ChrisWeigant.com

Please support ChrisWeigant.com this
holiday season!

Friday Talking Points [235] -- The Can-Kicking Congress

[ Posted Friday, November 16th, 2012 – 18:47 PST ]

This is going to be a rather abbreviated column today. I'm struggling with massive computer problems, so even getting a short column out is going to be tough. This will probably restore some balance to the universe, as last week's post-election column was insanely long, I should mention.

But enough navel-gazing! What's in the news this week? Twinkies! No more Twinkies? Twinkie The Kid hanging up his spurs for good? Well, I can't say I'm devastated since the last time I ate a Twinkie was probably when I was a teenager, but it does seem to be what everyone's talking about so I had to at least mention it in passing, I suppose.

In politics, the media had a fun week traipsing through the underwear drawers of several high-ranking military officers. Republicans continue to obsess about the Obama administration's response to the Benghazi tragedy, while ignoring the fact that their party's leader not only reacted bizarrely to the story -- before the details were known -- but did so before the supposed Obama conspiracy even got off the ground. So what lesson are we to draw? Republicans are even faster at mis-reading a situation than Democrats? It's pretty easy to see who tried to politicize the situation first, which the American public has already realized and moved on from. Not John McCain, though, he's going to ride this pony just as far as he can (no surprise there, really).

The real news is happening behind closed doors, of course, as Congress absolutely must act before the end of the year or we're all driving over that fiscal cliff together. Or maybe it's just a "slope" -- this seems to be a new talking point from some pundits. Whichever... my money is on "nothing will actually happen until the last week in December, when a Band-Aid will be slapped over the whole thing and the can kicked as far down the road as the politicians think they can get away with." Not to mix metaphors, or anything, Sigh.

But I'll get to my true feelings towards Congress in a rant which will take the place of our talking points this week. First, though, let's hand out a few quick awards.

 

Most Impressive Democrat of the Week

In the "strike while the iron is hot" category, we have two Democrats in Congress who are wasting no time introducing bills to try and fix our nation's voting woes. Both Senator Chris Coons and Representative George Miller deserve Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week awards this week for their efforts to solve an obvious problem (in some states, at least).

Are their bills the best idea to fix the problem? I don't know. Could the bills be better? Probably. But whether the perfect solution or not, now is the time to act. We were supposed to have solved this problem after the 2000 fiasco in Florida, but we still have a lot of work left to do, it seems.

Fixing voting problems is normally a pretty low priority in Washington. Which means if a bill doesn't make it through in the next six months, it will likely never happen. For realizing this and for pushing the issue in the lame duck Congress, Coons and Miller deserve Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week awards for their efforts.

[Congratulate Senator Chris Coons on his Senate contact page and Representative George Miller on his House contact page to let them know you appreciate their efforts.]

 

Most Disappointing Democrat of the Week

We've got two Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week awards to hand out this week.

The first is for Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar. Because of the subject matter, we're linking to the ABC "Political Punch" column for the story.

Salazar recently responded to a question from a reporter by threatening to "punch out" the reporter. The question was on wild horses, so you can make your own joke (and/or Rolling Stones reference) here, if you'd like. Salazar was angry because the reporter, as he put it, "set me up."

Salazar has since apologized, but it will not get him out of being awarded a MDDOTW for his stupidity. Cabinet-level secretaries should know the difference between being "on the record" and being on an elementary school playground, one would think.

A second Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week is in order for Representative Jesse Jackson Jr. Now that the full facts are coming out, it seems the timeline for Jesse was: get investigated by the F.B.I. for campaign finance crimes; check into the Mayo Clinic; check out of the Mayo clinic and get spotted drinking in a bar in D.C.; check back into the Mayo Clinic; get re-elected by his constituents despite his disappearing act, which included not campaigning at all; and finally have the federal investigation made public after the election, when the story broke that Jackson was negotiating a plea deal where he'll probably spend some time in jail (where he can say hello to all the other Illinois politicians who are already there).

This is beyond "disappointing," really. It's downright inexcusable. Jackson knew what was going to happen at the very beginning of this fiasco -- his dipping into the campaign cash for his own pleasure would be made public, at some point. The honorable thing to do would have been to immediately resign, thus leaving a House seat open for some more deserving Democrat to run for. Jackson hung on, in some sort of delusion that he could beat the rap. Because he obviously is not going to (you don't enter into plea bargaining if you think you're going to win in court), I think part of his plea bargain should include "pay the state of Illinois every penny that a special election for his House seat is going to cost to run."

Since this is beyond my control, the least I can do is to hand him a Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week award. Maybe once he gets to prison, he can enter into a contest with Rod Blagojevich to see who can get more MDDOTW awards or something. For shame, Jesse, for shame. Not just for dipping into the campaign funds, but for the narcissism of not immediately resigning once caught at it.

[Contact Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar on the Department of the Interior's contact page and Representative Jesse Jackson Jr. via his House contact page, to let them know what you think of their actions.]

 

Friday Talking Points

Volume 235 (11/16/12)

[No talking points this week, instead I was overtaken by the need to rant.]

As we hurtle towards the fiscal cliff, one thing becomes obvious. Congress doesn't work. Not in the sense that "it's broken" or anything, they just do not work when they are supposed to be doing their jobs. Consider, if you will, the fact that this fiscal cliff did not just spring up suddenly. The looming deadline of December 31 has been known for over a year now. In fact, it was Congress itself that set this deadline.

Every member of Congress began this year knowing what was going to happen at the end of 2012. They have now had over ten months to work on the impending crisis. And what have they done about it? Nothing.

That's right -- nothing. Not a damned thing.

Both parties are equally as culpable in this, I should add. Democrats and Republicans got together at the beginning of the year and shook hands on a deal. The deal was to do nothing until after the election. In fact, neither party's candidate even mentioned the fiscal cliff out on the campaign trail. The two parties agreed that they just weren't going to bring it up -- in the middle of an election.

This is not the way democracy is supposed to work, folks. Democrats and Republicans have different ideas about what to do to avoid the fiscal cliff. What is supposed to happen is that they are supposed to make the case -- in Congress, to each other; and in public, to the voters -- for their way out of the mess. The voters are supposed to be given a clear choice about what to do for the future. Then the voters can decide which they like, and vote accordingly.

This did not happen. Democrats and Republicans alike played the shameful game of "I won't tell if you won't tell" all year long. Which is disgusting. Some of them even announced, as early as February, that they'd be doing nothing all year and then attempting to do a year's work after the elections were over with. Both parties held the issue hostage, refusing to talk about it to the voters because they were scared their plans wouldn't be popular. This is nothing short of cowardice.

What set me off today was a story I read with quotes from an aide to Speaker of the House John Boehner. In it was this choice phrase: "Since tax and entitlement reform are too complex to complete this year, the speaker noted...."

Got that? It's just too darn complex to finish in the short time they've got left. Well, I don't know, maybe someone should ask the Speaker if it's so complex and requires a lot of time and work, then why didn't he start a year ago instead of now?

Harry Reid is just as culpable, I should mention in all fairness. The Senate has done exactly the same as the House on the issue all year -- nothing at all. Where is the grand plan from the House Republicans? Where is the bill from the Senate Democrats? Neither exists. Nobody has put a single word on paper, yet.

What's even more galling is the fact that Congress will still be taking whole weeks off between now and the end of the year. Because that is the one thing Congress excels at: taking vacations.

Both parties are guilty of a serious dereliction of duty. Both decided to blow off ten months of the year, because actually doing their job was so hard. Both entered into a pact to push the issue to the side so they could get busy on the work that is truly dearest to their hearts: getting re-elected. Voters certainly don't want to hear about tough choices and bad news, so let's all just agree not to talk about such things.

