Hypocrisy Post

[Secretariat]

This Op-Ed was just too spot on not to post here for the right wing crazies.. Sorry, but I've had have much less time to post, but today I just had to find time.

Republicans Finally Caught up in Their Own Hypocrisy
Fri Feb 19th 2010
By Steven Leser, Op-Ed News

Finally and at long last, it seems to be true. The many lies and hypocritical positions taken by top Republican politicians over the past several years is catching up to them. What is staggering is the range of issues on which Republicans don't even feel the need to maintain a pretense of principle. If President Obama or the Democrats in congress take a position, even if Republicans have vehemently argued for the same thing a few years ago, they treat that position as if it is evil or "Socialist."

Take the case of the Health Care individual mandates, that portion of the current Democratic Health Care Reform bill that says that individuals will be required to purchase Health Insurance or face a stiff fine. Republicans such as Senators Orrin Hatch (Utah) and Mitch McConnell (Kentucky) complained that this is a terrible and Unconstitutional idea. However, as reported in places like Time Magazine and on Keith Olberman and Rachel Maddow's shows on MSNBC, both McConnell and Hatch supported Republican Health Care reform bills in the early 1990s that contained similar individual mandates.

Hatch's record of being of two minds on healthcare goes much further.

Regarding deficit spending, Hatch says that it would be unacceptable for the current Health Care Reform bill to add to the deficit. The problem with this is that Senator Hatch voted for and enthusiastically supported a Medicare drug entitlement bill that added to the deficit a few years ago.

Why was it ok then and not now and does Orrin Hatch start arguing with himself when he looks in a mirror? (This is beyond the fact that the Congressional Budget Office has scored the various iterations of the Democrats' Health Care Reform plans and none add to the deficit)

Let's look at how we deal with terrorism suspects. Republicans, including Dick Cheney, jumped all over the idea that the Obama administration intends to try the Christmas bomber suspect in a regular court. They seem to have forgotten that the shoe bomber, Richard Reid, was tried by the Bush administration (yes, Dick, that thing you were part of for eight years) in a regular civilian court. No elected Republican said anything negative about the Bush administration's actions at the time.

That hypocrisy is astounding.

How about the Bush campaign in 2000 during the recount protesting the idea of counting hanging chads and pregnant chads as something evil and characterizing it as attempts by the Gore campaign to "steal" the election. However, then Governor George W. Bush had signed into law election rules in Texas that said that hanging chads and pregnant chads should be counted as legitimate indications of a voter's intent.

How does one reconcile those two actions?

What about the fact that Republicans are now trying to preach fiscal responsibility after the three most recent Republican administrations never came close to balancing a budget. Prior to the Obama administration, over the last 28 years, we had 20 years of Republican administrations and eight years of a Democratic administration. The only administration that balanced a budget was the Democratic administration. Republican party insiders and elected officials never called out the Presidents from their own party for their deficit-exploding budgets.

Why do Republicans think they can keep getting away with this?

I have to send some well deserved respect to my friend Neil Cavuto for hammering the point home like few can. We may disagree far more than we agree, but on Fox News' Your World, Cavuto reduced Republican representatives Jean Schmidt of Ohio and Jason Chaffetz of Utah to stammering wrecks with evidence they protested against the stimulus to the national media as being wasteful and ineffective in creating jobs, then bragged to their constituents about how they maneuvered for large chunks of stimulus money to use in the effort to create lots of jobs in their districts. To my readers who might be angry at the idea that I am lauding the actions of someone from Fox News, if you can attack people when they do things you don't like, it's only fair (and balanced?) to note when they do the right thing.

By the way, it was revealed that dozens of Republican congresspeople and senators did and said much the same thing as Schmidt and Chaffetz with regard to the stimulus. When a tv camera was around, they criticized it, but then took credit for using it to help create jobs in the manner intended by the Obama administration in letters to their constituents.

About that Socialism word that Republicans like to throw around so much. Between elected Democrats and Republicans, there is only one elected official at the level of Senator or higher who has called for an entire industry to be nationalized (the very definition of a Socialist act) and that is none other than Republican Senator from South Carolina Lindsey Graham who in a February 2009 ABC interview said "To me, banking and housing are the root cause of this problem. I'm very much afraid any program to salvage the banks is going to require the government... I would not take off the idea of nationalizing the banks."

Before Republicans attempt to apply the word to President Obama, shouldn't they deal with Lindsey Graham, a member of their own caucus?

