out of touch republicans

1568101118

Comments

  • 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?
    "You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry."  - Lincoln

    "Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
  • mikepegg44mikepegg44 Posts: 3,353
    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.
    that’s right! Can’t we all just get together and focus on our real enemies: monogamous gays and stem cells… - Ned Flanders
    It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
    - Joe Rogan
  • cincybearcatcincybearcat Posts: 16,446
    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.
    hippiemom = goodness
  • JimmyVJimmyV Posts: 19,172
    tumblr_mi575tbvuh1qagxppo1_400.jpg?w=580
    ___________________________________________

    "...I changed by not changing at all..."
  • cincybearcatcincybearcat Posts: 16,446
    JimmyV wrote:
    tumblr_mi575tbvuh1qagxppo1_400.jpg?w=580

    Ok, so does this show that we wasted $ sending people like him to college on government aid? :lol:
    hippiemom = goodness
  • JimmyVJimmyV Posts: 19,172
    JimmyV wrote:
    tumblr_mi575tbvuh1qagxppo1_400.jpg?w=580

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

    You have a point there. :lol:
    ___________________________________________

    "...I changed by not changing at all..."
  • mickeyratmickeyrat Posts: 38,605
    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
    _____________________________________SIGNATURE________________________________________________

    Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
    you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
    memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
    another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
  • "Every time dick cheney laughs, and angel gets stabbed in the d@ck..."

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/1 ... 76920.html
    "You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry."  - Lincoln

    "Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
  • MG79478MG79478 Posts: 1,673
    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.
  • 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.
    "You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry."  - Lincoln

    "Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
  • Staceb10Staceb10 Posts: 675
    I actually don't disagree that some Republicans are out of touch socially and that is killing the party. At least I think it hurt them in the last election.
  • MG79478MG79478 Posts: 1,673
    Staceb10 wrote:
    I actually don't disagree that some Republicans are out of touch socially and that is killing the party. At least I think it hurt them in the last election.

    I think you are 100% correct, they are out of touch socially, but the problem is social issues really don't matter. All they are is distraction from the real issues at hand, and given the results of the last election, people bought the strategy.
  • MG79478 wrote:
    Staceb10 wrote:
    I actually don't disagree that some Republicans are out of touch socially and that is killing the party. At least I think it hurt them in the last election.

    I think you are 100% correct, they are out of touch socially, but the problem is social issues really don't matter. All they are is distraction from the real issues at hand, and given the results of the last election, people bought the strategy.
    to you, what are the real issues that we are missing?
    "You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry."  - Lincoln

    "Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
  • Staceb10Staceb10 Posts: 675
    MG79478 wrote:
    Staceb10 wrote:
    I actually don't disagree that some Republicans are out of touch socially and that is killing the party. At least I think it hurt them in the last election.

    I think you are 100% correct, they are out of touch socially, but the problem is social issues really don't matter. All they are is distraction from the real issues at hand, and given the results of the last election, people bought the strategy.


    Exactly. I am more worried about the economy and my rights under the constitution than I am about abortions and gay marriage.
  • and i am more worried about a bunch of religious zealots and anti government tea partiers running things in this country. their idealogy was throughly beaten back in november, yet they are still doing what got them defeated. they are out of touch domestically, economically, and are ethnocentric, misogynistic, and xenophobic.
    "You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry."  - Lincoln

    "Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
  • mickeyratmickeyrat Posts: 38,605
    edited February 2013
    [
    Post edited by mickeyrat on
    _____________________________________SIGNATURE________________________________________________

    Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
    you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
    memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
    another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
  • CosmoCosmo Posts: 12,225
    edited February 2013
    Staceb10 wrote:
    I actually don't disagree that some Republicans are out of touch socially and that is killing the party. At least I think it hurt them in the last election.
    ...
    The current Republican party has driven moderate Republicans away (towards Independents, mostly Libertarian). The first mistake... attaching themselves to the Christian Coalition. They are those people who watch the Super Bowl like a hawk and hope that a tit pops out so they can be offended and bitch about it. In other words, the crazy people.
    That has lead to the fact that in order to gain the nomination of the party, they have to say crazy shit to make these crazy people happy. When it comes to the General Election, the candidate has to then, talk to the sane people to get their votes... but, all that crazy shit they said in the primaries comes back to bite them in the ass.
    We saw proof of this when Mitt Romney was only the Republican front runner after the crazy people (Michelle Bachmann, Rick Parry, Herman Cain, Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich) ran out of money.
    The Republican Party needs to step out if the image of 1954 that was created by television and into the 21st Centrury. And the first step is to drop the lunatic fringe as its base.
    Post edited by Cosmo on
    Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
    Hail, Hail!!!
  • pandorapandora Posts: 21,855
    President Obama was here today. He gave a speech about early childhood education
    to teachers and kids too I think. I caught some of it in on our radio news channel.