This is a disgrace, it is anti-democratic, and it needs to be fixed. California had similar problems with our politicians not doing their jobs. The annual budget used to be late every year, like clockwork. This resulted in such embarrassments as handing out "I.O.U.s" instead of paychecks to state workers -- sometimes for months on end.

We fixed the problem, out here. We passed a voter initiative that drew a red line: if the budget isn't done on time, legislators don't get paid. They are forbidden, if this happens, from awarding themselves back pay. You know what happened? The first year, they tried to fudge the issue by passing an empty "budget." The state refused to issue their paychecks. So they passed a real budget. Since then, I don't believe any budget has been more than a day or two late.

Quite simply, it worked. Problem solved.

Now I know it would be harder to enact such a law for the U.S. Congress. America does not have national "voter initiatives" on the ballot. So Congress itself would have to pass such a law, which will happen about two weeks after Hell freezes solid.

Unless the citizens make it a priority. If there were a nationwide shaming to pass a "No Work? No Pay!" law, and if people started getting voted out of office on the issue, perhaps it could indeed come to pass.

Because what we've got now is ridiculous. "We're just not going to work all year long, until after the election" should be completely unacceptable to all Americans -- no matter what you think should be done about the problem. A refusal to even work on a solution should be automatic grounds for dismissal. Or, at the very least, for the paychecks to stop.

This hasn't been the "Do-Nothing" Congress so much as it has been the "Can-Kicking" Congress. Every single "deal" that's happened has been nothing more than an effort to shove the problems down the road a few months, or a few years -- whatever they think they can get away with. Look for the answer to the fiscal cliff to be a big old kick in the can once again -- "the problem was too complex so we're going to make a deadline a few months/years from now, and that'll really force us to act! How many times are we going to let them get away with this? The upcoming deadline, if you'll remember, was put in place when the last deadline ran out... which was dictated by the deadline before that. Congress keeps right on selling the same horse manure wrapped in a different bow each time -- "we're really going to solve the problem next time around, when that big bad deadline hits, just trust us!"

So don't be surprised if all the Lucys in Congress pull the football away from Charlie Brown on December 31 once again. The only real question is whether the can will be kicked one month down the road, three months down the road, six months down the road, or (if they think they can get away with it) a full year or more down the road.

The only difference will be what catchy name the media comes up with next time around to call the same old problem. Will it be "taxmageddon" or perhaps "the mother of all crises"? Because that's likely the only thing that'll change.

 

-- Chris Weigant

 

All-time award winners leaderboard, by rank
Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant

 

91 Comments on “Friday Talking Points [235] -- The Can-Kicking Congress”

  1. [1] 
    michty6 wrote:

    CW,
    This is the problem I referred to in the other post when you have a 1 year election. It basically takes a year out of the legislative calendar because no sides want to do anything. And, of course, it is the public who suffer.

    I don't think they will kick the whole thing down the road btw. It is more likely they extend the tax cuts for those earning <$250k and kick everything else down the road... Imo.

  2. [2] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Chris,

    This is not the way democracy is supposed to work, folks. Democrats and Republicans have different ideas about what to do to avoid the fiscal cliff. What is supposed to happen is that they are supposed to make the case -- in Congress, to each other; and in public, to the voters -- for their way out of the mess. The voters are supposed to be given a clear choice about what to do for the future. Then the voters can decide which they like, and vote accordingly.

    I agree. The Democrats and Republicans definitely have different ideas about how to avoid the "fiscal cliff" - the Democrat ideas are based in reality while the Republican ideas are not.

    The choice was clear enough for me. It should have been clear enough for any American vote who cared to pay attention. Sadly, it was not. Let's put the blame for this lack of awareness where it belongs - on the electorate that refused to unseat the Republican majority in the House of Representatives for dangerous and despicable behavior in a blatantly reckless disregard for the financial health of the nation.

    When the congressional Republicans decide to act in much the same way in the wake of President Obama's re-election, there will still be only one group to blame.

    Got that? It's just too darn complex to finish in the short time they've got left. Well, I don't know, maybe someone should ask the Speaker if it's so complex and requires a lot of time and work, then why didn't he start a year ago instead of now?

    He didn't start a year ago because then it seemed easier to him - as it did to all Republicans who live in their very own fantasyland, evidently - that it would be easier to deny Obama a second term and to take control over the executive and legislative branches of governent for four years and beyond, thus ensuring that their misguided views would be upheld by that other branch of government, too.

    It really doesn't get much simpler than that. False equivalency can be a very dangerous thing.

  3. [3] 
    LeaningBlue wrote:

    CEO's and private equity guys know that secession would mean lost business as the states spiraled down to the level of the third world. They know the Democrats weren't able to suppress any more votes than they did. They saw what happens to guys like Trump and Welsh when they make stupid tweets in moments of anger. Yet they're pissed about Obama getting re-elected, and needed to make a statement.

    What better act than to kill an American icon in a way that would make vulture capitalists proud, in the face of a union strike. In fairness, Hostess was a zombie, partly made so by its cost structure, partly by participation by private equity funds, partly because the Twinkie and its ilk of fat and sugar is an anachronism. And we know that white bread like Wonder is losing share even faster than white voters.

    But still, with Big Bird safe for the moment, killing the Twinkie has to feel good.

  4. [4] 
    dsws wrote:

    We've been through this before.

    Congress doesn't do any appreciable part of its work on the floor of the chamber. Bills are drafted in offices, not on the floor of the chamber. Staffers meet with representatives of interest groups and issue organizations in offices, not on the floor of the chamber. Staffers tally up constituent mail in their offices, not on the floor of the chamber. Staffers meet with staffers of other members to negotiate details, guess where? It doesn't matter whether Congress is officially in session.

    Members of Congress typically are rich. They just about have to be, to get in. Their salary doesn't much matter to them. It doesn't much matter to us, either. But insofar as a few middle-class people get elected, your favorite idea is to put them at the mercy of richer members who would be able to hold their salaries up?

  5. [5] 
    LewDan wrote:

    I agree with Liz. Until we voters start acting responsibly and vote against the people who actually have the power of the purse, Congress, for their irresponsible and unsustainable fiscal policies, we've no right to complain.

    Ours is a representative democracy, and, unfortunately, a self-absorbed and ambivalent Congress, living in denial, is a fair representation of this nation's electorate.

  6. [6] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    LewDan,

    You make a very good point. But, it's hard to be too critical of the electorate when they are constantly hearing that there is no difference between the Democrats and Republicans whether that ultimately cynical message is actually presented in a more nuanced fashion or as a simplistic matter of fact.

    I get seriously irked when I hear that both parties are equally culpable, in all fairness, and that both parties are guilty of serious direliction of duty when one party - and one party only - consistently acts to put its own political interests before country at all costs, with little or no regard to how their destructive bahavior stymies the progress of a nation and its people.

    Let's be clear - one party, the Republican Party - has become essentially anti-Enlightenment and blindly subservient to the forces who would gut government in favour of an all-consuming and fantastical notion of the supremacy of individual liberty to the destruction of the country as a whole. (Is that where the secession movements sweeping through some of the red states comes from?)

    I think the blind cynicism of the media and punditocracy and particularly the tendency to equate the politics and policies of one party with the other when one party is so clearly bent on destroying the foundations of the country is a very, very dangerous proposition.

  7. [7] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    dan,

    Members of Congress typically are rich. They just about have to be, to get in. Their salary doesn't much matter to them.

    i beg to differ. holding back a congressional paycheck doesn't work because the congress-critter would starve without it. the strategy works because of the psychology of delayed reinforcement. it's not the amount that matters, it's the operant relationship between the paycheck and the completion of a job. whether the check is one dollar or a million, it still has the same impact, because members KNOW that they haven't been paid for work they haven't yet completed. even if their wallets aren't objectively all that much lighter, they still feel it because of what the paycheck means.

    ~joshua

  8. [8] 
    Michale wrote:

    This is why I like CW.com...