People are catching on to this, and more examples of Republican hypocrisy are being unearthed faster than new Tiger Woods paramours were coming out of the woodwork in the days following his little car accident. Republicans elected officials have completely shed their principles and become purely political animals who stand for only one thing and that is hurting Barack Obama's Presidency. While that may be fine for Republican Party bigwigs and their strategies, I doubt that that their constituents will see that as fulfilling their obligations as good representatives. Republicans are worse than merely a party of no (which would be bad enough), they are a hatchet job masquerading as a party. Nothing that they say means anything or should be taken seriously. It's high time they paid the price for behaving this way.

''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''

"People will always vote for someone who is strong and wrong before they’ll vote for somebody who is right and weak." - Bill Clinton

[ArlJim78]

that's the best you could come up with?:sleeping:

[GaryG]

"Progressively Liberal" is what Op-Ed News calls itself.... :lol:

This from a guy who complains about Fox News? Go back to sleep sec, we'll wake you when it's over.

[DJofSD]

No different than Obama pontificating about small business being the source of jobs and econimic growth but then doing anything and everything to make it more difficult for that to happen.

[Tom]

Earth to Sec....Earth to Sec.......

Haven't you heard about the Tea Party movement?
We are dumping on both parties. Even knocked a repub out of an election.

[DJofSD]

Earth to Sec....Earth to Sec.......

Haven't you heard about the Tea Party movement?
We are dumping on both parties. Even knocked a repub out of an election.
Right on. Flush that toilet called congress.

[boxcar]

McConnell and Hatch -- two of the biggest RINO's in the senate. Oh, my goodness. Who would have ever thunk that such RINOs would have supported this kind of stuff? :rolleyes: Hopefully, in the upcoming midterms, RINOs will be well on their way to becoming extinct! Like all libs, they are a disgrace to all humanity and the scourge of the earth.

But while on the subject of hypocrisy -- what the whining, hypocritical Dems now won't tell you about the prescription drug plan is that at the time it was being bandied about, they wanted an even more expensive drug bill. They bemoaned the fact that it wasn't a bigger and better bill! It was the Repugs who put the cap on it.

Boxcar

[LottaKash]

An incoherent piece of drivel, imo....:confused:

[GameTheory]

Sorry, but I've had have much less time to post, but today I just had to find time.Don't worry about it! Take your time -- post as little as you need to... :)

[DJofSD]

Ya, but, withdrawl must be hard.

[boxcar]

Don't worry about it! Take your time -- post as little as you need to... :)

:lol: :lol: That was good!

Boxcar

[jonnielu]

Right on. Flush that toilet called congress.

Both parties have done well beyond their fair share to shred the Constitution in the past 20 years. There is not much point in comparing BS when everyone needs to get busy revolting, recalling, and repealing. Steps 2 and 3 will probably need to be repeated many times for the next 20 years in order to get to the point where the Republic is completely returned.

jdl

[Leonard]

Let's look at how we deal with terrorism suspects. Republicans, including Dick Cheney, jumped all over the idea that the Obama administration intends to try the Christmas bomber suspect in a regular court. They seem to have forgotten that the shoe bomber, Richard Reid, was tried by the Bush administration (yes, Dick, that thing you were part of for eight years) in a regular civilian court.

That hypocrisy is astounding.


No, it is not the hypocrisy, it is the violation of the space-time continuum that is astounding.


Reid attempted to commit his act of terrorism in Dec, 2001, just a few short months after 9/11. This, you will remember (or not), was before the Guantanamo Bay Detention Center was ever started and there was still wide-spread debate about just how to try terrorists as no standardized mechanisms for trying transnational enemy combatants had been created.

The Military Commissions act was not signed into law until 2006.

[johnhannibalsmith]

Holy Crap!!!! Republicans suck too!!!??!?!??! AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!

Wait... that's old news...

[chickenhead]

No, it is not the hypocrisy, it is the violation of the space-time continuum that is astounding.

Reid attempted to commit his act of terrorism in Dec, 2001, just a few short months after 9/11. This, you will remember (or not), was before the Guantanamo Bay Detention Center was ever started and there was still wide-spread debate about just how to try terrorists as no standardized mechanisms for trying transnational enemy combatants had been created.


When Newt G was asked about it the other day, he said it wasn't done because shoe bomber was an American citizen. He must have been thinking of someone else.


