Why are Republicans Wrong about Everything?

Search
Go

Discussion Topic

Return to Forum List
Post a Reply
Messages 39141 - 39160 of total 52606 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
healyje

Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
Nov 20, 2012 - 10:03pm PT
Nohea: What was Operation Fast and Furious?

Easy, it was an op run under Bush's Project Gunrunner, which was another really bad Bush program Obama and Holder failed to put a stop to. But make no mistake about, it was entirely a Bush brainchild and your question should read:

"Who was Alberto Gonzales and what was Project Gunrunner?"
Nohea

Trad climber
Living Outside the Statist Quo
Nov 20, 2012 - 10:23pm PT
Or what did Obama do to stop or excel the program.
healyje

Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
Nov 20, 2012 - 11:14pm PT
Coming into the presidency in 2008 dealing with two wars, gitmo, and re-establishing professionalism in the DOJ one can easily imagine a review of ATF programs by the incoming AG ranked somewhere around -5 on a priority scale of 1 to 10 and was summarily delegated to someone junior if they bothered providing any oversight at all under the circumstance. Also, one would normally consider the ATF competent (similar to the secret service) and that assumption clearly bit them on the ass. But one thing you can be sure of is that the program never hit Holder or Obama's radar until the proverbial sh#t hit the fan.
Ken M

Mountain climber
Los Angeles, Ca
Nov 21, 2012 - 12:08am PT
Or what did Obama do to stop or excel the program.

Ok, answer this question: How many programs are run by the Federal Gov't?

1 million?
3 million?

How many should the President personally review upon coming into office?

Inasmuch as SOMETHING will go wrong with some of those programs, to ANY President, how personally responsible is a President for something they've never heard of?
Ken M

Mountain climber
Los Angeles, Ca
Nov 21, 2012 - 12:24am PT
I've not seen discussed, but will be a very big factor in elections, is the effect on women.

The Repugs are falling over themselves to figure out how to give what they consider GIFTS to latinos to woo their votes.

But nothing about women, confirming their tone-deafness.

In every presidential election year from 1980 - 2008 women have outnumbered men in voting Democratic and the same is true for men outnumbering women voting Republican.[1] From 1980 forward there is a definitive difference in partisanship between male and female voters.[5] The following data was gathered by the Center for American Women and Politics from 13 different sources ranging from October 1994 – September 1996. The various polls (Gallup, CBS, Times Mirror Center, Time, CNN) all found women and men to divided, ranging from 10-25 percentage points, on all of the following issues [6]

Increased role of government
U.S. military intervention
Healthcare and welfare
Firearms restrictions
Affirmative action to achieve racial equality

Not good....for Repugs.



157.0 million
The number of females in the United States according to the 2010 Census. The number of males was 151.8 million.


At 85 and older, there were more than twice as many women as men
http://www.infoplease.com/spot/womencensus1.html#ixzz2CqM4jex2[/quote]


46.2%
Percentage of female citizens 18 and older who reported voting in the 2010 congressional election. Forty-five percent of their male counterparts cast a ballot. Additionally, 66.6 percent of female citizens reported being registered to vote.

This problem will get steadily worse, and the Repugs have no answer, except to continue to insult and assault them. That doesn't work, in my experience.....
John M

climber
Nov 21, 2012 - 12:30am PT
Nohea.. since your poster says it doesn't support Mitt Romney, then who are what do you support?
moosedrool

Trad climber
lost, far away from Poland
Nov 21, 2012 - 12:41am PT
PEOPLE!!!!

THE ELECTION IS OVER!

AND IT IS PAST MIDNIGHT!

GO TO BED!!!!
Chewybacca

Trad climber
Montana, Whitefish
Nov 21, 2012 - 12:41am PT
Repugs think they are above the law- http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/M/MT_COURTROOM_FRACAS_MTOL-?SITE=MTKAL&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=ap_template.html&CTIME=2012-11-20-23-34-24




Nov 20, 11:34 PM EST

Former lawmaker leads Livingston courtroom fracas

LIVINGSTON, Mont. (AP) -- A Livingston justice of the peace walked out of a hearing after being heckled by a rowdy crowd, leaving the former state legislator who instigated it all to declare he was in charge of the courtroom and proclaim the case against him dismissed.

