out of touch republicans

Guitar92player

I don't hate Republicans, I am Independent, but I agree they are getting out of touch with society. It also seems like all they want to do is attack Obama or the Democrats instead of trying to offer helpful ideas. However, some Democrats do the same thing, but lately it has been Republicans doing so.

Government now is very depressing. Just imagine would could have been done the last few years if cooperation had happened...

gimmesometruth27

hedonist wrote:

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

he is not a good guy. he voted against the violence against women act today. just hours before his beloved rebuttal speech. :fp:

I just don't see him sitting there and thinking - "I don't wanna protect them gays and Injuns!" (said in Yosemite Sam's voice). It makes more sense to me that there were likely other provisions tacked on to the act.

Granted I'm not up on its history and the recent changes made to the version voted on today, but yeah...I doubt he hates women or wants continued violence visited upon them.

then why would he vote against it? for no other reason than to keep obama and the dems from gaining a political victory. that is the only reason to vote against this. why the hell not extend the act that was already on the books? to maintain male hegemony perhaps??

and since when have the republicans done anything for the gay community?? their party platform opposes them having the right to marriage. they are behind the times and are on the wrong side of history. and you can not argue that they are not waging a war on women because this is the latest example of it. they are driving away an entire generation of hispanic, native american, and women voters.

mikepegg44

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

hedonist wrote:

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

he is not a good guy. he voted against the violence against women act today. just hours before his beloved rebuttal speech. :fp:

I just don't see him sitting there and thinking - "I don't wanna protect them gays and Injuns!" (said in Yosemite Sam's voice). It makes more sense to me that there were likely other provisions tacked on to the act.

Granted I'm not up on its history and the recent changes made to the version voted on today, but yeah...I doubt he hates women or wants continued violence visited upon them.

then why would he vote against it? for no other reason than to keep obama and the dems from gaining a political victory. that is the only reason to vote against this. why the hell not extend the act that was already on the books? to maintain male hegemony perhaps??

and since when have the republicans done anything for the gay community?? their party platform opposes them having the right to marriage. they are behind the times and are on the wrong side of history. and you can not argue that they are not waging a war on women because this is the latest example of it. they are driving away an entire generation of hispanic, native american, and women voters.

not that hard to find really, he voted against it because of the changes. He said he would have supported it being renewed as written, but didn't like the spending provisions forcing states to do certain things a certain way.
why must we continue to add our own narrative to the motivations of others that are clearly not their motivations?

cincybearcat

mikepegg44 wrote:

not that hard to find really, he voted against it because of the changes. He said he would have supported it being renewed as written, but didn't like the spending provisions forcing states to do certain things a certain way.
why must we continue to add our own narrative to the motivations of others that are clearly not their motivations?

The problem is the Dems continue to play the "headline game" and they are better at it. No one cares about the realities of anything, they just care what it's called.

SOMEONE'S AGAINST THE "VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN ACT"!!!! HOW COULD THAT BE!!!! THEY HATE WOMEN!!!!

IN the infamous words of Ocho Cinco, Child Please.

We will only get better if we start caring more for the substance the title of these things. And we will only get better if we can have open and honest dialogue about these issues instead of using labels and titles to attack people.

gimmesometruth27

mikepegg44 wrote:

not that hard to find really, he voted against it because of the changes. He said he would have supported it being renewed as written, but didn't like the spending provisions forcing states to do certain things a certain way.
why must we continue to add our own narrative to the motivations of others that are clearly not their motivations?

it extended the same rights to gay women and illegal immigrant women, which the old one didn't. can't fucking be having that now, can we marco?

gimmesometruth27

cincybearcat wrote:

mikepegg44 wrote:

not that hard to find really, he voted against it because of the changes. He said he would have supported it being renewed as written, but didn't like the spending provisions forcing states to do certain things a certain way.
why must we continue to add our own narrative to the motivations of others that are clearly not their motivations?

The problem is the Dems continue to play the "headline game" and they are better at it. No one cares about the realities of anything, they just care what it's called.

SOMEONE'S AGAINST THE "VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN ACT"!!!! HOW COULD THAT BE!!!! THEY HATE WOMEN!!!!

IN the infamous words of Ocho Cinco, Child Please.

We will only get better if we start caring more for the substance the title of these things. And we will only get better if we can have open and honest dialogue about these issues instead of using labels and titles to attack people.

there has been overwhelming evidence presented in this thread that the gop do not want women on an equal playing field.