A) First prisoners arrived at Camp XRay in early January 2002 -- Dec 21st 2001 was not before construction was even started. It was a few days before the first prisoners arrived.

B) We have held terrorists as enemy combatants at places other than Gitmo, including inside the US. See Ali Saleh Kahlah al Marri

We try people picked up here in civilian court because thats what happens to people that get picked up in our country -- they have a right to parts of the court system. The courts (that other branch of govt) have ruled on this.

The Constitution and the Courts define a lot about what happens to these people, whether anyone likes it or not.

[Tom]

He Sec, as an afterthought, talking bout hypocrisy, how to do get past the fact that the senate had a super majority and needed not one single repub vote, yet failed to deliver and whinned and cried about no bi-partisanship?

I think what was really lacking was balls.

[bigmack]

No shortage of hypocrisy in DC. Unfettered stupidity as well.

But after the smack down in MA we now have the cherry on top. A public option ram rodded through in reconciliation. :eek:

Some are hell bent on making this an imbecilic suicide pact. Not a problem.

http://i165.photobucket.com/albums/u70/macktime/2_20_10_13_10_43.png

[Tom]

See, Mac?

I told you NY was far worse than California! :lol:

[bigmack]

See, Mac?

I told you NY was far worse than California! :lol:
Hold it. Not so fast.

http://i165.photobucket.com/albums/u70/macktime/10-4.jpg

NY budget deficit: $8 billion :lol:

Say hello to my little friend --- CA budget deficit: $20 billion

Booyah! NY left in the dust.

http://i165.photobucket.com/albums/u70/macktime/122-1.gif

[Leonard]

A) First prisoners arrived at Camp XRay in early January 2002 -- Dec 21st 2001 was not before construction was even started. It was a few days before the first prisoners arrived.

I should have said "opened" instead of "started" to be more clear.

B) We have held terrorists as enemy combatants at places other than Gitmo, including inside the US. See Ali Saleh Kahlah al Marri

But the purpose of Gitmo acting as a detention center in the first place was to have a way to deal with foreign terrorists -- Reid was already in the civilian court system when Gitmo was ready to receive its "guests."

We try people picked up here in civilian court because thats what happens to people that get picked up in our country -- they have a right to parts of the court system. The courts (that other branch of govt) have ruled on this.

The Constitution and the Courts define a lot about what happens to these people, whether anyone likes it or not.[/QUOTE]

Which is why the Military Commissions Act was created in 2006 and it has since been upheld in the courts. This Act does exactly what you mention. It is the law which defines what happens to these people.

Actually, I couldn't care less who has jurisdiction over holding and trying foreign terrorists. As long as they are captured, interrogated and removed from circulation it doesn't matter much to me whether it is civilian or military.

The point is, the article was trying to point out the hypocrisy of Republicans on the bloomer bomber now versus the shoe bomber then. I don't see it. There are now mechanisms in place (facilities, laws, court rulings) to deal with them which were not in place in '01 and '02 so it is just not an example of Republicans being hypocritical. They are hypocritical on more than enough ocassions that no one has to use poor examples to point it out. But when such examples are used in an article it lessens the credibility of the article as a whole.

Big spending Republicans who now cry fiscal responsibility at the top of their lungs? They are indeed hypocrits and should be voted out as such. No arguments here.

[chickenhead]

Which is why the Military Commissions Act was created in 2006 and it has since been upheld in the courts. This Act does exactly what you mention. It is the law which defines what happens to these people.

Right, except one of the key provisions of the 2006 act was struck down as being unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in 2008. They ruled that enemy combatants have the right to proper habeas corpus review, including in US Federal Court, that the MCA did not provide a reasonable alternative to.

Or at least that is my understanding. My only real gripe with much of the hullabaloo -- is that scores of terrorists have gone through the civilian court route since 9/11 and are serving long prison sentences in super max prisons. It's not something new. These strategic freak outs of "no trials!" "no terrorists in prisons on these shores!" just don't line up with the reality...its been going on for a long time. It's just a handy campaign issue to bring up all of a sudden, and to pretend it is something new.

[bigmack]

It's just a handy campaign issue to bring up all of a sudden, and to pretend it is something new.
Money & security have nothing to do with it?

The path of least resistance is a tribunal. Clean, simple & they've already pled guilty. No fuss, no muss.

Insisting on civilian trials smacks of imagery. They're not worthy.

[Tom]

Booyah! NY left in the dust.