    For one, CW completely shatters the myth that Democrats are somehow "better" than Republicans.. When one tears away all the partisan hype and political crap (as CW often does) it becomes clear that Democrats are as much self-serving, corrupt and ego-maniacal politicians as Republicans are...

    And, though I am wont to whine and bitch about CW's choice of "fluff" or obscure MDDOTW awardees, every once in a while, CW does really choose some candidates with some real meat...

    Like today.. :D Nailing an Obama Administration Cabinet member AND a hero of the Hysterical Left is a two-fer of mega proportions! :D Kudos...

    The Jackson Jr award is especially apropos, but it's not the only one. Another Chicago (I think... Chicago or Vegas) Dem representative won his election even though he has EIGHT FELONY CONVICTIONS for check fraud and forgery...

    Democrats may have shellacked the Republicans this time around, but there are plenty of instances where Dems should hide their heads in shame..

    Michale.....

  9. [9] 
    Michale wrote:

    I get seriously irked when I hear that both parties are equally culpable, in all fairness, and that both parties are guilty of serious direliction of duty when one party - and one party only - consistently acts to put its own political interests before country at all costs, with little or no regard to how their destructive bahavior stymies the progress of a nation and its people.

    I guess I should have read the comments before I posted.. :D

    Oh well, if I irk Liz now and again, I guess it's OK.. :D

    But Liz, there is really no evidence that Democrats DON'T put their own selfish self interests and those of their Party before the best interests of the country and the people..

    I know that's a double negative (with a half gainor :D) but I think ya get the idea...

    Michale.....

  10. [10] 
    Michale wrote:

    And, as I am wont to do, I have to give credit where credit is due..

    http://talkingpointsmemo.com/Obama%20Not%20Impressed1.jpg

    Obama with that "not impressed" girl was pretty funny.. :D

    I have to admit that I liked it, in spite of myself... :D

    Michale.....

  11. [11] 
    Michale wrote:

    And, on the This Is Really Funny page...

    http://cnsnews.com/blog/gregory-gwyn-williams-jr/obama-supporters-not-responsible-enough-own-firearm-az-gun-stores-sign

    I have ta admit, the logic is impeccable...

    Voting For Obama = Irresponsible :D

    Michale.....

  12. [12] 
    Michale wrote:

    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/A8CqWt5CAAELGbp.jpg

    WOW... Now THAT looks creepy....

    Michale.....

  13. [13] 
    michty6 wrote:

    Michale,
    But Liz, there is really no evidence that Democrats DON'T put their own selfish self interests and those of their Party before the best interests of the country and the people..

    I know you like to believe the 2 party's are 'just as bad' but this is because you don't like to believe the reality of how Republicans have governed for the last 6 years.

    That reality shows that in the Senate, since the Democrats took over in 2006, Republicans have set new records every year in their use of the filibuster. This would normally be of concern before you add in the fact that America went through the greatest recession seen in 80 years during 2008-09. So you can accurately say that no party EVER before - Democratic or Republican - has put their own party interests ahead of those of the nation than this group of Republicans... This is the party whose leader said, during a recession no less, "Our number one priority is making Obama a one-term president".

    Then you look to the House and what do you see? Fewest number of bills passed ever in the history of Congress. Literally no House has passed fewer bills.

    Until you have Democrats saying such things or going through RECORD BREAKING filibustering/do-nothing-ness during an economic recession then you have absolutely no argument (other than rhetoric) that the parties are 'the same' in this regard. Even if Democrats stalled Republican moves in the past (as have Republicans) that is NOTHING compared to the record-breaking figures Republicans are putting up just now.

  14. [14] 
    Michale wrote:

    This is going to be a rather abbreviated column today. I'm struggling with massive computer problems...

    "Perhaps I can be of assistance?"
    -Sean Connery, RISING SUN

    :D

    Michale.....

  15. [15] 
    Michale wrote:

    Michty,

    yea yea yea, Democrats are all goodness and light and Republicans are not only the root of all evil, they ARE all evil..

    yada yada yada yada so on and so on and so forth and blaa blaaa blaaa blaaa..

    You saying it over and over and over and OVER again, does not make it fact...

    About the only factual thing you can say is that Republicans are MORE EFFECTIVE at being obstructionist than Democrats..

    That's about it... :D

    But a politician is a politician is a politician.. Doesn't matter if it's a Dem politician or a GOP politician....

    They are simply two sides of the same corrupt and self-serving coin...

    This is fact, whether you choose to acknowledge it or not...

    Michale.....

  16. [16] 
    michty6 wrote:

    No Michale, again you have missed the point:

    The fact is that politicians have obstructed over years, both Democrat and Republican, for sure - but NO PARTY IN THE HISTORY OF AMERICA has been as obstructionist and downright damaging in their obstruction (see the US credit rating and stalled recovery during this period of obstruction) or obstructed to the levels seen than the CURRENT Republican party. Fact.

    So you can't apply 'both parties do it' to the current Republican party because no party in the history of the United States has done what they are doing...

  17. [17] 
    akadjian wrote:

    Democrats are all goodness and light and Republicans are not only the root of all evil, they ARE all evil.

    I don't think Michty said this, Michale. And I don't think anyone else here likely thinks so either.

    In fact, we think it's good when corruption is uncovered. Even when it affects a Democrat like Jesse Jackson Jr. Good riddance, I say!

    This is one of the key differences between Democrats and Republicans right now. We have principles. I mean other than money :)

    C'mon man ... you sure you don't want to come over to a side that's actually fighting for something other than party.

    -David

  18. [18] 
    Michale wrote:

    David,

    C'mon man ... you sure you don't want to come over to a side that's actually fighting for something other than party.

    Lemme know when ya find such a side?? :D

    See, they problem with ya'all's theory is that it is based on ONE criteria...

    Obstructionism...

    Now, consider this..

    Consider that the Democratic Party's agenda and policies are actually BAD for this country..

    This being the case, the GOP's obstructionism is actually the Patriotic thing to do!

    It's all in the spin...

    That's why I don't buy into your version of events. Because it's spin...

    But, if you DO want to use obstructionism as the sole criteria, by all means..

    Democrats were obstructionist to Bush's CT policies. We NOW know that THAT obstructionism was based on Party Agenda, not a moral stance.. This obstructionism was **AT THE EXPENSE TO THE NATIONAL SECURITY OF THIS COUNTRY**...

    Now, you might considering being MORE obstructionist is a graver sin then being obstructionist to the safety of this country.

    I do not...

    So, if obstructionism is your only criteria, then Dems are worse than Republicans..

    You see???

    It's all in the spin....

    :D

    Michale.....

  19. [19] 
    Michale wrote:

    The fact is that politicians have obstructed over years, both Democrat and Republican, for sure - but NO PARTY IN THE HISTORY OF AMERICA has been as obstructionist and downright damaging in their obstruction (see the US credit rating and stalled recovery during this period of obstruction) or obstructed to the levels seen than the CURRENT Republican party. Fact.

    If you look at ONE CRITERIA only, then you WOULD be correct..

    But you can't cherry pick the criteria you want and ignore the criteria that doesn't fit your theory..

    It's called policy based evidence making..

    It's not allowed... :D

    Michale....

  20. [20] 
    michty6 wrote:

    Lol Michale. There is no spin. There are facts and your choice of how to interpret those facts. There is the fact that the current Republican party is the MOST OBSTRUCTIONIST EVER IN THE HISTORY OF AMERICA. Your interpretation of this fact?

    "So, if obstructionism is your only criteria, then Dems are worse than Republicans.."

    What a surprise! The blindness to reality continues...

  21. [21] 
    michty6 wrote:

    But you can't cherry pick the criteria you want and ignore the criteria that doesn't fit your theory..

