Look dipshit, I have no problem with them filibustering it, the issue here is with hatch and sessions saying after the vote that they are not familiar enough with the nomination to know of a reason why a filibuster is justified yet they voted to filibustertravelinman67 wrote:UNH...
...every time your idiocy reaches new levels, I have to remind myself there's always a tomorrow.
Smith's nomination was PUT ON HOLD 10 months after she was caught lying during confirmation testimony about her motivations to institute NY state's wage watch program. These programs (CA instituted one under Gray Davis), are the brainchild of union shills as a mechanism used by union organizers to intimidate employers. Smith is merely a handmaiden for AFL-CIO/SEIU/Food Service Workers unions: The reluctance of Republican Senators to rubber-stamp a lying union-shill for labor secretary was just and prudent.
Democrat Reid's SHAMEFUL abuse of the nomination process to FORCE a vote before MA-Brown's arrival (who would have stopped her nomination), is disgusting.
You're simply amazing, UNH...
...you have no qualms about spinning news stories about Dem. misdeeds and dishonesty into political hyperbole.
Whoops!
My bad!!
I mistakenly assumed honesty and integrity were included in your personal values.
I'll be looking for your thread on "Shameful Democrats", then...UNHWildCats wrote:Look dipshit, I have no problem with them filibustering it, the issue here is with hatch and sessions saying after the vote that they are not familiar enough with the nomination to know of a reason why a filibuster is justified yet they voted to filibustertravelinman67 wrote:UNH...
...every time your idiocy reaches new levels, I have to remind myself there's always a tomorrow.
Smith's nomination was PUT ON HOLD 10 months after she was caught lying during confirmation testimony about her motivations to institute NY state's wage watch program. These programs (CA instituted one under Gray Davis), are the brainchild of union shills as a mechanism used by union organizers to intimidate employers. Smith is merely a handmaiden for AFL-CIO/SEIU/Food Service Workers unions: The reluctance of Republican Senators to rubber-stamp a lying union-shill for labor secretary was just and prudent.
Democrat Reid's SHAMEFUL abuse of the nomination process to FORCE a vote before MA-Brown's arrival (who would have stopped her nomination), is disgusting.
You're simply amazing, UNH...
...you have no qualms about spinning news stories about Dem. misdeeds and dishonesty into political hyperbole.
Whoops!
My bad!!
I mistakenly assumed honesty and integrity were included in your personal values.
Washington (CNSNews.com) - House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) said Tuesday that the health-care reform bill now pending in Congress would garner very few votes if lawmakers actually had to read the entire bill before voting on it.
“If every member pledged to not vote for it if they hadn’t read it in its entirety, I think we would have very few votes,” Hoyer told CNSNews.com at his regular weekly news conference.
Hoyer was responding to a question from CNSNews.com on whether he supported a pledge that asks members of the Congress to read the entire bill before voting on it and also make the full text of the bill available to the public for 72 hours before a vote.
In fact, Hoyer found the idea of the pledge humorous, laughing as he responded to the question. “I’m laughing because a) I don’t know how long this bill is going to be, but it’s going to be a very long bill,” he said...
This is exactly the first thing that came to my mind after hearing T's thoughts on Sessions and Hatch. I don't recall any outrage from him over this.travelinman67 wrote:I'll be looking for your thread on "Shameful Democrats", then...
Democratic Leader Laughs at Idea That House Members Would Actually Read Health-Care Bill Before Voting On It
Wednesday, July 08, 2009
By Monica Gabriel and Marie Magleby
Washington (CNSNews.com) - House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) said Tuesday that the health-care reform bill now pending in Congress would garner very few votes if lawmakers actually had to read the entire bill before voting on it.
“If every member pledged to not vote for it if they hadn’t read it in its entirety, I think we would have very few votes,” Hoyer told CNSNews.com at his regular weekly news conference.
Hoyer was responding to a question from CNSNews.com on whether he supported a pledge that asks members of the Congress to read the entire bill before voting on it and also make the full text of the bill available to the public for 72 hours before a vote.
In fact, Hoyer found the idea of the pledge humorous, laughing as he responded to the question. “I’m laughing because a) I don’t know how long this bill is going to be, but it’s going to be a very long bill,” he said...
It's called being a partisan hack...but, it's to be expected.andy7171 wrote:This is exactly the first thing that came to my mind after hearing T's thoughts on Sessions and Hatch. I don't recall any outrage from him over this.travelinman67 wrote:I'll be looking for your thread on "Shameful Democrats", then...
Democratic Leader Laughs at Idea That House Members Would Actually Read Health-Care Bill Before Voting On It
Wednesday, July 08, 2009
By Monica Gabriel and Marie Magleby
I mean, that's just how it is.