OK, ok......you win. I can't compete against dancing male ballerinas! :lol:

[chickenhead]

Money & security have nothing to do with it?

The path of least resistance is a tribunal. Clean, simple & they've already pled guilty. No fuss, no muss.

Insisting on civilian trials smacks of imagery. They're not worthy.

They've been going on for years. Padilla, Moussaoui, the guy I posted earlier, etc etc. So no, I don't think money and security have much at all to do with the current panic.

Are money and security worthwhile concerns, sure. Just like they were with Padilla, Moussaoui, etc. and all the other bad guy terrorists we've convicted. KSM 7 years in custody hasn't been convicted by anyone yet, despite his wanting to plead guilty and get executed. Maybe the Feds can give him what he wants.

[chickenhead]

OK, ok......you win. I can't compete against dancing male ballerinas! :lol:

You cannot stop California -- and really, you can't even hope to contain us.

[boxcar]

Maybe the Feds can give him what he wants.

Since the government has tainted the jury pool with all its public pronouncements of guilt, conviction and even execution already, it's doubtful.

Boxcar

[Leonard]

They've been going on for years. Padilla, Moussaoui, the guy I posted earlier, etc etc. So no, I don't think money and security have much at all to do with the current panic.

Are money and security worthwhile concerns, sure. Just like they were with Padilla, Moussaoui, etc. and all the other bad guy terrorists we've convicted. KSM 7 years in custody hasn't been convicted by anyone yet, despite his wanting to plead guilty and get executed. Maybe the Feds can give him what he wants.

Padilla was a U.S. citizen so military commissions aren't applicable. Moussaoui, like Reid, was before the 2006 Act. If there have been civilian foreign terrorist trials since then I will agree -- the law needs to be applied consistently or the law needs to be repealed. What is the sense in passing laws that are not enforced or only selectively enforced?

Since the 2006 law is applicable (for now), I say you might as well use it.

[chickenhead]

Since the government has tainted the jury pool with all its public pronouncements of guilt, conviction and even execution already, it's doubtful.
Boxcar

Considering its most likely he will represent himself and plead guilty -- I don't think jury taint is a high concern. Insanity, maybe.

[boxcar]

Considering its most likely he will represent himself and plead guilty -- I don't think jury taint is a high concern. Insanity, maybe.

Huh? So...he's going to represent himself and plead guilty by way of insanity? Is this what you're saying? How can insanity considerations enter the trial unless someone brings it in? And just who would that be?

Boxcar

[chickenhead]

Padilla was a U.S. citizen so military commissions aren't applicable. Moussaoui, like Reid, was before the 2006 Act. If there have been civilian foreign terrorist trials since then I will agree -- the law needs to be applied consistently or the law needs to be repealed. What is the sense in passing laws that are not enforced or only selectively enforced?

Since the 2006 law is applicable (for now), I say you might as well use it.

My point was about the idea that civilian trials do not work. They have in the past. There seems to be more question about whether the military tribunals work, and how well. They aren't really decided law, they are constantly being challenged

How many civilian foreign terrorists have been convicted by tribunal since 2006? I believe there have been 3: an Australian quasi John Walker Lindh who got 7 months (credit for time served) (and much less than the American John Walker Lindh, tried in civilian court), and Osama Bin Ladens driver, who got 5 months (credit for time served), and one other.

No murder convictions. No long sentences. No executions.

"What is the sense in passing laws that are not enforced or only selectively enforced?"

It's an option, a tool, for the Justice Department, not a prescription. I believe this has always been the Justice Department point of view.


(written by two Bush Justice lawyers)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/19/AR2009111903470.html

The potential procedural advantages of military commission trials are relatively unimportant with obviously guilty defendants such as Mohammed, but they help explain the attorney general's related decision last week to consign five men accused of attacking the USS Cole to a military commission. Holder indicated that he was doing so in part because the Cole was a military target outside the United States, but that reason does not hold up. The Pentagon was a military target, many aspects of the Sept. 11 attacks were planned abroad, and the Cole attack is already the subject of a federal indictment in New York.

It is more likely that Holder decided to use a commission system still learning to walk because the Cole case is relatively weak and will benefit from the marginal advantages the commission system offers the government. It is also likely that the Justice Department will decide that many other terrorists at Guantanamo Bay will not be tried in civilian or military court but, rather, will be held under a military detention rationale more suitable to the circumstances of their cases.