    Lol SO IRONIC that you accuse me of cherry picking right after you did EXACTLY THIS! I didn't cherry pick, I presented the facts that are undeniable. Cherry picking would be saying 'let's not look at obstruction but look at obstruction of issue A/B/C'. Like 'let's look at obstruction on the issue of CT'. THAT is cherry picking in an absolute nutshell. You know the Republican record of obstruction is AWFUL so you cherry pick the one area that it is not. It is about as biased and blind to reality as it gets...

  22. [22] 
    Michale wrote:

    Let me give you a perfect example..

    *MY* criteria for picking the worst party is which Party leader incarcerated hundreds of thousands of American citizens who hadn't committed ANY crime??

    Whoa, look at this. It was a DEMOCRATIC PARTY leader..

    That must mean that Democrats are worse than Republicans...

    You see how silly that is???

    If you choose only ONE criteria, you can make ANY one or ANY thing the worst thing since Adolf Hitler...

    Michale.....

  23. [23] 
    michty6 wrote:

    No Michale, looking back in history does not change the fact that the current Republicans are the most obstructionist EVER SEEN. You're delusional! You just cannot accept reality, it is amazing!

  24. [24] 
    Michale wrote:

    No Michale, looking back in history does not change the fact that the current Republicans are the most obstructionist EVER SEEN.

    Like I said, it's all in the spin..

    If Obstructing Democrats agenda that is BAD for the country, that makes Republicans the BEST Party....

    It's all how you spin it...

    If you want to say that this Republican Congress is the MOST obstructionist ever, then THAT would be a factual statement...

    But whether that is a BAD thing or not is subjective and is tied to your biases and prejudices...

    And, I am constrained to point out that Democrats would likely be JUST as obstructionist if they could get their shit together and actually make it work...

    Michale.....

  25. [25] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    No Michale, looking back in history does not change the fact that the current Republicans are the most obstructionist EVER SEEN.

    no, i think that prize goes to the south during reconstruction.

  26. [26] 
    Michale wrote:

    no, i think that prize goes to the south during reconstruction.

    Which, if I am not mistaken, were Democrats....

    Oh SNAP!!!!! :D

    Michale.....

  27. [27] 
    Michale wrote:

    no, i think that prize goes to the south during reconstruction.

    You see??

    NOW you have to start tweaking your criteria to get it to where it will say what you want..

    Not an evidence-based opinion but rather opinion-based evidence...

    Michale.....

  28. [28] 
    Michale wrote:

    Now that we have established the time factor, let's examine the "obstructionist" criteria...

    Obstructionism is a political tool... It is inherently neither good nor evil..

    If I had a hammer and you said, "Michale uses that hammer more than ANY PERSON in history" it would be like, "eh?? So??"

    But if I used that hammer to build homes for poor people, it would be a GOOD thing..

    If I used that hammer to bash innocent people over the head, that would be a BAD (depending on the people :D) thing...

    So being obstructionist is, in and of itself, neither a good or a bad thing...

    Now, let's address this "Making Obama a one term president" issue...

    Is being obstructionist to take down a bad leader a good thing or a bad thing??

    Well, if Germany's ruling government had been obstructionist to make Hitler a "one term" (or whatever) leader, I think we would all agree that THAT would be a good thing...

    That's the problem when you tunnel-vision on ONE criteria to the exclusion of all else.. You set yourself up for a crapload of exceptions..

    Now, if you look at the BROAD SPECTRUM of criteria (like I do).... Corruption, dishonesty, self-serving, etc etc..

    THEN you see that there really isn't ANY difference between your run-o-the-mill Democrat and your run-o-the-mill Republican...

    It's a logical conclusion, logically arrived at. With no hysterical biased emotionalism that seems to plague most of ya'alls arguments....

    Michale.....

  29. [29] 
    Michale wrote:

    It's a logical conclusion, logically arrived at. With no hysterical biased emotionalism that seems to plague most of ya'alls arguments....

    That was a bit (ok ok MORE than a bit) unfair...

    Amend that to say *SOME* of ya'all's arguments...

    Apologies...

    Michale.....

  30. [30] 
    michty6 wrote:

    Obstructionism is a political tool... It is inherently neither good nor evil..

    Could not disagree more. Obstructionism is, at it's very basic definition, saying 'even though we lost the election and have no democratic mandate, we are going to stop (obstruct) you (who won the election and therefore have a democratic mandate)'.

    It is clogging up the democratic process to ensure that nothing gets done because you lost and are not the party in charge. It is anti-democracy.

    Now this is not to say there is not room for things like a filibuster or some form of obstruction as a right of the minority party in a democracy. Of course not. But when you're exercising this right not to defend your policies or stances on major issues (as is your minority party right) but just to SCREW THE OTHER PARTY AND SCREW UP THE COUNTRY SO THE OTHER PARTY ISN'T RE-ELECTED then that is a completely different matter.

    That the Republicans did this is not a matter of debate since their leader came out and SAID THEY WERE GOING TO DO THIS. Let me make it clear for you:

    - Minority party filibustering important issues = an
    important element of the US democracy
    - Minority party filibustering EVERYTHING to clog up the chamber just for cheap political score = very un-democratic and playing games with peoples lives for political gain.

    Surely even you must recognise the difference?

    Is being obstructionist to take down a bad leader a good thing or a bad thing??

    As I noted above, there is room for obstructionism to protect the minority party in a democracy. But obstructing EVERY SINGLE THING just to screw the other party is a completely different matter. Doing so during a period of economic turmoil (and thus creating more turmoil) is where it turns from 'bad' to 'evil'.

    Democracy doesn't mean when you lose 'screw the other party let's block everything they do'. That's the point you don't get. THAT is why the Democratic party are 'bad' at it; because it goes against their parties very own name and nature!

  31. [31] 
    michty6 wrote:

    BREAKING NEWS. Michale. They've found another reason why Obama won... Mind-control.

    http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2012/11/georgia-senate-gets-52-minute-briefing-united-nations-takeover

  32. [32] 
    dsws wrote:

    no, i think that prize goes to the south during reconstruction.

    If I remember right, during Reconstruction, the south had former slaves voting and holding office. When Reconstruction ended, the south was also not obstructionist. Its state governments were quite active, reimposing slavery in all but name. Nationally, there wasn't much for the south to obstruct, because the radical Republicans had fallen out of power within their own party.

    During the civil rights efforts of the 1960s, the south had its heyday of obstructionism.

    If you look at ONE CRITERIA only

    The singular is "criterion".

    Obstructionism is, at it's very basic definition, saying 'even though we lost the election and have no democratic mandate, we are going to stop (obstruct) you (who won the election and therefore have a democratic mandate)'.

    You mean "checks and balances"? Like it or not, it's a feature, not a bug.

    Is being obstructionist to take down a bad leader a good thing or a bad thing?

    Bad. We choose our leaders with elections. If you don't like what's being done, try to obstruct it. If you don't like who won, suck it up, you lost.

    If you want to take down a leader with parliamentary maneuvering, go move to a country with a parliamentary system. In this country, obstruction is for policy.

  33. [33] 
    Michale wrote:

    Michty,

    Why not just say it more clear..

    When Republicans obstruct, it's bad..

    When Democrats obstruct, it's good..

    That's pretty much what you believe...

    dsws,

    You mean "checks and balances"? Like it or not, it's a feature, not a bug.

    Exactly... It's what the minority Party does. It's nearly their reason for existence..

    Michty, et al are simply pissy because Republicans do it so much better than Democrats...

    Michale.....

  34. [34] 
    Michale wrote:

    The singular is "criterion".

    Isn't that a Cylon soldier??? :D

    Michale.....

  35. [35] 
    Michale wrote:

    Bad. We choose our leaders with elections. If you don't like what's being done, try to obstruct it. If you don't like who won, suck it up, you lost.

