Lost In Transition

United States

#168915 Sep 23, 2013
Chris Clearwater wrote:
So since Jan 2009 when the dear leader came on the scene one of the lies from the extreme left is the tea party are terrorist groups. Reid once again today was spewing hate and lies on the Senate floor. Its a shame some are so fearful of a positions they won't debate on merit and do this. Meanwhile real terrorist across the globe have been quite busy.
Harry Reid Lashes Out at ‘Radical’ Senate Republicans:‘We’re Not Going to Bow to Tea Party Anarchists’
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/09/23/ha...
A politician that actually listens to his constituents before his party's leadership.
I'm sure that does strike old Harry as anarchy.
Lost In Transition

United States

#168916 Sep 23, 2013
WildWeirdWillie wrote:
Food fight between the House and Senate Republican Caucuses!!!!!
Good, I hope there's more of it. It would be nice to see a Dem or two exercise a little individuality and break free of the collective as well.

“Unemployed Bush 5.3 obama 8.7”

Since: Jul 10

Location hidden

#168917 Sep 23, 2013
WildWeirdWillie wrote:
Food fight between the House and Senate Republican Caucuses!!!!!
It does put the Senate Republicans in an awkward position. The House has sided with the American public and voted to defund obamacare, while funding the rest of the government. The Senate Republicans have to decide to either stand with the American voter and the House, or jump across the aisle and vote with the Democrats to fund budget busting obamacare and it's inherent reductions of medical care.

I really feel sorry for those Senate Republicans that are up for re-election in 2014. If they side with the Democrats to fund obamacare, voting against the American public, they know they'll have to face a primary fight.

Why do you think the leadership of the House Republicans switched their position on funding obamacare... they heard from their voters, and the message was very clear!

“I'm here with bells on.”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#168918 Sep 23, 2013
BobinTX wrote:
<quoted text>
The Senate Republicans have to decide to either stand with the American voter and the House, or jump across the aisle and vote with the Democrats to fund budget busting obamacare and it's inherent reductions of medical care.
I really feel sorry for those Senate Republicans that are up for re-election in 2014. If they side with the Democrats to fund obamacare, voting against the American public, they know they'll have to face a primary fight.
The takeaway here, of course, is that you don't consider Democrats to be American voters....
HipGnozizzz

Altona, IL

#168919 Sep 23, 2013
BobinTX wrote:
<quoted text>President Bush took ages gathering multi-national and U.N. support for the invasion of Iraq. He also spent considerable time gaining overwhelming bi-partisan support of the Congress and the American people before taking action.
You bet, the Bush admin did all that. I know perspective is an American blind-spot, but it still bears mentioning that the climate was totally different ten years ago. We should recall the ground was already prepared by national and international sympathy and outrage (and fear) following the 9/11/01 attacks. The admin crassly exploited that sympathy and fear using cherry-picked "intelligence", with the gaping holes filled in with false information provided by expatriate Iraqi pretenders to the throne such as Chalabi.

In the "ages" of hard-sell you speak of, they asserted two basic premises - that Hussein allowed Al Qaeda to use Iraq as safe harbor, and that he was developing WMD. They topped it off by injecting the specter of nuclear holocaust, slanting the rhetoric with chilling references to a "mushroom cloud". They placed the full power and prestige of America on the line on the international stage, putting on a full-court press of propoganda. You are right, Congress and the UN were complicit in abetting the travesty, but it was due entirely to trusting the Bush admin and the intelligence community.

The evidence seems to suggest that George Bush himself was as much duped as the rest of us. This seems to be confirmed by the almost poignant image of Bush sincerely distressed as the weeks and months went by post-invasion without a single bit of evidence of an active WMD program or stockpile. We know now that the true drivers for invasion were a neocon cabal headed by Cheney and Rumsfeld, with a great backing team inc. Feith, Libby, and Wolfowitz. Both Cheney and Rumsfeld asserted on record as to an absolute certainty of WMD. "We know where they are." Rumsfeld said, "They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south, and north somewhat." Mind you, this is two weeks after D-Day.
BobinTX wrote:
<quoted text>During that period, there were reports of Russian truck caravans moving materials at night into Syria. The fact that U.S. troops could not find huge stockpiles of WMD is not surprising, we only looked in Iraq. We also didn't find many of Saddam's aircraft in Iraq... we knew they were sent to Iran.
President Bush dotted all his "i's" and crossed all his "t's", but it gave Saddam the time he needed to move that which he didn't want found or destroyed.
I see Willie already threw down a tack strip in front of this piece of "hi-info voter" revisionism. It's amusing, and instructive, about the quality of your "facts" that your words stand at odds with the very man you seek to re-mold.