JimmyV

Why exactly did this guy need to give his own response last night? I mean other than for attention and for use in future fundraising drives.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/pos ... ree-stuff/

"The president offers you free stuff" is part of what sunk Romney. Why trot it back out?

Out of touch and out of control.

JimmyV

I don't care about the water bottle. Poor staff work to have it placed so far out of reach. But Rubio does deserve a place in this thread this morning.

http://www.salon.com/2013/02/13/marco_r ... f_partner/

<rightwingrhetoric>

"Presidents in both parties – from John F. Kennedy to Ronald Reagan – have known that our free enterprise economy is the source of our middle class prosperity.

But President Obama? He believes it’s the cause of our problems. That the economic downturn happened because our government didn’t tax enough, spend enough and control enough. And, therefore, as you heard tonight, his solution to virtually every problem we face is for Washington to tax more, borrow more and spend more."

</rightwingrhetoric>

cincybearcat

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

there has been overwhelming evidence presented in this thread that the gop do not want women on an equal playing field.

No there hasn't.

gimmesometruth27

JimmyV wrote:

I don't care about the water bottle. Poor staff work to have it placed so far out of reach. But Rubio does deserve a place in this thread this morning.

http://www.salon.com/2013/02/13/marco_r ... f_partner/

<rightwingrhetoric>

"Presidents in both parties – from John F. Kennedy to Ronald Reagan – have known that our free enterprise economy is the source of our middle class prosperity.

But President Obama? He believes it’s the cause of our problems. That the economic downturn happened because our government didn’t tax enough, spend enough and control enough. And, therefore, as you heard tonight, his solution to virtually every problem we face is for Washington to tax more, borrow more and spend more."

</rightwingrhetoric>

conveniently failing to point out that bush put 2 wars on the credit card and did not account for them in the budget.

come on mario, the american people are not that fucking stupid to let you get away with that one...

well some of us anyway...

gimmesometruth27

cincybearcat wrote:

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

there has been overwhelming evidence presented in this thread that the gop do not want women on an equal playing field.

No there hasn't.

how much evidence do you need?

do you think oj killed his wife? or has not enough evidence been presented?

mikepegg44

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

mikepegg44 wrote:

not that hard to find really, he voted against it because of the changes. He said he would have supported it being renewed as written, but didn't like the spending provisions forcing states to do certain things a certain way.
why must we continue to add our own narrative to the motivations of others that are clearly not their motivations?

it extended the same rights to gay women and illegal immigrant women, which the old one didn't. can't fucking be having that now, can we marco?

I don't speak for Marco Rubio, I will certainly let the man do that for himself. I just thought it should be pointed out why he voted against it.
and extending rights isn't the only thing it does Gimmie, is there no legitimate reason to question the spending provisions in the bill as it is written and passed by the senate? you know that domestic violence is still illegal without this bill.
Having said that, it does some novel things, but I don't think this bill is perfect in any way and to not even be able to question it for fear of being called a women hating monster is ridiculous and typical of a horrible political environment. But I might as well quit pissing up this rope, it is obvious the point I am making about motivations is being rejected or ignored...I mean we all know that the only reason one is against abortion is because of the hatred many feel towards women.

cincybearcat

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

how much evidence do you need?

do you think oj killed his wife? or has not enough evidence been presented?

I need more than rhetoric that's for sure.

JimmyV

cincybearcat

JimmyV wrote:

Ok, so does this show that we wasted $ sending people like him to college on government aid?

JimmyV

cincybearcat wrote:

JimmyV wrote:

Ok, so does this show that we wasted $ sending people like him to college on government aid?

You have a point there.

mickeyrat

JimmyV wrote:

Why exactly did this guy need to give his own response last night? I mean other than for attention and for use in future fundraising drives.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/pos ... ree-stuff/

"The president offers you free stuff" is part of what sunk Romney. Why trot it back out?

Out of touch and out of control.

http://www.theonion.com/articles/rich-w ... ne:default

gimmesometruth27

"Every time dick cheney laughs, and angel gets stabbed in the d@ck..."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/1 ... 76920.html

MG79478

mickeyrat wrote:

MG79478 wrote:

mickeyrat wrote:

in answer I would have to say when there was the possibility to breathe on its own or with expert medical care. Until then it really is not life.

So why is it based only on breathing? Why can't you address my point about a baby needed constant care? I perfectly healthy baby, that can breathe just fine on its own, would quickly perish without a parent. Thus by your logic it is not really a life.