    What if you don't like WHO won because he does BAD things???

    You obstruct....

    Michale.....

  36. [36] 
    Michale wrote:

    BREAKING NEWS. Michale. They've found another reason why Obama won... Mind-control.

    http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2012/11/georgia-senate-gets-52-minute-briefing-united-nations-takeover

    Mockery.......

    For those who don't have facts... :D

    Michale....

  37. [37] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale,

    "yea yea yea, Democrats are all goodness and light and Republicans are not only the root of all evil, they ARE all evil.." You saying it over and over and over and OVER again, does not make it fact...

    Actually, YOU are the only one around here, Michale, who keeps saying that over and over and OVER again. :)

  38. [38] 
    Michale wrote:

    Actually, YOU are the only one around here, Michale, who keeps saying that over and over and OVER again. :)

    Really???

    No one here has EVER slammed, castigated or denigrated Republicans???

    Sorry, I must be in the wrong house. I was looking for chrisweigant.com.....

    :D

    Michale.....

  39. [39] 
    dsws wrote:

    dsws,

    You mean "checks and balances"? Like it or not, it's a feature, not a bug.

    Exactly... It's what the minority Party does. It's nearly their reason for existence..

    Checks and balances are between branches of government, not between parties. (And, to a lesser extent, between the two houses of Congress, imagined by the founders to be the most powerful branch.) When different parties have different degrees of control of the different parts, partisanship obviously is relevant. But checks and balances are still essentially between branches, not parties.

    The Constitution does not recognize the existence of parties. A representative or senator from the minority party has one vote, same as one from the majority party. As far as the Constitution is concerned, the point of obstruction is to have the leverage to negotiate about the details of the laws that get passed, not to just "refuse [your] assent to laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good", until the country gives in and elects.

    What if you don't like WHO won because he does BAD things???

    You obstruct....

    You obstruct the legislation. You don't try to "take down" the individual. He's elected until his term expires.

  40. [40] 
    dsws wrote:

    As far as the Constitution is concerned, the point of obstruction is to have the leverage to negotiate about the details of the laws that get passed, not to just "refuse [your] assent to laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good", until the country gives in and elects.

    Oops, left off the end of the sentence, as is probably clear: until the country gives in and elects more members of your party.

  41. [41] 
    dsws wrote:

    Really???

    No one here has EVER slammed, castigated or denigrated Republicans???

    Every time I respond, you make me regret it.

    You know perfectly well, having been told it countless times by many different people here: JUST BECAUSE WE THINK THE REPUBLICANS ARE AWFUL, IT DOES NOT FOLLOW THAT WE THINK THE DEMOCRATS ARE ALL GOODNESS AND LIGHT. Just because you're a check-all-the-boxes Republican on the issues, it does not follow that we're check-all-the-boxes Democrats. It's not worth looking up that quiz a bunch of us took. You already know we disagree with Democrats all over the place. You already know we don't think Democrats are "all goodness and light. You just lie about it.

  42. [42] 
    Michale wrote:

    JUST BECAUSE WE THINK THE REPUBLICANS ARE AWFUL, IT DOES NOT FOLLOW THAT WE THINK THE DEMOCRATS ARE ALL GOODNESS AND LIGHT.

    By comparison, it certainly does mean EXACTLY that...

    If it were NOT true, then there would have been universal agreement with CW's commentary that castigated Democrats and Republicans equally..

    There wasn't..

    Commenters went out of their way to say that it's all the Republicans fault and Democrats are blameless...

    You want to prove me wrong???

    Get the peanut gallery to call Democrats on THEIR faults, rather than the just me and the Grand Poobah....

    It's THAT simple....

    You already know we disagree with Democrats all over the place.

    SOME of you do.. VERY few of you have no problem pointing that out..

    Yet, the vast majority gleefully point out the faults of the Right while giving the Left a pass...

    More often then not, ON THE SAME TYPE OF ISSUE...

    You already know we don't think Democrats are "all goodness and light.

    If one compares how many times the majority here castigates the Right vs how many times the majority here castigates the Left, it certainly shows that, by comparison, that is EXACTLY what ya'all think....

    Every time I respond, you make me regret it.

    It's a gift..... :D

    Michale....

  43. [43] 
    Michale wrote:

    You obstruct the legislation. You don't try to "take down" the individual. He's elected until his term expires.

    Correct me if I am wrong, but couldn't "take down" mean making a leader's actions so unpalatable that, "when his term expires" (as you say), the voters fires him???

    So, I fail to see the problem??

    If Republicans were planning to assassinate the President in order to stop his agenda, then you would definitely have an argument.

    If Republicans got together and decided to make the POTUS such an ineffective leader that the voters decided to fire him *WHEN HIS TERM EXPIRED*.....????

    Well, I fail to see the logic of your issue with that....

    Michale.....

  44. [44] 
    Michale wrote:

    On another front...

    http://www.foxnews.com/world/2012/11/19/did-hamas-overplay-deadly-hand/

    What if Hamas threw a war and no one came????

    Maybe Israel can end the HAMAS problem once and for all now...

    Michale....

  45. [45] 
    dsws wrote:

    Well, I fail

    Yes. Yes you do.

  46. [46] 
    Michale wrote:

    Well, I fail

    Yes. Yes you do.

    Arr Arr Arrr Arrr.....

    Well, since we're regressing to the debate tactics of 8-yr olds...

    Oops,

    Yea, BIG oops....

    Now that we have both re-lived our childhoods, can you explain the logic of your position???

    If the GOP Obstruct with the intent to make Obama a one-term president, when his term expires, your position is untenable...

    Michale....

  47. [47] 
    Michale wrote:

    http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/11/19/ugly-truth-about-benghazi-and-team-obama/

    And Benghazi will be an albatross around Obama's neck for a long time to come...

    Michale.....

  48. [48] 
    Michale wrote:
  49. [49] 
    akadjian wrote:

    Well, I guess things are back to normal. Obama is still President and Republicans are still groping around trying to find some sort of attack.

    The good news is that these attacks seem to be more and more like the boy who cried wolf. No substance behind them and the majority of people starting to ignore them.

    Reportedly Republicans are now reportedly already threatening to filibuster his new secretary of state nominee Susan Rice.

    http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/11/20/the-gop-s-absurd-attack-on-susan-rice-over-benghazi.html

    I hope the Obama administration nominates her anyways.

    Because these petty fights the Republicans keep picking are doing wonders for the Republican party.

    -David

  50. [50] 
    Michale wrote:

    David,

    Rice lied.. Pure and simple...

    Obama lied... Pure and simple...

    Now, under a GOP President, lying is a grave sin...

    But I completely agree with you. I hope Obama DOES nominate Rice..

    Because then, Rice will have to testify under oath..

    And THAT is when we will start finding out the truth...

    Michale......

  51. [51] 
    akadjian wrote:

    No Left/Obama/Dem bias in the MSM, right?

    BTW- The corporate media is also becoming irrelevant as a source for factual information.

    -David

  52. [52] 
    akadjian wrote:

    Also, happy birthday to the happy warrior, our Veep, Joe Biden!

    https://secure.assets.bostatic.com/Blog/There%20is%20no%20give%20up.jpg

  53. [53] 
    akadjian wrote:

    And THAT is when we will start finding out the truth.

    That there is a vast liberal socialist conspiracy to bring down this country!

    Riiiiight.

    I'd take this fight any day. Democrats should too.

    -David

  54. [54] 
    Michale wrote:

    That there is a vast liberal socialist conspiracy to bring down this country!

    No...

    That your Democrat leaders will lie and cheat just as much as the Republican leaders you despise..

    I'd take this fight any day.

    Me too!! :D

    Michale.....

  55. [55] 
    Michale wrote:

    BTW- The corporate media is also becoming irrelevant as a source for factual information.

    I completely agree..