I'm actually shocked he replied once in this thread. His MO is to post some crap he reads on some Lib website without actually checking it and when it gets soundly trounced he's never seen again. Some of the stuff he posts would be probably be considered libel in media circles.ASUMountaineer wrote:It's called being a partisan hack...
SOME of it?89Hen wrote:I'm actually shocked he replied once in this thread. His MO is to post some crap he reads on some Lib website without actually checking it and when it gets soundly trounced he's never seen again. Some of the stuff he posts would be probably be considered libel in media circles.ASUMountaineer wrote:It's called being a partisan hack...
Everyone on here is a partisan hack.ASUMountaineer wrote:It's called being a partisan hack...but, it's to be expected.andy7171 wrote: This is exactly the first thing that came to my mind after hearing T's thoughts on Sessions and Hatch. I don't recall any outrage from him over this.
Some more than others.UNHWildCats wrote:Everyone on here is a partisan hack.
That's not true, and you know it.UNHWildCats wrote:Everyone on here is a partisan hack.ASUMountaineer wrote:
It's called being a partisan hack...but, it's to be expected.
I take offense to that, actually, I don't consider myself partisan at all. Maybe a hack, but surely not partisan.UNHWildCats wrote:Everyone on here is a partisan hack.ASUMountaineer wrote:
It's called being a partisan hack...but, it's to be expected.
I concur with that statement for the both of us.GannonFan wrote:I take offense to that, actually, I don't consider myself partisan at all. Maybe a hack, but surely not partisan.UNHWildCats wrote: Everyone on here is a partisan hack.
GannonFan: A/K/A Nonpartisan HackGannonFan wrote:I take offense to that, actually, I don't consider myself partisan at all. Maybe a hack, but surely not partisan.UNHWildCats wrote: Everyone on here is a partisan hack.
Again, positive and constructive. Shtick in abundance. Good work.mainejeff wrote:Like I've said.......just let the Republicans run it all and everything will be fine.
I thought the Partisans were pretty cool when they fought with Tito against the Nazi's.GannonFan wrote:I take offense to that, actually, I don't consider myself partisan at all. Maybe a hack, but surely not partisan.UNHWildCats wrote: Everyone on here is a partisan hack.
ASUMountaineer wrote:That's not true, and you know it.UNHWildCats wrote: Everyone on here is a partisan hack.
You can't even consider anything that is not associated or supported by a Democrat. It's sad to box yourself in like that. But, what's really sad, is it provides for no growth or depth. As a Democrat, you undoubtedly feel you're extremely progressive and tolerant. However, engaging in the same type of partisanism--that the Republicans you love to bash do--you're no different. You can't see the forest for the trees (or the D's in your case).
Want to feel liberated? Step outside of conventional, party thinking and consider that people you disagree with may have the best intentions at heart as well. Don't just simply disregard what someone says because it's different...actually be tolerant and open-minded. That's all I'm saying. Democrats have made mistakes, just as Republicans have, and independents as well. If you tried looking at things objectively, instead of trying to tear down those who disagree with you, perhaps you would open up a new world for youself (and if politicians didn't follow your lead perhaps real change and progress could emerge). As it is, it appears you'd prefer the status quo--annihilate the competition as opposed to building everyone up.
Cute.houndawg wrote:ASUMountaineer wrote:
That's not true, and you know it.
You can't even consider anything that is not associated or supported by a Democrat. It's sad to box yourself in like that. But, what's really sad, is it provides for no growth or depth. As a Democrat, you undoubtedly feel you're extremely progressive and tolerant. However, engaging in the same type of partisanism--that the Republicans you love to bash do--you're no different. You can't see the forest for the trees (or the D's in your case).
Want to feel liberated? Step outside of conventional, party thinking and consider that people you disagree with may have the best intentions at heart as well. Don't just simply disregard what someone says because it's different...actually be tolerant and open-minded. That's all I'm saying. Democrats have made mistakes, just as Republicans have, and independents as well. If you tried looking at things objectively, instead of trying to tear down those who disagree with you, perhaps you would open up a new world for youself (and if politicians didn't follow your lead perhaps real change and progress could emerge). As it is, it appears you'd prefer the status quo--annihilate the competition as opposed to building everyone up.
Democrats aren't progressive or tolerant, with few exceptions. They just seem that way compared to Republicans.
Catch 22mainejeff wrote:Like I've said.......just let the Republicans run it all and everything will be fine.
Really? Are these guys liberal or conservative?TribeNomad wrote:Actually, despite the fact that the liberals are deluded into thinking that they are the intellectual elite, they are the most INTOLERANT group I have ever seen, despite their cries that the conservatives are intolerant.