Former Republican Rep. Joel Boniek, 51, appeared in Park County's Justice Court on Monday for what should have been a simple scheduling hearing before Justice of the Peace Linda Budeski and Deputy County Attorney Kathleen Carrick.

Instead, Boniek walked into the hearing followed by supporters and questioned the prosecutor's authority in the case.

Boniek was arrested in July on charges of obstructing a peace officer, resisting arrest, and fleeing from or eluding a peace officer. He has pleaded not guilty. Prosecutors say he failed to stop at an emergency roadblock set up near his home in the Paradise Valley during a wildfire.

According to the Livingston Enterprise, Boniek questioned whether the county employees had the proper credentials to handle his case, and he tried to stifle Carrick from addressing the judge.

"Your honor, why is this woman even speaking if she can't prove she's (a public official)?" Boniek said.

The proceedings further devolved when a Boniek supporter became vocal. When Budeski told the supporter he was out of order, the man replied with an expletive and said, "You're out of order."

Others in the crowd joined in, and Budeski suddenly announced court was adjourned and left. Many people refused law enforcement officers' demands to leave the courtroom.

"The judge has left the room, I'm in charge now," Boniek said.

"No, you're not," an officer responded.

Officers questioned Boniek about a lump under his jacket and asked if they could check whether it was a firearm, which are prohibited in the courthouse. Boniek declined.

Boniek said his case was now over in light of Monday's events.

"The judge abandoned the courtroom, and I announced the case dismissed as the last man standing in the courtroom," he said.

The justice of the peace said the case is still on, just delayed.

Outside the City County Complex, Boniek said his objections are rooted in his interpretation of state law that county officials are required to be bonded and have proof of taking an oath.

Carrick said county officials are insured, which serves the same purpose as a bond.

She also refuted Boniek's other contentions, saying Park County follows state law and fulfills the requirements specified in Montana's legal code.

Boniek represented House District 61 near Livingston in 2009-2010. He also was the running mate to political newcomer Bob Fanning in a losing bid for the Republican gubernatorial nomination.



Information from: Livingston Enterprise, http://www.livingstonenterprise.com
Dr. F.

Ice climber
SoCal
Topic Author's Reply - Nov 21, 2012 - 09:11am PT
Paul Krugman’s column titled Money For Nothing,

The disconnect between the reality of the past few years and the claims of the so-called “deficit hawks” can be explained by the fact that the “deficit hawks” do not actually care about deficits.

As we’ve seen over the past thirty years, conservatives who pretend to care about deficits (primarily Republicans, but also Blue Dog Democrats) only emphasize the deficit when they are seeking to eliminate a government program that benefits average Americans. When it comes to wars, corporate subsidies, and tax cuts for the wealthy, however, conservatives are silent about deficits and, instead, are actively cheerleading policies that are the primary cause of those deficits to begin with.

The reason that conservatives pretend to care about deficits while at the same time making such deficits bigger is that they are out to destroy government as a tool for benefiting the common good. And the way to do that is: (1) prevent the government from taking the steps needed to improve the economy in order to “prove” that government does not work, and (2) to create a deficit “crisis” that makes it “necessary” to do things like abolish Medicare, eviscerate Medicaid, shrink education and infrastructure investments, and slash the safety net.

In short, the “deficit hawks” are actually deficit vultures who are using the deficits they created to achieve their own ideological goals.
The Warbler

climber
the edge of America
Nov 21, 2012 - 09:21am PT
^^^ right on the money ^^^
JEleazarian

Trad climber
Fresno CA
Nov 21, 2012 - 01:08pm PT
Kudos to Obama and H. Clinton for their decisive action to help bring about the agreed-to (and, I hope, actually observed) cease-fire between Hamas and Israel. While there is a lot of work yet to be done, this Republican, at least, thinks the administration deserves a lot of credit for its help in bringing this about.