These decisions have already invited charges of opportunistic forum shopping. The Bush administration, criticized on similar grounds, properly explained that it would use whatever lawful tool worked best, all things considered, to incapacitate a particular terrorist. Holder's decisions appear to reflect a similarly pragmatic approach.

[chickenhead]

Huh? So...he's going to represent himself and plead guilty by way of insanity? Is this what you're saying? How can insanity considerations enter the trial unless someone brings it in? And just who would that be?

Boxcar

Competency is mandated by the Supreme Court to come up in all death penalty cases -- and to refuse council -- and to plead guilty.

He will hit the trifecta of court mandated competency concerns.

[boxcar]

Competency is mandated by the Supreme Court to come up in all death penalty cases -- and to refuse council -- and to plead guilty.

He will hit the trifecta of court mandated competency concerns.

The only competency standard would be whether the defendant is fit to stand trial, I believe. If memory serves, this is the only standard the court would use. No separate standard is used or applied for guilty pleas, refusal of counsel, etc.

But this issue aside for a moment, I don't see KSM pleading guilty because this wouldn't give him the kind of forum he wants, whereas a plea of not guilty would better serve his desires to air his grievances.

Also, I strongly suspect he will be represented, and I would not be surprised if it were by high-priced trial lawyers or the ACLU. A good lawyer should be able to persuade his defendant that if he really wanted to thumb his nose and display his utter disdain for Americans, our way of life and the U.S. judicial system, he would plead not guilty and take advantage of all the U.S. constitutional rights granted to him by his naive prosecutors because he would have a very good chance of being acquitted, since his constitutional rights were violated every way but loose. What better possible way would KSM have than to use our own Constitution with which to club us over our heads!?

Boxcar

[Tom]

If there is a chance a captured terrorist has information, we are obligeted to get it out him by whatever means. His right, his life, his freedom are at the bottom of the list. In fact, they don't make the list. The underwear bomber should have been under water a hour after the plan landed. I don't give hoot what the SC says, the constitution is for US citizens and no one else. Any justice that says otherwise should be under water as well. Time to stop this pathetic nonsense - you muck with us, we kill you, End of story.

[Secretariat]

Arnold - The terminator has called out his own party for hypocrisy.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/huffpost/20100221/cm_huffpost/470594

Schwarzenegger Rips Romney, GOP For Stimulus Hypocrisy
by Sam Stein – Sun Feb 21

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger (R-Calif.) accused his Republican colleagues in Washington on Sunday of blatant hypocrisy on the stimulus package -- railing against the jobs bill in public while posing for stimulus-related projects and ceremonies in their home districts.

Appearing on ABC's This Week, the moderate Republican frequent GOP scourge pointed to former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney in particular for arguing this past week that the stimulus bill hadn't produced a single "net" job gain.

"I find it interesting that you have a lot of the Republicans running around, and pushing back on the stimulus money and saying, 'This doesn't create any new job,'" said Schwarzenegger. "And then they go out and do the photo ops, posing with the big check and they say: 'Isn't this great, look at the kind of money I've provided for the state and this is money to create jobs, and this has created 10,000 new jobs, this has created 20,000 news jobs, and all those kinds of things.' It doesn't match up."

It's hypocrisy, said host Terry Moran. "Exactly," Schwarzenegger replied.

"I don't want to beat up on my Republican colleagues but I think it is kind of politics rather than thinking about one thing, and this is: 'How do we support the president? How do we support him and everything we can in order to go and stimulate the economy back and think about the people and not the politics?'

"Anyone that says this hasn't created a job, they should talk to the 150,000 people getting jobs in California," he added, "from the private sector and also from the public sector."

....

Also had to love Powell ripping Cheney on his National Security posturing on Face the Nation.

It is nice to see that there are at least two Repugnicans that can still see their party's own hypocrisy.

[Tom]

So how's that hope and change working our for ya? :lol:

[DRIVEWAY]

Arnold - The terminator has called out his own party for hypocrisy.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/huffpost/20100221/cm_huffpost/470594

Schwarzenegger Rips Romney, GOP For Stimulus Hypocrisy
by Sam Stein – Sun Feb 21

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger (R-Calif.) accused his Republican colleagues in Washington on Sunday of blatant hypocrisy on the stimulus package -- railing against the jobs bill in public while posing for stimulus-related projects and ceremonies in their home districts.