    It was really a good speech, made some good funnies too about when kids grow up.
    He wants to guarantee all 4 year olds in our country a pre k education opportunity
    to get them all on the same level once they get to public school.

    He talked about how quickly we can lose students who can't keep up, then don't try.
    Made some great points. We have a good program here and should be set as an example
    though I think we lost some local funding for it in recent cuts.
    Its a great idea. Hope there is some money for it in the Federal Budget.
  • well they filibustered hagel. what a shock :roll:

    all of this bullshit political theater only to get him approved in 10 days.

    the gop in congress are a laughingstock now. anybody who is halfway paying any sort of attention to the proceedings can see that.

    same party, same ideas, same legislative results as usual...nothing...
    "You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry."  - Lincoln

    "Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
  • MG79478MG79478 Posts: 1,673
    Staceb10 wrote:
    MG79478 wrote:
    Staceb10 wrote:
    I actually don't disagree that some Republicans are out of touch socially and that is killing the party. At least I think it hurt them in the last election.

    I think you are 100% correct, they are out of touch socially, but the problem is social issues really don't matter. All they are is distraction from the real issues at hand, and given the results of the last election, people bought the strategy.


    Exactly. I am more worried about the economy and my rights under the constitution than I am about abortions and gay marriage.

    BINGO! We have a winner.

    The Democrat strategy is divide the electorate in to groups, tell them that they are discriminated against, and then offer them stuff (entitlements or legislation) in exchange for their votes. The best part is, each group gets so focused on their pet issue, that they don't see the big picture. I literally had a converstaion on election day with someone who was going to vote for Obama, who hated the direction the country was headed and blamed him, but thought he had a better stance on social issues. It blew my mind.

    The country may be failing, but at least you can marry your toaster!
  • MG79478MG79478 Posts: 1,673
    mickeyrat wrote:
    Well it would be most helpful to start with if an agreed upon definition of life was had. As I can readily see we are in complete disagreement there. No further need to keep going back and forth. I stated a loose definition. You stated another. Seems there is no way to reach any kind of consensus. So why try?

    By the way, nice dodge of my question with your nonanswer deflection. I'll be sure to steer clear of you, who cant seem to answer a direct question with a direct answer. Good day.

    In other words, you are outgunned and are smart enough to avoid me. I respsonded to your question by proving it be moot. Yet for like the fifth time, you dance around my questions. It takes some balls to project your behaviors on me.
  • JimmyVJimmyV Posts: 19,172
    MG79478 wrote:
    mickeyrat wrote:
    Well it would be most helpful to start with if an agreed upon definition of life was had. As I can readily see we are in complete disagreement there. No further need to keep going back and forth. I stated a loose definition. You stated another. Seems there is no way to reach any kind of consensus. So why try?

    By the way, nice dodge of my question with your nonanswer deflection. I'll be sure to steer clear of you, who cant seem to answer a direct question with a direct answer. Good day.

    In other words, you are outgunned and are smart enough to avoid me. I respsonded to your question by proving it be moot. Yet for like the fifth time, you dance around my questions. It takes some balls to project your behaviors on me.

    You declared it to be moot, most likely because you did not have an answer for it. You proved nothing.