Those "reports" of trucks you mention came entirely from a vague CYA statement from Rumsfeld, immediately following his equally vague certainty of their location. No one seemed to notice the contradiction at the time. "We know right where they are, but if they're not there, they moved them." You're doin' a fine job, Rummy.

Even without I had a son and a nephew in the military, I certainly am opposed to another military intervention in the Mideast. But as one of the few "unpatriotic" voices speaking out against the Iraq invasion in 2003, it's with no small irony that I observe the healthy skepticism following our President's quixotic threat of a military strike on Syria. Looking at it 36,000+ American casualties later, it sure would have been nice to have just a smidge of that bipartisan skepticism 10 years ago. This America! It sure is a funny place.

“2016 No Clinton No Bush!”

Since: Dec 06

Lafayette IN

#168920 Sep 23, 2013
BobinTX wrote:
<quoted text>
It does put the Senate Republicans in an awkward position. The House has sided with the American public and voted to defund obamacare, while funding the rest of the government. The Senate Republicans have to decide to either stand with the American voter and the House, or jump across the aisle and vote with the Democrats to fund budget busting obamacare and it's inherent reductions of medical care.
I really feel sorry for those Senate Republicans that are up for re-election in 2014. If they side with the Democrats to fund obamacare, voting against the American public, they know they'll have to face a primary fight.
Why do you think the leadership of the House Republicans switched their position on funding obamacare... they heard from their voters, and the message was very clear!
Me commenting on anything that happens in the Republican Party is an exercise in futility.

Me commenting on something in the Republican Party involving someone you positively gush over ... pointless is putting it mildly.

You can rail against the establishment without me.
Trucker

Hollywood, FL

#168921 Sep 24, 2013
Lost In Transition wrote:
<quoted text>
Good, I hope there's more of it. It would be nice to see a Dem or two exercise a little individuality and break free of the collective as well.
Good luck with that.
Lyndi

Sarasota, FL

#168922 Sep 24, 2013
BobinTX wrote:
<quoted text>
What do you expect from John McLame, he's and expert at surrendering, compromising his values and submitting... Ted Cruz has a backbone, and hasn't learned how to give up.
I am so proud of my junior Senator!
If I can interrupt your confetti throwing for a minute...

John McCain's position and the position of multiple republican senators on the defunding issue hasn't been properly explained in here. But putting that aside, his record has been exemplary as both a senator and a soldier. The man was a POW longer than Obama was a senator and he was the extraordinary leader who refused to leave his men behind so he could come home due to Washington connections. We shouldn't ever forget that.
Maybe you're caught up in your enthusiasm over Ted Cruz but I'm a taken aback of how incredibly disrespectful you're being to an American who has put his country ahead of himself again and again. "McLame" and such isn't okay. He doesn't deserve that.
Again, I appreciate your enthusiasm about the new kid on the block but maybe you could leave out kicking the old workhorse McCain as part of your party games.

Two things to note about Cruz. One he's doing this in great part to position himself as presidential candidate in 2016 so his motives aren't as entirely selfless and pure as you're making them out to be and two, if this strategy of his isn't the correct one, he's running full throttle into a standing bayonet and his 15 minutes will be up.
Lyndi

Sarasota, FL

#168923 Sep 24, 2013
WildWeirdWillie wrote:
<quoted text>
The question that sparked this conversation in the first place was "...I know you don't want to say outloud which political persuasion harbor those 3 traits more than the other but I'll ask anyway. Conservatives or liberals?".
I don't think either political persuasion harbors those traits more than the other. If I don't believe that either political persuasion harbors those traits more than the other, why should I play along with you?
The 3 traits mentioned were:
sense of entitlement
victimization
avoidance of responsibility

Let's try this then, using the last presidential election as an example.
Romney or Obama?
1) Which candidate promised the most freebies?*entitlements
2) Which candidate told gays, women and racial minorities a war was being waged on them by his opponent?*victimization
3) Which candidate promoted taxing the rich more so that the "little guy" could have more?*promoting personal irresponsibility

It's mathamatical, Willie. We know what platform Obama ran on and we know liberals voted for him. What do those two knowns equal?

I don't know how dark exactly that box is you're sitting in but if that simple demonstration doesn't display a liberal platform of entitlements, victimization and avoidance of personal responsibility maybe you should chuck the democrat recommended but soon to be federally enforced or face jail time lightbulb and buy a good old fashioned republican lightbulb. Maybe you'll see better.

Those 3 traits are indisputably the embodiment of liberalism and that's bad for many reasons. First, it gave us an absolute moron for a president and secondly, the dumbing down of America is in full swing proven by the fact that his supporters actually believe there is such a thing as a free lunch.

“2016 No Clinton No Bush!”