Appearing on ABC's This Week, the moderate Republican frequent GOP scourge pointed to former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney in particular for arguing this past week that the stimulus bill hadn't produced a single "net" job gain.

"I find it interesting that you have a lot of the Republicans running around, and pushing back on the stimulus money and saying, 'This doesn't create any new job,'" said Schwarzenegger. "And then they go out and do the photo ops, posing with the big check and they say: 'Isn't this great, look at the kind of money I've provided for the state and this is money to create jobs, and this has created 10,000 new jobs, this has created 20,000 news jobs, and all those kinds of things.' It doesn't match up."

It's hypocrisy, said host Terry Moran. "Exactly," Schwarzenegger replied.

"I don't want to beat up on my Republican colleagues but I think it is kind of politics rather than thinking about one thing, and this is: 'How do we support the president? How do we support him and everything we can in order to go and stimulate the economy back and think about the people and not the politics?'

"Anyone that says this hasn't created a job, they should talk to the 150,000 people getting jobs in California," he added, "from the private sector and also from the public sector."

....

Also had to love Powell ripping Cheney on his National Security posturing on Face the Nation.

It is nice to see that there are at least two Repugnicans that can still see their party's own hypocrisy.

Powell and Schwarzenager :lol:

[dartman51]

It is nice to see that there are at least two Repugnicans that can still see their party's own hypocrisy.

I don't know about Powell, but calling Schwarzenegger a Republican, is like calling Tiger Woods a good husband.

[DJofSD]

Powell ain't no R., either.

[boxcar]

Powell ain't no R., either.

:lol: :lol: Exactly! So, we have the pots calling the kettles black.

Boxcar

[Leonard]

Powell ain't no R., either.

And therein lies the problem -- being a registered Republican in no way means being a conservative. The Republican Party lets all the riff-raff into that big tent of theirs.

[ArlJim78]

ahh yes, Powell and Ahnuld, the media's favorite so-called conservative Republicans.:lol:

The word RINO was evented based for exactly these types. They're both professional political chameleons.

[Tom]

And therein lies the problem -- being a registered Republican in no way means being a conservative. The Republican Party lets all the riff-raff into that big tent of theirs.

How very "democratic" of them! :lol:

[hcap]

So how's that hope and change working our for ya? :lol:
Talk to the HAND
Whydontcha'
Youbetcha'

http://sarahpalintruthsquad.files.wordpress.com/2010/02/palincribnotes1.jpg

http://liberalvalues.files.wordpress.com/2010/02/cribnotes.jpg

[Tom]

Her hand has far more intelligence than most dems do. :lol:

[DJofSD]

You know, if BHO had to use crib notes instead of a teleprompter, he'd have to use both hands, his arms and most other part of his body. Ugg -- what a gut wrenching image that brings.

[hcap]

Problem is most Dems need a set.
However if they had a crib sheet they would be definitely be smarter than most repugs

BTW, Palins' butt has more smarts than most repugs do.

Not saying much :rolleyes:

[DJofSD]

If the D's are so damnably smart, how come poverty, cancer and all of the other problems of human existance have not been solved?

[hcap]

BTW, I fell asleep watching TV the other night.
Sometime around 2 AM I woke startled (TV was inadvertently tuned to Faux).
Thought I was watching the most PAINFULLY bad comedy show on TV.
Ever made in the history of TV, Red Eye.

My mistake, a re-broadcast of CPAC.

If the D's are so damnably smart, how come poverty, cancer and all of the other problems of human existance have not been solvedThe repugs filibustered :lol:

[Tom]

You just took the Hypocrisy award, hcap - they had a super majority for almost a year......no filibusters could stop them. They just failed.

[DJofSD]

If the D's were a football team, they'd be the....?

[Leonard]

If the D's were a football team, they'd be the....?

'76 Buccaneers (0 - 14).

[jballscalls]

'76 Buccaneers (0 - 14).

seems to me their record in elections last time around was better than that, but come next fall, i think they might be more like my seahawks this year, something like 4 and 12

[Leonard]

seems to me their record in elections last time around was better than that, but come next fall, i think they might be more like my seahawks this year, something like 4 and 12

I was thinking along the lines of winning versus losing ideas:

House healthcare reform bill -- loser

Senate healthcare reform bill -- loser

Obama's new and improved (aka same and no different) healthcare reform bill -- loser

Card check -- loser

Immigration reform (amnesty) -- loser

etc.