    Mickeyrat offered to agree to disagree and you lash out like this? Classless behavior.
    ___________________________________________

    "...I changed by not changing at all..."
  • JimmyVJimmyV Posts: 19,172
    Andrew Sullivan on the Hagel debacle:

    "No entity in our polity right now is more radical and revolutionary than the current GOP: their contempt for institutional custom knows few bounds when it comes to the short-term tactical possibility of impeding even a newly re-elected president, after losing the popular vote for the presidency, Senate and House. The whole concept of putting country before party is that sometimes you take the long national view rather than the short partisan one. You give the other party a chance to govern, as the Democrats did Reagan. But the anti-conservative revolutionary party that Gingrich began and Kristol egged on is now in its zombie stage – with no viable way back to majority status but lunging slowly and malevolently toward anything that is not far right. That includes the Constitution and its evolved customs and parliamentary traditions."

    http://dish.andrewsullivan.com/2013/02/ ... stage-ctd/
    ___________________________________________

    "...I changed by not changing at all..."
  • MG79478MG79478 Posts: 1,673
    JimmyV wrote:
    MG79478 wrote:
    mickeyrat wrote:
    Well it would be most helpful to start with if an agreed upon definition of life was had. As I can readily see we are in complete disagreement there. No further need to keep going back and forth. I stated a loose definition. You stated another. Seems there is no way to reach any kind of consensus. So why try?

    By the way, nice dodge of my question with your nonanswer deflection. I'll be sure to steer clear of you, who cant seem to answer a direct question with a direct answer. Good day.

    In other words, you are outgunned and are smart enough to avoid me. I respsonded to your question by proving it be moot. Yet for like the fifth time, you dance around my questions. It takes some balls to project your behaviors on me.

    You declared it to be moot, most likely because you did not have an answer for it. You proved nothing.

    Mickeyrat offered to agree to disagree and you lash out like this? Classless behavior.

    Why do you consider me calling him out on his behaviors lashing out? That is ridiculous! He continually has dodged my questions, and only responded with "answer my question". The discussion was “when does life begin”, and all he can talk about is a "fetus not being able love outside the womb because it can't breathe on its own." But if it will die outside the womb, it's already ALIVE! Thus his “breathing” question he keeps harping on is moot. There is no agreeing to disagree when he himself has proven my point; it's not an option you can take to get out of being wrong! If you would have actually read the posts before you decided to comment, you would have realized that. But thanks for the super classy personal attack!
  • It took me an hour to read this thread & that's the short of it only cuz I forgo video links; (they don't load very well on hotel servers).
    3 issues going on (at least)
    1) war on women -- or not.
    2) republicans in demise.
    3) Brown & Katrina, Hagel, Ron Paul & Rand, Rubio.

    Someone said way back in this thread something about all this insanity has got to stop & I'd say this is one thing we can all agree on.
    So this thread typifies for me why insanity stays the course & why our governance keeps stalling out. To me, this single thread depicts the basic mindset of what 'free & educated" (industrialized nations) masses look like nowadays; that it's not just an American exclusive condition -- not just our ruling cadre's either.
    For me, the resultant insanity-stall clearly stems from such a bombardment of data; such a mountain slide deluge of information overload. And within seconds, any of us can google-clip & u-tube another mountainous heap. We now have state-of-the-art fodder in which to power-punch bait & switch tactics, to deflect from key issues that need premier focus.
    It's as though we seem more predisposed to present opposing views rather than consensus building.
    We seem predisposed to complain about how our ruling duo succumbs to this but it doesn't appear as though we see our own reflection in that.

    How then, can we expect effective change on the governing scale when we provide a perfect example of how to shirk that responsibility?
    Someones quote; something about a peoples governing is only as good as the people require.
  • mickeyratmickeyrat Posts: 38,605
    edited February 2013
    [
    Post edited by mickeyrat on
    _____________________________________SIGNATURE________________________________________________

    Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
    you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
    memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
    another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
  • mickeyratmickeyrat Posts: 38,605
    edited February 2013
    [
    Post edited by mickeyrat on
    _____________________________________SIGNATURE________________________________________________

    Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
    you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
    memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
    another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
  • mickeyratmickeyrat Posts: 38,605
    edited February 2013
    :corn:
    Post edited by mickeyrat on
    _____________________________________SIGNATURE________________________________________________

    Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
    you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
    memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
    another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
  • mickeyratmickeyrat Posts: 38,605
    edited February 2013
    :corn:
    Post edited by mickeyrat on
    _____________________________________SIGNATURE________________________________________________

    Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
    you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
    memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
    another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
  • mickeyratmickeyrat Posts: 38,605
    edited February 2013
    :corn:
    Post edited by mickeyrat on
    _____________________________________SIGNATURE________________________________________________

    Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
    you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
    memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
    another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
Sign In or Register to comment.