John
Dr. F.

Ice climber
SoCal
Topic Author's Reply - Nov 21, 2012 - 01:29pm PT
Kudos to Obama and H. Clinton
JE

That deserves a second round of applause!!!
Dr. F.

Ice climber
SoCal
Topic Author's Reply - Nov 21, 2012 - 01:37pm PT
Republicans Attacking Susan Rice Gave Condoleezza Rice A Pass On Intelligence Failures

http://www.alan.com/2012/11/21/republicans-attacking-susan-rice-gave-condoleezza-rice-a-pass-on-intelligence-failures/


Soledad O’Brien challenged Texas Republican Rep. Michael Burgess on why he and 96 other GOP members signed a letter opposing Susan Rice’s nomination for Secretary of State when there was no right-wing opposition to Condoleezza Rice after intelligence failures on Iraq.

O’BRIEN: I have asked others before how this does not compare, the Susan Rice issue, to the Condoleezza Rice issue on weapons of mass destruction. She was also wrong when she was the national security adviser, right? … Fast forward three years in 2005 when she was up to be secretary of state, it was Lindsey Graham who was furious that the Democrats were pushing back. It was Sen John mccain who were furious that the Democrats were pushing back on Condoleezza Rice to be Secretary of State. She was wrong on weapons of mass destruction. How is this different?

BURGESS: The difference is the scrutiny provided by our free press in this country. Condoleezza Rice was exposed to withering criticism by the press. I don’t see that happening now. Maybe I’ve missed something in the talking points, but I don’t see that happening. ….

O’BRIEN: So you’re confusing me there for a moment. When you say the scrutiny on the press — are you saying five days after comments of weapons of mass destruction, you feel like the media was picking apart Condoleezza Rice? I don’t think that’s true, Sir. Most people say that’s not the case. It took a long time. …. Hey, I’m all about scrutiny. I guess I like consistency, too. You were not calling for more scrutiny and you weren’t saying that the fact that Condoleezza Rice was wrong on weapons of mass destruction was going to damage her credibility as secretary of state. Again, McCain and Lindsey Graham were supporting that. It seems contradictory to me.

BURGESS: You’ll have to take that up with Senator McCain and Senator Graham

What is the difference Now?
Susane Rice is a Dem, and the Republicans are despicable hypocrites, that is the only answer to the question.


"We can't risk the smoking gun being a Mushroom Cloud!!"

"I don't think anybody could have predicted that these people would take an airplane and slam it into the World Trade Center, take another one and slam it into the Pentagon, that they would try to use an airplane as a missile"

Blatant lies, and she knew they were lies
If you are a Republican, failure means a promotion.
toadgas

Trad climber
los angeles
Nov 21, 2012 - 02:12pm PT
.



Obama & co. should now make all Republicans wear funny hats in public


...like during the Cultural Revolution!




who agrees?


-
jghedge

climber
Nov 21, 2012 - 03:28pm PT
A Big Step Forward On Obamacare Implementation

http://maddowblog.msnbc.com/_news/2012/11/21/15333779-a-big-step-forward-on-obamacare-implementation


The Affordable Care Act was a massive piece of legislation, but it only went so far in defining the details of policy implementation. For example, the text of the bill mandates that Americans' preventive care be provided without a copay, but it doesn't specify what, exactly, counts as preventive care.

And that's where the regulatory process kicks in. It's up to the Obama administration to make choices defining the limits and the benefits under the legal framework. With this in mind, "Obamacare" implementation took another important step forward yesterday.


"The Obama administration took a big step on Tuesday to carry out the new health care law by defining "essential health benefits" that must be offered to most Americans and by allowing employers to offer much bigger financial rewards to employees who quit smoking or adopt other healthy behaviors."

