the left. Yeah yeah, sure sure, liked by the
>left that has never and will never bend an inch when that show is on
>the other foot.
refused to govern at all. And again, you can't have it both ways.
Either they compromise and govern or they don't do either.
>So keep you fingers crossed that the conservative public will bite the
>bullet, hold their noses, whatever, to insure that the democrats do
>not get the white house for another term. If they don't then this may
>very well be the end of the Republican party
GOP is about to shed its radicals, move to the center and take
moderate voters away from the Dems. Do conservatives have the balls
to form their own party, a REAL party and play by the rules?
> as well as the end of
>free elections in the USA for decades to come.
this election, he'll declare martial law, suspend the Constitution and
there'll never be another election!" Yeah, they said that, and worse.
My boss at the time was one of them.
Trump says his sister, the partial birth abortion judge, would make a
GREAT Supreme. Are you willing to confirm her to Scalia's seat?
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/423196/trump-praises-his-sister-pro-abortion-extremist-judge-ramesh-ponnuru
http://spectator.org/articles/65018/who-would-donald-trump-appoint-supreme-court
Governor Swill
Feb 24, 2016, 9:25:12 PM2/24/16
to
On Tue, 23 Feb 2016 19:45:58 -0600, First Post wrote:
>America needs a "Conservative" party that actually is all about
>conservative ideas and policy.
>What the two existing parties have turned into is democrat and
>democrat-lite.
>One party is pro abortion, pro socialism, pro more government spending
>and more government, pro higher taxation, pro LGBT agenda and pro
>Islam. The other party is willing to tolerate and accept all of those
>pros while only giving lip service alone to its' constituents..
And now you know.
>America needs a "Conservative" party that actually is all about
>conservative ideas and policy.
>What the two existing parties have turned into is democrat and
>democrat-lite.
>One party is pro abortion, pro socialism, pro more government spending
>and more government, pro higher taxation, pro LGBT agenda and pro
>Islam. The other party is willing to tolerate and accept all of those
>pros while only giving lip service alone to its' constituents..
Here's the trap conservatives fell into: They defended the GOP no
matter what they did.
When Reagan campaigned on smaller govt, eliminating deficits and
shrinking the national debt. We voted for him. When he jacked up
deficits, tripled the debt and expanded govt we voted for him again.
Reagan was famous for his anti Social Security promises in 1976 and
1980 yet it was Reagan who restructured the program, effectively
extending it's life by decades.
It was Reagan who made an impassioned speech about American strength
through immigration and then signed a sweeping immigration bill that
was little more than an invitation for millions more to come and
granted amnesty to millions already here.
He campaigned against the "welfare mom" but did nothing about it.
Much is made of his massive 1982 tax cuts but his 12 tax hikes are
never mentioned even though they took taxes back up to near pre 1982
levels.
Why do Republicans still hold up this tax and spend, debt exploding,
government growing, entitlement expanding neo liberal as an example of
the best conservatism has to offer?
And then took a third helping when we voted for his successor who
raised taxes, expanded spending some more and made us the world's
cops.
When Bush invaded Iraq, doubled the national debt and crashed the
economy, Republicans and conservatives left no stone unturned to
defend the least conservative President to ever hold the office.
And so on.
Are the Dems any better? No, but at least they don't lie about it.
Well, not as much. You know up front what they're going to do.
EVERYTHING I always trusted Republicans to do, fiscal responsibility,
economic security, national security, foreign policy, they've thrown
it all away. The worst attack on US soil since 1941 happened on a
Republican's watch. The worst economic catastrophe in eighty years
happened on the same guy's watch. The overwhelming majority of the
national debt was run up by Republican administrations. The biggest
budget increases and entitlement expansions have been implemented by
Republicans. Their foreign policy still reflects a Cold War world
view 25 years after the fall of the USSR.
And they get away with it because their own voters (that's you - used
to be me) didn't rise up and remind them why we elected them in the
first place. You blindly vote for them and defend them no matter what
they do.
And the only President to never have a recession during his tenure was
Bill Clinton.
In one way at least, I'm glad to see Trump here. He will shake up the
party, may even effect a permanent re-examination of their stated
policies vs their actual ones.
This election could result in a major disaster for America no matter
who's elected. But one thing is sure. If we don't fire the Congress,
no President can save us.
Vote against incumbents in primaries and the general.
Mr. B1ack
Feb 25, 2016, 1:29:14 AM2/25/16
to
On Wed, 24 Feb 2016 20:31:10 -0000 (UTC), Bert <be...@iphouse.com>
wrote:
It's only bad if "conservatives" do it. Delays and
complications are perfectly OK for "progressives'.
wrote:
complications are perfectly OK for "progressives'.
0 new messages