Since: Dec 06

Lafayette IN

#168924 Sep 24, 2013
Lyndi wrote:
<quoted text>
The 3 traits mentioned were:
sense of entitlement
victimization
avoidance of responsibility
Let's try this then, using the last presidential election as an example.
Romney or Obama?
1) Which candidate promised the most freebies?*entitlements
2) Which candidate told gays, women and racial minorities a war was being waged on them by his opponent?*victimization
3) Which candidate promoted taxing the rich more so that the "little guy" could have more?*promoting personal irresponsibility
It's mathamatical, Willie. We know what platform Obama ran on and we know liberals voted for him. What do those two knowns equal?
I don't know how dark exactly that box is you're sitting in but if that simple demonstration doesn't display a liberal platform of entitlements, victimization and avoidance of personal responsibility maybe you should chuck the democrat recommended but soon to be federally enforced or face jail time lightbulb and buy a good old fashioned republican lightbulb. Maybe you'll see better.
Those 3 traits are indisputably the embodiment of liberalism and that's bad for many reasons. First, it gave us an absolute moron for a president and secondly, the dumbing down of America is in full swing proven by the fact that his supporters actually believe there is such a thing as a free lunch.
That's very well done, Lyndi - probably the best artificial argument I've seen posted in this thread by anyone for as long as it's been going on.

You may not believe it, but that's sincere.

I've already told you why I think it's an artificial argument, and you've done nothing to address that. You keep plugging away, banging on your drum, trying to force me to accept or overlook the flawed premise.

In the end you're still trying to make political points off of something that isn't political. No matter how creative you get, no matter how hard you work, no matter how much you ratchet up the invective, it's still not going to work.

“I'm here with bells on.”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#168930 Sep 24, 2013
Catcher1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Yeah, Lyndi is a blabbermouth.
Her ass is a big Republican waffle.
If you can't counter assertions with something at least funnier, if not more accurate, it says more about you than it does anyone.

This was really lame.

“2016 No Clinton No Bush!”

Since: Dec 06

Lafayette IN

#168931 Sep 24, 2013
Sister Kathryn Lust wrote:
<quoted text>If you can't counter assertions with something at least funnier, if not more accurate, it says more about you than it does anyone.
This was really lame.
Consistency has to count fer sumpin'

;-)
Lost In Transition

Denton, TX

#168932 Sep 24, 2013
Catcher1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Yeah, Lyndi is a blabbermouth.
Her ass is a big Republican waffle.
I like waffles. And asses. Sounds like a winning combo.
I can overlook the tattoo.

“I'm here with bells on.”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#168933 Sep 24, 2013
The bill currently active in Congress, which was introduced on February 5 of this year by Rep. Jared Polis (D-Col.), would:

remove marijuana from Schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act;

revise the definition of “felony drug offense” to exclude conduct relating to marijuana;

prohibit the transporting of marijuana into any place where its possession, use, or sale is prohibited;

require marijuana producers to purchase a permit like commercial alcohol producers do;
subject marijuana to the federal provisions that apply to intoxicating liquors and distilled spirits;

and reassign jurisdiction of marijuana regulation from the Drug Enforcement Administration to the renamed Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Marijuana, Firearms and Explosives.

Said Representative Polis,

This legislation doesn’t force any state to legalize marijuana, but Colorado and the 18 other jurisdictions that have chosen to allow marijuana for medical or recreational use deserve the certainty of knowing that federal agents won’t raid state-legal businesses. Congress should simply allow states to regulate marijuana as they see fit and stop wasting federal tax dollars on the failed drug war.

Now that doesn’t mean that Representative Polis is a Democratic version of former Congressman Ron Paul. It doesn’t mean that he is a libertarian. It doesn’t mean that he opposes the wasting of federal tax dollars on anything else. It doesn’t mean that he wants all the states to legalize marijuana, for medical use or otherwise. It doesn’t mean that he favors the legalization of drugs besides marijuana. All it means is that, at least on this issue, Representative Polis wants to transfer the oversight of something from the federal government to the states; that is, at least on this issue, he wants the federal government to follow the Constitution.

The Constitution nowhere grants to the federal government the authority to have anything to do with marijuana or any other drug. No regulations, no restrictions, no drug schedules, no controlled substances, and certainly no prohibition.