    The problem is, ya'all define "corporate media" as any media that says something against Obama, Democrats or the Left in general...

    Michale.....

  56. [56] 
    akadjian wrote:

    The problem is, ya'all define "corporate media" as any media that says something against Obama, Democrats or the Left in general.

    Ummm. No. Again, I don't know where you get this stuff since no one here ever said it.

    Corporate media is media owned by the 6 or 7 largest media corporations. This includes all the major broadcast TV stations, Gannett newspapers, Clearchannel broadcast stations, etc.

    That your Democrat leaders will lie and cheat just as much as the Republican leaders you despise.

    Huh? First of all, I don't despise any Republican leaders. Second, what's Rice going to say under oath? That she read the CIA briefing. In other words, that she did what anyone would have done, read the CIA briefing.

    What will this do? Make Republicans who are accusing her look like morons.

    Bring it!

    -David

  57. [57] 
    Michale wrote:

    Ummm. No. Again, I don't know where you get this stuff since no one here ever said it.

    I "get it" from the fact that, with a couple exceptions, NO ONE here complains about "corporate media" unless said media is praising Republicans or slamming Democrats..

    Second, what's Rice going to say under oath? That she read the CIA briefing. In other words, that she did what anyone would have done, read the CIA briefing.

    The brief the CIA issued had numerous references to Al Qaeda and evidence that Al Qaeda was responsible. Like myself, Patraeus knew almost immediately that Al Qaeda was responsible for Benghazi..

    So, who took out the AQ references from the CIA brief??

    Was it Rice?? Was it someone higher??

    We don't know.. And we SHOULD know..

    And ya'all would be demanding that we DO KNOW if it had been a GOP administration...

    Michale.....

  58. [58] 
    Michale wrote:

    I "get it" from the fact that, with a couple exceptions, NO ONE here complains about "corporate media" unless said media is praising Republicans or slamming Democrats..

    But hay, you know me.. I am always excited to be proved wrong. :D

    Find me an instance when anyone here in Weigantia (except yours truly or the Grand Poobah himself) complained about the "corporate media" in a story that praised Democrats or slammed Republicans.

    You find such a critter, I'll be happy to concede the point.. :D

    Michale....

  59. [59] 
    Michale wrote:

    Leahy's rewritten bill would allow more than 22 agencies -- including the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Federal Communications Commission -- to access Americans' e-mail, Google Docs files, Facebook wall posts, and Twitter direct messages without a search warrant. It also would give the FBI and Homeland Security more authority, in some circumstances, to gain full access to Internet accounts without notifying either the owner or a judge.
    http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-57552225-38/senate-bill-rewrite-lets-feds-read-your-e-mail-without-warrants/?part=rss&subj=news&tag=title

    I honestly can't believe that ANYONE here would be on board with this....

    Seriously!!????

    Hell, this almost goes too far for *MY* tastes.....

    Michale.....

  60. [60] 
    akadjian wrote:

    Find me an instance when anyone here in Weigantia (except yours truly or the Grand Poobah himself) complained about the "corporate media" in a story that praised Democrats or slammed Republicans.

    The trouble is that I haven't done either, Michale.

    I haven't talked about corporate media as praising Democrats or being against Democrats. Or praising Republicans or being against Republicans.

    Corporate media loves scandal. It loves "if it bleeds, it leads". It loves entertainment, not information. This is by and large the bias in the corporate media. Not Democratic or Republican.

    This is my argument. Always has been.

    Yet somehow you keep insisting that I'm saying or have said something different.

    A bit quixotic, eh?

    Find me an instance when anyone here in Weigantia (except yours truly or the Grand Poobah himself) complained about the "corporate media" in a story that praised Democrats or slammed Republicans.

    Here's my instance. Trayvon Martin. This was an example of "what bleeds leads". I said so at the time.

    Looking forward to your concession :)

    -David

  61. [61] 
    Michale wrote:

    Yet somehow you keep insisting that I'm saying or have said something different.

    A bit quixotic, eh?

    In instances like this, my "you" is more often a "ya'all"....

    Here's my instance. Trayvon Martin. This was an example of "what bleeds leads". I said so at the time.

    And I proved you wrong at the time..

    If "it bleeds, it leads" is the MSM mantra, then they MSM would have pushed the FACTS about the case, that Martin was some punk-assed MMA/Gangsta wannabe and went up against an armed individual that wasn't going to put up with Martin's shit..

    THAT was the fact of the incident and THAT would have given the corporate media ALL the blood you claim they want..

    But the "corporate" media didn't do that. The "corporate" media pushed the Democrats/Lefts/Obamas BS story that it was a case of racial profiling..

    You proved my point for me then and you do so again now..

    I can provide example after example after example after example of the MSM pushing the Left/Democrat/Obama agenda/perspective...

    You are partially correct.. The MSM *will* go with the blood/guts/scandal stories time and time again.. Right up to the point that they negatively impact the Obama/Democrat/Leftist agenda.. Then the MSM backs off or touts the Left/Dem/Obama Party line..

    One only has to review their non-existent "coverage" of Benghazi to know it's true..

    But I know you can't concede the point.. I understand and forgive you... :D

    Michale.....

  62. [62] 
    Michale wrote:

    Off on a tangent..

    Anyone see LOOPER yet??

    Awesome movie.. A tad confusing at first, but a wild ride...

    Michale....

  63. [63] 
    Michale wrote:

    "Rep. James Clyburn, D-S.C., told CNN on Tuesday that some Republican claims that Rice is "incompetent" may be racial in nature."
    http://www.usatoday.com/story/theoval/2012/11/20/obama-rice-clyburn-mccain/1716853/

    Oh my frakin' gods!!!

    Why do you Democrats continue to vote racist morons like this back into office???

    Michale.....

  64. [64] 
    michty6 wrote:

    I honestly can't believe that ANYONE here would be on board with this....

    I'd need to read more into it. But I imagine people's emails etc are monitored much more closely than people know/is allowed under the law.

    "Rep. James Clyburn, D-S.C., told CNN on Tuesday that some Republican claims that Rice is "incompetent" may be racial in nature

    Yeh that's stupid. The over-the-top criticism of Rice is moronic, but calling it racist is just as moronic.

  65. [65] 
    Michale wrote:

    Yeh that's stupid. The over-the-top criticism of Rice is moronic, but calling it racist is just as moronic.

    It's comments like this that make me almost like ya, Michty! :D

    Michale.....

  66. [66] 
    akadjian wrote:

    Right up to the point that they negatively impact the Obama/Democrat/Leftist agenda.

    Correction: Right up to the point where the evidence is sketchy, circumstantial, or non-existent.

    :)

    (in other words the stuff conspiracy theorists love, but journalists who can be held accountable won't usually print)

    The over-the-top criticism of Rice is moronic, but calling it racist is just as moronic.

    Agreed. At least without evidence. And there's none that I've seen.

    -David

  67. [67] 
    Michale wrote:

    Correction: Right up to the point where the evidence is sketchy, circumstantial, or non-existent.

    Bull..

    In your example, the evidence was over-whelming, conclusive and unequivocal..

    Yet the MSM STILL went with the BS story that served the Leftist/Dem/Obama agenda..

    Benghazi??

    Same thing....

    Agreed. At least without evidence. And there's none that I've seen.

    It's comments like these that restores my faith in Weigantians.. :D

    Michale....

  68. [68] 
    akadjian wrote:

    the evidence was over-whelming, conclusive and unequivocal

    If by unequivocal you mean circumstantial, sketchy, and inconclusive then yes.

    Benghazi?

    Ditto.

    But I know it's easier to believe that there's a vast liberal media conspiracy of corporate media trying to cover something up.

    -David

  69. [69] 
    Michale wrote:

    If by unequivocal you mean circumstantial, sketchy, and inconclusive then yes.