Are 20 year old Siamese twins that share lungs not alive? These are just simple challenges that should be easily addressed.

no , please dont twist what you think my logic here is. I asked you a question, HOW CAN AN ENTITY BE KEPT ALIVE OUTSIDE OF THE WOMB IF THE LUNGS HAVE YET TO BE DEVELOPED?

BTW I'm not a dumbass who thinks a baby can care for itself, once born.

So then a baby is not alive because it can't care for itself? Or is Lung function the defining characteristic of life? Are fish not alive because they have gills? If Siamese twins share lungs, is only one alive? Is an elderly man on a breathing machine not alive?

I'm not twisting your logic, I'm asking you to justify it. The only logical place for life to begin is conception, and life sometimes needs help. BTW, you have unknowingly proved my point

mickeyrat wrote:

HOW CAN AN ENTITY BE KEPT ALIVE OUTSIDE OF THE WOMB IF THE LUNGS HAVE YET TO BE DEVELOPED?

You just agreed that a fetus is alive, but can't be kept alive outside of the womb. You don't need to worry about keeping something alive unless it is already alive. So that renders your question moot.

So, end of discussion. But this is the internet where no one ever admits they are wrong, and I'm sure you will come back with some sort of a justification for what you typed.

gimmesometruth27

keep stalling gop. you guys are looking like obstinate pricks. no nominee for sec of defense has ever been filibustered in american history. all 11 gop on the senate armed services committee voted against hagel, a republican. don't think that the american people are not going to remember this. in 8 minutes we will be without a secretary of defense...how will we explain that to our allies who look to our defense dept for leadership??

way to prevent confirmation votes just so you can blame obama for not getting people approved :fp: the gop is a joke now.

the article says that "Republican leaders continue to refrain from advocating for a filibuster", but lindsey graham, per one of the articles i posted in this thread, said that he wants to use the filibuster and will do whatever it takes to delay the vote.



Reid presses GOP on Hagel, schedules Friday morning vote

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/reid ... itics.html

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid on Thursday announced he would schedule a preliminary Friday vote on whether to confirm former Nebraska Republican Sen. Chuck Hagel as defense secretary, citing a pressing need to fill the position.

"In less than two hours, our country will be without a secretary of defense," Reid said on the Senate floor just after the Senate convened. Leon Panetta, the current defense chief, can officially step down at noon on Thursday. (White House spokesman Josh Earnest on Thursday told reporters aboard Air Force One that the White House expects Panetta to continue to serve until Hagel's confirmation.)

Republicans including Arizona Sen. John McCain and South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham have tried to delay the vote over concerns about Hagel's record and consulting and speaking fees as well as ongoing questions unrelated to Hagel about the administration's handling of the Sept. 11, 2012, attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya.

A bitterly divided Senate Armed Services Committee voted on Tuesday to send Hagel's nomination to the full Senate for consideration. The vote was 14-11, with all Republicans voting no.

Though Republican leaders in the House and Senate have not publicly advocated for a filibuster, and McCain has spoken out against the tactic, Senate Republican leadership has communicated to Democrats that they intend to withhold the votes necessary for cloture, a Senate Democratic leadership aide said Thursday.

Reid, speaking from the Senate floor, sent a warning to those Republicans.

"Not a single nominee for a secretary of defense never in the history of our country has ever been filibustered," Reid said.

He added, "This isn't high school getting ready for a football game ... or a play. ... There are serious consequences to this delay."

Reid suggested that Republicans pressured by the tea party and facing primary challenges in 2014 are hoping to score political points by holding up Hagel's nomination. "It's tragic," he said.

Earnest on Thursday suggested the delay could be damaging, noting that there is a NATO defense ministerial meeting on Afghanistan scheduled for next week.

"We need our new defense secretary to be there," Earnest said. "It does not send a favorable signal for Republicans in the United States Senate to delay a vote on the president's nominee. ... It's difficult to explain to our allies exactly why that's happening."

Earnest referred to the delaying tactics as "unconscionable."

Republican leaders continue to refrain from advocating for a filibuster.

When Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell took the microphone from Reid on the Senate floor on Thursday morning, McConnell addressed the sequester and did not mention Hagel or Reid's speech on the defense nominee.

Reid on Wednesday filed a motion to end debate and hold a cloture vote, which will require 60 senators to proceed. If all 55 Democrats vote to proceed, the party will still need five Republicans to side with them.

If the procedural vote passes, the Senate may then debate for up to 30 hours before holding the final confirmation vote.