Maybe Congress should read it sometime.
Lost In Transition

Denton, TX

#168935 Sep 24, 2013
Sister Kathryn Lust wrote:
The bill currently active in Congress, which was introduced on February 5 of this year by Rep. Jared Polis (D-Col.), would:
remove marijuana from Schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act;
revise the definition of “felony drug offense” to exclude conduct relating to marijuana;
prohibit the transporting of marijuana into any place where its possession, use, or sale is prohibited;
require marijuana producers to purchase a permit like commercial alcohol producers do;
subject marijuana to the federal provisions that apply to intoxicating liquors and distilled spirits;
and reassign jurisdiction of marijuana regulation from the Drug Enforcement Administration to the renamed Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Marijuana, Firearms and Explosives.
Said Representative Polis,
This legislation doesn’t force any state to legalize marijuana, but Colorado and the 18 other jurisdictions that have chosen to allow marijuana for medical or recreational use deserve the certainty of knowing that federal agents won’t raid state-legal businesses. Congress should simply allow states to regulate marijuana as they see fit and stop wasting federal tax dollars on the failed drug war.
Now that doesn’t mean that Representative Polis is a Democratic version of former Congressman Ron Paul. It doesn’t mean that he is a libertarian. It doesn’t mean that he opposes the wasting of federal tax dollars on anything else. It doesn’t mean that he wants all the states to legalize marijuana, for medical use or otherwise. It doesn’t mean that he favors the legalization of drugs besides marijuana. All it means is that, at least on this issue, Representative Polis wants to transfer the oversight of something from the federal government to the states; that is, at least on this issue, he wants the federal government to follow the Constitution.
The Constitution nowhere grants to the federal government the authority to have anything to do with marijuana or any other drug. No regulations, no restrictions, no drug schedules, no controlled substances, and certainly no prohibition.

Maybe Congress should read it sometime.
Yah, sure. And go back to when politics was a part time gig, where they had to hold down a real job in the real economy? I don't think so.

I was listening to a "greeny" today describe the T-party candidates who were fighting obamacare. He said these guys went into politics on a principle, not as a career. That they didn't give a damn about the party or re-election, they came to make a stand and were more than willing to return to their private sector jobs if that stand took them down. He said, speaking strictly from a political point of view, they were insane. I got a kick out of that.

“Custer @ LBH - Ooops”

Since: Nov 07

Bakersfield, CA

#168937 Sep 24, 2013
UidiotRACEMAKEWORLDPEACE wrote:
<quoted text>But the smell, the look ...of dirty azz? U don't where lyndi azz had gone through... EWWWWWW Non appetizing to say the least? BSAAaHaHaaaa
F@ckin' filthy potty-mouth POS troll. Low-life scumbag.

Since: Sep 10

San Francisco, CA

#168938 Sep 24, 2013
bad bob wrote:
<quoted text>
F@ckin' filthy potty-mouth POS troll. Low-life scumbag.
If you can't counter assertions with something at least funnier, if not more accurate, it says more about you than it does anyone.

This was really lame.

(Thanks, Sister Kathryn)
Roberta G

United States

#168939 Sep 24, 2013
Catcher1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Yeah, Lyndi is a blabbermouth.
Her ass is a big Republican waffle.
Reported, you jerk.
Roberta G

United States

#168940 Sep 24, 2013
bad bob wrote:
<quoted text>
F@ckin' filthy potty-mouth POS troll. Low-life scumbag.
Reported.

“Rainbow: God's covenant ”

Since: May 07

Clearwater and Honolulu

#168941 Sep 24, 2013
Lost In Transition wrote:
<quoted text>
Yah, sure. And go back to when politics was a part time gig, where they had to hold down a real job in the real economy? I don't think so.
I was listening to a "greeny" today describe the T-party candidates who were fighting obamacare. He said these guys went into politics on a principle, not as a career. That they didn't give a damn about the party or re-election, they came to make a stand and were more than willing to return to their private sector jobs if that stand took them down. He said, speaking strictly from a political point of view, they were insane. I got a kick out of that.
Most of the cats that founded this nation would be viewed as insane today. Guess you have to laugh, if not you'll cry when you see how far we have fallen. Heard this today on radio concerning the nation's first President:

As the delegates filtered in the week and a half prior to the start of the Constitutional Convention in May of 1787, George Washington turned to Gouverneur Morris and said:

“It is too probable that no plan we propose will be adopted. Perhaps another dreadful conflict is to be sustained. If to please the people, we offer what we ourselves disapprove, how can we afterwards defend our work? The event is in the hand of God.”

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Top Stories Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Prove there's a god. (Mar '08) 2 min Stilgar Fifrawi 810,143
Jehovah's Witnesses are true disciple of Jesus ... (Mar '07) 4 min lovewithin 39,629
Was 9/11 a conspiracy?? (Oct '07) 5 min WasteWater 268,979
Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 12 min June VanDerMark 574,226
There is Everything Wrong with Abortion (Nov '07) 13 min NWmoon 221,745
If you're Christain what kind are you? (Oct '07) 28 min PAUL HATE SPIRIT 952
This ~ or ~ That? (game) (Dec '12) 46 min Hatti_Hollerand 1,635
Why Should Jesus Love Me? (Feb '08) 1 hr trifecta1 608,229
Dubai massage Body To Body full service 0559... (Mar '14) 16 hr Coolsa 205
More from around the web