    You calling it that does not make it so..

    The evidence WAS conclusive and unequivocal.. Just as the DOJ determined 6 months later...

    But I know it's easier to believe that there's a vast liberal media conspiracy of corporate media trying to cover something up.

    Isn't that what the LEFT kept saying about the First Gulf War???

    But let me guess.. It was correct then...

    But it's NOT correct now...

    Is that it???

    "Is that it, Dad?? Did the penguin make you do it?"
    -Adam Sandler, BILLY MADISON

    :D

    Michale.....

  70. [70] 
    akadjian wrote:

    Isn't that what the LEFT kept saying about the First Gulf War?

    I have to say I'm quite thankful that I haven't the foggiest what conspiracy about the "left" you're talking about here.

    -David

    "There is no spoon"
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dzm8kTIj_0M

  71. [71] 
    akadjian wrote:

    The evidence WAS conclusive and unequivocal.. Just as the DOJ determined 6 months later.

    I don't see how you can make this claim before the George Zimmerman trial even occurs.

    Maybe it is, maybe it isn't. But right now, I think the most that can be said is that the trial hasn't happened yet.

    I forgot though ... silly things like trials and due process just get in the way of judging prematurely.

    -David

  72. [72] 
    Michale wrote:

    http://www.timesofisrael.com/the-dangerous-success-of-iron-dome/

    Very good read...

    It's time for Gazans to go the way of the dinosaur and the dodo...

    Michale.....

  73. [73] 
    akadjian wrote:

    It's time for Gazans to go the way of the dinosaur and the dodo.

    Just to be clear ... are you really advocating for extinction/genocide?

    Really?

    -David

  74. [74] 
    Michale wrote:

    I don't see how you can make this claim before the George Zimmerman trial even occurs.

    Simple.. Review the physical evidence. Review the physical location where the incident occurred (it's, relatively speaking, right down the street from me), examine the eyewitness testimony....

    It's all there.... It shows that there was absolutely NO EVIDENCE whatsoever to indicate that race was ANY part of the incident..

    Like Benghazi, I called it by reviewing the FACTS..

    And like Benghazi, my analysis and conclusion was upheld by the Obama Administration, albeit very much later...

    I forgot though ... silly things like trials and due process just get in the way of judging prematurely.

    There is NO trial for the racial issue because the DOJ has already determined that no racial issue exists...

    As to the rest?? You examine Martin's school records, his crimes and disciplinary actions, his history of drug abuse and drug dealing, PLUS the fact he had drugs in his system, PLUS there are many youtube videos of him refereeing and engaging in MMA style fights....

    I know that Democrats really want to change things a lot... But, if it walks like a gangsta wannabee and quacks like a gangsta wannabee....

    It's likely a gangsta wannabee....

    Despite the shellacking Dems just inflicted on this country, 1 + 1 + 1 STILL equals 3....

    Michale.....

  75. [75] 
    akadjian wrote:

    my analysis and conclusion was upheld by the Obama Administration

    So if you agree with Obama why all the screaming?

    Oh yeah because they should have shouted to the high heavens instantly that there was a terror attack.

    And ... if this had been the case you'd be screaming that they divulged important details to the enemy. Or some other nonsense.

    *sigh*

    It shows that there was absolutely NO EVIDENCE whatsoever to indicate that race was ANY part of the incident.

    I'd agree with this, but it also was not immediately the case.

    However, this also does not absolve George Zimmerman of wrong doing. Or the Florida law of potentially leading to cases of wrongful homicide.

    But ... back to the point about media ... note how the media has stopped speculating about a racial motive in Martin/Zimmerman case.

    Why? Not because it's liberal or conservative, but because the evidence didn't bear it out.

    Which is also ... why the media (or most of it anyways) is holding off on runaway Benghazi speculation.

    -David

  76. [76] 
    Michale wrote:

    I'd agree with this, but it also was not immediately the case.

    YES it was...

    THAT's my point!

    It WAS immediately the case for those who didn't have a political agenda...

    But ... back to the point about media ... note how the media has stopped speculating about a racial motive in Martin/Zimmerman case.

    Exactly.. Just like Obama and ya'all quit speculating about a phantom protest and an irrelevant obscure video..

    It became obvious to even the most DENSE person with a pulse that the speculation was based on complete and utter bullshit..

    Why? Not because it's liberal or conservative, but because the evidence didn't bear it out.

    The evidence didn't bear out a phantom protest and an obscure video being the cause of Benghazi.. But that didn't stop Obama and ya'all from pushing that BS line of thought for almost TWO WEEKS...

    Which is also ... why the media (or most of it anyways) is holding off on runaway Benghazi speculation.

    Too bad they didn't do that AT the beginning when the BS story was being crammed down the throats of the American people..

    It seems that THAT is how it is with ya'all of late...

    The Left pushes a totally BS story, trying to cram it down the throats of the people and then, when the BS simply CANNOT be sustained any longer due to the facts, ALL OF THE SUDDEN it's all contrite and, "We should wait for all the evidence before coming to a conclusion..."

    If the Left said that BEFORE they tried to push a BS story rather than AFTER their BS story fell flat on it's ass, they would have a LOT more credibility...

    Wouldn't you agree???

    Joshua???

    I came across this that I thought ya might like.. :D

    Secretary Of Education Forced To Take Up Stripping To Put Nation Through School
    http://www.theonion.com/articles/secretary-of-education-forced-to-take-up-stripping,30456/

    Michale.....

  77. [77] 
    Michale wrote:

    I'd agree with this, but it also was not immediately the case.

    I *knew* within 12 hours of Benghazi that it was a terrorist attack..

    CIA Director Patraeus *knew* within 12 hours of Benghazi that it was a terrorist attack..

    Yet, for almost TWO WEEKS, the Obama Administration, the MSM and ya'all here pushed a totally and completely BS story that had absolutely NO FACTUAL BASIS whatsoever...

    These are the facts of the issue..

    Michale.....

  78. [78] 
    akadjian wrote:

    YES it was.

    Please. We can't all jump to conclusions based on political bias as quickly as you can, Michale.

    But that didn't stop Obama and ya'all from pushing that BS line of thought for almost TWO WEEKS.

    So who are you talking about this time when you say "ya'all"?

    And ... I believe the proper Southern is "all y'all"

    Plus ... I believe a certain President called it an act of terror the very next day.

    Oh, I forgot, the real controversy here is that he should have said "terrorist attack" instead of "act of terror".

    -David

  79. [79] 
    akadjian wrote:

    I'd agree with this, but it also was not immediately the case.

    I *knew* within 12 hours of Benghazi that it was a terrorist attack.

    The above was in reference to the Trayvon Martin case.

    And ... as I said, we can't all jump to conclusions as quickly as you can, Michale.

    -David

  80. [80] 
    akadjian wrote:

    It became obvious to even the most DENSE person with a pulse

    You mean like Karl Rove on election night? :)

  81. [81] 
    Michale wrote:

    Please. We can't all jump to conclusions based on political bias as quickly as you can, Michale.

    It's not "jumping to conclusions".... It's called "examining the facts"..

    Can you tell me ANY other random spontaneous protest where the protestors carried RPGs and mortars and developed a two-pronged highly co-ordinated attack??

    If you can, then you have a point..

    But we BOTH know you can't...

    Benghazi had ALL the earmarks of a terrorist Op..

    And the ONLY reason ya'all poo-poohed the claim was because it didn't fit the Leftist agenda that Al Qaeda was "decimated" and "on the ropes"..

    I'd agree with this, but it also was not immediately the case.

    YES it was....

    And ... as I said, we can't all jump to conclusions as quickly as you can, Michale.

    That's because you ignore the facts that don't fit the your personal view...

    EVERYTHING I posted on the Martin case is factual.. Verifiable 1000% factual...

    Conclusions ARE easy if you have all the facts..