"The rules translate the broad promises of the 2010 law into detailed standards that can be enforced by state and federal officials. Under the rules, insurers cannot deny coverage or charge higher premiums to people because they are sick or have been ill. They also cannot charge women more than men, as many now do."

"Thanks to the health care law, no one will be discriminated against because of a pre-existing condition," said Kathleen Sebelius, the secretary of health and human services, who issued the rules with Phyllis C. Borzi, an assistant secretary of labor, and Steven T. Miller, the acting commissioner of the Internal Revenue Service."


When it comes to "essential" benefits, states will have some leeway, but under the regulations unveiled yesterday, all insurers will be required to provide "dental care and vision services for children, treatment of mental health and drug abuse problems, and 'habilitative services' for people with conditions like autism or cerebral palsy."

There's also some worthwhile provisions related to wellness: "The less-familiar wellness rules will increase the maximum permissible reward for workers who participate in programs that encourage certain health outcomes, such as smoking cessation or weight loss. Under the proposed rules, these 'health-contingent wellness programs' will now yield a reward of up to 30 percent of the cost of health coverage rather than 20 percent."

In light of the election results, the opportunities for the law's opponents have faded away. All of this, in other words, really is going to happen.






Repubs Have Failed.





TGT

Social climber
So Cal
Nov 21, 2012 - 03:53pm PT
Even your hero Bawny is sponsoring a bill to neuter it.

(CNSNews.com) – A bipartisan bill in the House would expand the religious exemption to the insurance mandate in Obamacare, allowing those with a religious objection to absolve themselves of the mandate’s health insurance requirement with an affidavit.

Introduced by Rep. Judy Biggert (R-Ill.), the bill has drawn co-sponsors from both sides of the political aisle, including Reps. Barney Frank (D-Mass.) and Todd Akin (R-Mo.) Ron Paul (R-Texas), and Barbara Lee (D-Calif.).

The bill would allow anyone to be exempt from the individual mandate so long as they filed an affidavit along with their tax returns that “sincerely held religious beliefs” would cause them “to object to the medical health care that would be covered under such coverage.”
jghedge

climber
Nov 21, 2012 - 04:04pm PT
"Even your hero Bawny is sponsoring a bill to neuter it."

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/bipartisan-house-bill-would-add-religious-exemption-obamacare-mandate

"The regulations included a narrow religious exemption that would cover only churches and other religious institutions."

Hahahaha, you really think exempting churches from covering contraception "neuters" ObamaCare? Any other straws you'd like to desperately grasp at?

Something certainly was neutered in the last election...but it certainly wasn't ObamaCare.
Dr. F.

Ice climber
SoCal
Topic Author's Reply - Nov 21, 2012 - 04:24pm PT
The same States that now want to secede, are the same states that wanted to secede during the Civil War, it was all about States Rights, "we won't comply with the National Interest of being a Nation, we want to do anything we want. F-you liberals"
Can they be considered treasonous hypocrites?

Or are they just Racists? That will not give this President his legitimate due.
jghedge

climber
Nov 21, 2012 - 04:34pm PT
"Or are they just Racists? That will not give this President his legitimate due."

They can put their money where their mouth is, and simply revoke their citizenship - perfectly within their constitutional rights. Would have the same practical effect as seceding.

Of course, literally not one single repub will actually do this - having the courage of their (supposed) convictions not being one of their identifiable character traits.
jstan

climber
Nov 21, 2012 - 04:43pm PT
Even your hero Bawny is sponsoring a bill to neuter it.

Never quite understood the belief that calling someone a name can relieve you of the need to make a good argument.
Messages 39141 - 39160 of total 52606 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
Return to Forum List
Post a Reply
 
Our Guidebooks
Check 'em out!
SuperTopo Guidebooks


Try a free sample topo!

 
SuperTopo on the Web

Review Categories
Recent Route Beta
Recent Gear Reviews