Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

Senate Republicans today attempted to block the nomination of Patricia Smith to be solicitor general at the Department of Labor.

While that isn't completely shameful, two republicans were, Jeff Sessions and Orrin Hatch admitted after the vote which democrats beat back the filibuster attempt by a 60-32 vote, that they weren't familiar enough with the nomination to know of any reason a filibuster would be warranted, yet they voted for the filibuster anyway.

Good for them, we dont need anymore dumb c*nts in public service, J Napolitano is more than enough to fill that quota.

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.

travelinman67 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.

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 filibuster

Wildc*nt slays me!

At least shes consistent with all the threads she started about the bro and dem congress leaving out the GOP on almost everything this past year.

UNHWildCats wrote:

travelinman67 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.

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 filibuster

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...

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...

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.

andy7171 wrote:

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

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.

It's called being a partisan hack...but, it's to be expected. I mean, that's just how it is.

ASUMountaineer wrote:It's called being a partisan hack...

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.

89Hen wrote:

ASUMountaineer wrote:It's called being a partisan hack...

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.

SOME of it?

ASUMountaineer wrote:

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.

It's called being a partisan hack...but, it's to be expected. I mean, that's just how it is.

Everyone on here is a partisan hack.

UNHWildCats wrote:Everyone on here is a partisan hack.

Some more than others.

UNHWildCats wrote:

ASUMountaineer wrote:
It's called being a partisan hack...but, it's to be expected. I mean, that's just how it is.

Everyone on here is a partisan hack.

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.

UNHWildCats wrote:

ASUMountaineer wrote:
It's called being a partisan hack...but, it's to be expected. I mean, that's just how it is.

Everyone on here is a partisan hack.

I take offense to that, actually, I don't consider myself partisan at all. Maybe a hack, but surely not partisan.

GannonFan wrote:

UNHWildCats wrote: Everyone on here is a partisan hack.

I take offense to that, actually, I don't consider myself partisan at all. Maybe a hack, but surely not partisan.

I concur with that statement for the both of us.

Like I've said.......just let the Republicans run it all and everything will be fine.

GannonFan wrote:

UNHWildCats wrote: Everyone on here is a partisan hack.

I take offense to that, actually, I don't consider myself partisan at all. Maybe a hack, but surely not partisan.

GannonFan: A/K/A Nonpartisan Hack

mainejeff wrote:Like I've said.......just let the Republicans run it all and everything will be fine.

Again, positive and constructive. Shtick in abundance. Good work.

GannonFan wrote:

UNHWildCats wrote: Everyone on here is a partisan hack.

I take offense to that, actually, I don't consider myself partisan at all. Maybe a hack, but surely not partisan.

I thought the Partisans were pretty cool when they fought with Tito against the Nazi's.

ASUMountaineer wrote:

UNHWildCats wrote: Everyone on here is a partisan hack.

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.

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.

Cute.

mainejeff wrote:Like I've said.......just let the Republicans run it all and everything will be fine.

Catch 22

The statement is correct. Mainejeff made the statement. Mainejeff is correct.

Mainejeff is incorrect. Mainejeff made the statement. The statement is incorrect.

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.

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.

Really? Are these guys liberal or conservative?

Those guys are likely conservative (and far right wackos as well), but if the libs espouse tolerance, they should be tolerant of their views, however wacky....that is my point, if you are tolerant, then you should be tolerant of others intolerance????? Right???