    The problem here is, when the facts lead you to a conclusion you find politically unpalatable, you tend to go with the "let's not jump to conclusions" mantra...

    But, as I indicated before, that mantra loses some of it's meaning if ya have ALREADY jumped to a more politically palatable conclusion... :D

    Michale.....

  82. [82] 
    Michale wrote:

    The problem here is, when the facts lead you to a conclusion you find politically unpalatable, you tend to go with the "let's not jump to conclusions" mantra...

    But, as I indicated before, that mantra loses some of it's meaning if ya have ALREADY jumped to a more politically palatable conclusion... :

    Again, that was a generic euphemistic "you" and not YOU personally...

    I know michty was very adamant about Benghazi being a spontaneous protest over an obscure video gone bad..

    I don't really recall if you weighed in on that or not, to be perfectly honest..

    My only point is, is that the FACTS were available in both the Benghazi terrorist attack and the Sanford shooting...

    To those who could objectively look at them..

    Michale....

  83. [83] 
    akadjian wrote:

    To those who could objectively look at them.

    Yes, yes. We all know how objective you are "I hate Obama, I hate Obama, I hate Obama since before he was elected" Michale ... :)

    That aside, riddle me this.

    Bush lied about Iraq having weapons of mass destruction in order to take us into war with Iraq.

    What would be the Obama administration's secret Leftist motive about not immediately saying it was a terrorist attack?

    I'm just trying to understand what you think the point of our so-called liberal plot is.

    I can't really see one. And apparently it wasn't on the agenda at the last Liberal and Lefty Takeover the World meeting.

    Why would anyone go to the trouble of purposefully lying about this? Isn't it much more likely that either a) there was conflicting info after the assassination, or b) the administration didn't want to throw immediate accusations out until things were clearer?

    But you seem to know more than we do about this liberal conspiracy, Michale, so maybe you could enlighten us as to our secret motive?

    -David

  84. [84] 
    Michale wrote:

    Yes, yes. We all know how objective you are "I hate Obama, I hate Obama, I hate Obama since before he was elected" Michale ... :)

    Once again... I *CAN* be objective.. At times, I *CHOOSE* not to be... That is my choice...

    But it doesn't negate that, when necessary, I DO maintain an objectivity that most people here cannot....

    If you see ANYTHING in my analysis of either the Sanford shooting or the Benghazi terrorist Op that is not objective or is in error, by all means... Point it out...

    Bush lied about Iraq having weapons of mass destruction in order to take us into war with Iraq.

    No he did not.. He acted on faulty intelligence. If Bush lied, then all the Democrats who lined up behind Bush (and there was a bunch) *ALSO* lied...

    Be that as it may....

    What would be the Obama administration's secret Leftist motive about not immediately saying it was a terrorist attack?

    That's easy..

    Because Obama's crowning Foreign Policy acheivement, then one he brags about constantly, is that he has single-handedly decimated Al Qaeda and put them on the ropes..

    Having a successful AQ Op committed kinda shoots down that fairy tale, doesn't it??

    It's ALWAYS been the policy of the Obama Administration to blame a lone nut job or an obscure incident rather than say it was an Al Qaeda terrorist attack..

    In the 3-4 odd attacks that have happened under Obama's Watch, that has ALWAYS been the MO of the Obama Administration...

    I'm just trying to understand what you think the point of our so-called liberal plot is.

    That's because it's NOT a plot. It simply what is...

    "Water is wet, the sky is blue, women have secrets."
    -Bruce Willis, THE LAST BOY SCOUT

    Why would anyone go to the trouble of purposefully lying about this?

    Why would Bush go to the trouble about lying about Iraq?? You seem to think Bush lied.. So, why would he do it???

    Michale, so maybe you could enlighten us as to our secret motive?

    Oh that's easy... World Domination... :D

    Michale.....

  85. [85] 
    akadjian wrote:

    You seem to think Bush lied. So, why would he do it?

    Ummm. Plans existed to go to war with Iraq long before 9/11. The problem is that the people of our country weren't as eager for war as Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney.

    So they had to link it to 9/11 and "weapons of mass destruction". They had to come up with a reason for what they wanted to do anyways.

    He acted on faulty intelligence.

    So intelligence can be faulty. Ok. If this is the case, wouldn't a smart leader then not act hastily on intelligence received from groups like the CIA?

    If you see ANYTHING in my analysis of either the Sanford shooting or the Benghazi terrorist Op that is not objective or is in error, by all means.

    Benghazi ... easy. Your entire case is that this was described as an "act of terror" rather than a "terrorist act".

    This doesn't seem like a controversy to me or pretty much anyone but you and a couple Republicans at this point.

    I'll give you Sanford but only because making a case of racial profiling is very difficult to actually prove. This doesn't mean it doesn't happen. But the evidence required is usually more statistical than in a single instance.

    I'm glad your analysis of the last election was also "objective" :) Keep up the "objectivity"! It's working great for us!

    -David

  86. [86] 
    Michale wrote:

    So intelligence can be faulty. Ok. If this is the case, wouldn't a smart leader then not act hastily on intelligence received from groups like the CIA?

    And yet, that is EXACTLY what Obama et al did..

    Yet, you are fine with that..

    But NOT when Bush did it...

    Benghazi ... easy. Your entire case is that this was described as an "act of terror" rather than a "terrorist act".

    No.. My entire case is that there was NO PROTEST (fact) and the obscure video had NOTHING to do with the attack (fact).

    According to ya'all and Obama et al, there WAS a protest and the protest was BECAUSE of the video..

    THAT'S my entire case.. Factual up the wazooo...

    Michale.....

  87. [87] 
    Michale wrote:

    I'll give you Sanford but only because making a case of racial profiling is very difficult to actually prove.

    Bull...

    Mark Fuhrman...

    :D

    The funny thing is, the Hysterical Left couldn't even prove racism in the court of public opinion, despite ALL the help the MSM gave them..

    Them damn pesky FACTS simply screwed the plan up..

    Just like those damn pesky FACTS screwed up Obama's plan to blame the Benghazi terrorist Op on a fantasy protest and some obscure YouTube video...

    Michale.....

  88. [88] 
    akadjian wrote:

    Factual up the wazooo.

    Partial credit. It definitely seems to have come from a wazooo.

    :)

    -David

  89. [89] 
    Michale wrote:

    Partial credit. It definitely seems to have come from a wazooo.

    Let's be fair here..

    If you can't point to an error and use facts of your own to SUPPORT your contention that I am in error, then it's full credit.. :D

    In other words, my position stands as factual until proof to the contrary is offered up for examination.. :D

    Michale.....

  90. [90] 
    akadjian wrote:

    If you can't point to an error and use facts of your own to SUPPORT your contention that I am in error, then it's full credit.. :D

    It's amazing how you've missed all of that as well and somehow only the things you seem to want to believe as "facts" qualify as "facts".

    All of journalism seems to have moved on from this as well because the case is so circumstantial.

    But oh yeah ... I forgot ... when journalists don't agree with you, they're liberal.

    As much as I love you bringing this up because it makes conservatives look petty and ridiculous, it grows weary going around in circles. And I have to go get ready for Thanksgiving.

    Peace ... even though you hate it :)

    -David

    p.s. One good thing which may have come out of this election is that Romney may have started drinking ...

    http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/337380

  91. [91] 
    Michale wrote:

    But oh yeah ... I forgot ... when journalists don't agree with you, they're liberal.

    Nothing I have said or intimated would lead anyone to think that.

    When journalists cover up facts to further a Leftist/Democrat/Obama agenda, THEN they are liberal..

    Agreeing or disagreeing with me has nothing to do with it..

    Peace ... even though you hate it :)

    It's not that I hate it.. It's just that it's so..... boring... :D

    Michale.....

Comments for this article are closed.