Bush is a hero

Catcher1

Since: Sep 10

Redondo Beach, CA

#170638 Oct 21, 2013
Clearwater wrote:
<quoted text>Lol.
Hey, you missed all the sex (gay stuff) conversation.

Oh well, here's one for you:

A driver was stuck in a traffic jam on the highway outside Washington, DC.
Nothing was moving.

Suddenly, a man knocks on the window.

The driver rolls down the window and asks, "What's going on?"

"Terrorists have kidnapped the entire US Congress, and they're asking for a $100 million dollar ransom.
Otherwise, they are going to douse them all in gasoline and set them on fire.

We are going from car to car, collecting donations."

"How much is everyone giving, on an average?" the driver asks.

The man replies, "Roughly a gallon."
Clinton-Obama agenda

United States

#170639 Oct 21, 2013
Catcher1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Hey, you missed all the sex (gay stuff) conversation.
Oh well, here's one for you:
A driver was stuck in a traffic jam on the highway outside Washington, DC.
Nothing was moving.
Suddenly, a man knocks on the window.
The driver rolls down the window and asks, "What's going on?"
"Terrorists have kidnapped the entire US Congress, and they're asking for a $100 million dollar ransom.
Otherwise, they are going to douse them all in gasoline and set them on fire.
We are going from car to car, collecting donations."
"How much is everyone giving, on an average?" the driver asks.
The man replies, "Roughly a gallon."
Like that! Burn them Demoncrats!!!!!

“"Tanners Flat" U dummy”

Since: Jan 10

Location hidden

#170640 Oct 21, 2013
An NFL Fan wrote:
<quoted text>
Ha! Trying to 'butch up' now, stain? Too late for that.
Dude, even IF I were gay, I'd still be the man of the two, I'd make YOU my b!tCh!

“"Tanners Flat" U dummy”

Since: Jan 10

Location hidden

#170641 Oct 21, 2013
UIdiotRACEMAKEWORLDPEACE wrote:
<quoted text>i'M NOT GAY BUT NFL Jarhead keeps stalking me he's definitely homo! ABhahahahaaa
If I was a closet gay I would probably call myself "NFL Fan" too, or maybe "Bad Bob".

The name I post ain't intimidating anyone...and was never meant too....it's an inside thing, it sure is an easy target for the cheap shot artists tho.

“"Tanners Flat" U dummy”

Since: Jan 10

Location hidden

#170642 Oct 21, 2013
Lyndi wrote:
<quoted text>
lol- Not really. The behavior is a primal instinct particularly prevalant in the homosapien male species since it's origin. Modern etiquette or learned artificial behavior can interrupt that instinct in order to have peace and keep blood flow to a minimum but unless instinct can be bred out of a species, it will always dominate. Modern man resorts to that instinct when they have to and sometimes they resort to it simply because they feel like it; which is what you men just did for the last 24+-hours.
I've never seen any evidence of gay Cro Magnon but I think it's safe to say the chips would have been stacked against him and he wouldn't have fared well durng the Paleolithic Era.'Coming out' of the closet (or cave) was probably not a good option back then.
Anyway, thanks to all of you for the science demonstration!
I'll name it:
MEN IN THE MOOD TO BE REALLY MALE
Good read.

“"Tanners Flat" U dummy”

Since: Jan 10

Location hidden

#170643 Oct 21, 2013
Ya spoke too soon, HAHAHAAAAAAAA!

I probably went over the top in a post to bobin but what they hey, his phony outrage drives me nuts...., I gave him something to be outraged about.
Catcher1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Hey, you missed all the sex (gay stuff) conversation.
Oh well, here's one for you:
A driver was stuck in a traffic jam on the highway outside Washington, DC.
Nothing was moving.
Suddenly, a man knocks on the window.
The driver rolls down the window and asks, "What's going on?"
"Terrorists have kidnapped the entire US Congress, and they're asking for a $100 million dollar ransom.
Otherwise, they are going to douse them all in gasoline and set them on fire.
We are going from car to car, collecting donations."
"How much is everyone giving, on an average?" the driver asks.
The man replies, "Roughly a gallon."

“I'm here with bells on.”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#170644 Oct 21, 2013
Yellow Star Seed is Back wrote:
Ya spoke too soon, HAHAHAAAAAAAA!
I probably went over the top in a post to bobin but what they hey, his phony outrage drives me nuts...., I gave him something to be outraged about.
<quoted text>
Looks like you gave him a sleeping pill...

“Unemployed Bush 5.3 obama 8.7”

Since: Jul 10

Location hidden

#170645 Oct 21, 2013
Yellow Stain is Back wrote:
Ya spoke too soon, HAHAHAAAAAAAA!
I probably went over the top in a post to bobin but what they hey, his phony outrage drives me nuts....,
Yellow Stain is Back wrote:
I gave him something to be outraged about.<quoted text>
Outrage, what outrage? I simply asked "Since when does 'partner' mean 'gay'?

http://www.topix.com/forum/topstories/T2LK4SO...

http://www.topix.com/forum/topstories/T2LK4SO...

http://www.topix.com/forum/topstories/T2LK4SO...
Yellow Stain is Back wrote:
I gave him something to be outraged about.<quoted text>
Obviously, you didn't, because I don't remember you posting anything that even came close to causing me outrage. I saw you post stupidity, yes. I saw you post bigotry, yes. But something that caused me outrage, no.

“Custer @ LBH - Ooops”

Since: Nov 07

Bakersfield, CA

#170646 Oct 21, 2013
Yellow Star Seed wrote:
<quoted text>
If I was a closet gay I would probably call myself "NFL Fan" too, or maybe "Bad Bob".
Tsk tsk tsk Ol' yeller, now that weren't very nice.
Did you toss & turn all night thinkin' up ways to come back in here and reignite this flame contest? This thing was ended yesterday dog, looks like you have a rather difficult time lettin' go.
Yellow Star Seed wrote:
<quoted text>
The name I post ain't intimidating anyone...and was never meant too....it's an inside thing.
The Mayan Oracle's an inside thing? <<[Mayan New Year Begins July 26, 2013 – Yellow Galactic Seed – 25 July 2013]>>.

http://lucas2012infos.wordpress.com/2013/07/2...

Are you part of the "ordered pattern of growth of the evolution into the mind of light & the energy that directs you toward wholeness?" Do you "look thru the eyes in yer feet?"

You seemed "put out" because GW Bush is no longer the main topic on this thread. Did you wanna do some more Bush bashing? Or was there something else ya wanted to bring up, not covered between Sep 07 and the 2-3 years following? You think Bush rigged the 2 towers with det cord?
Yellow Star

Savage, MN

#170647 Oct 22, 2013
bad bob wrote:
<quoted text>
Tsk tsk tsk Ol' yeller, now that weren't very nice.
Did you toss & turn all night thinkin' up ways to come back in here and reignite this flame contest? This thing was ended yesterday dog, looks like you have a rather difficult time lettin' go.
<quoted text>
The Mayan Oracle's an inside thing? <<[Mayan New Year Begins July 26, 2013 – Yellow Galactic Seed – 25 July 2013]>>.
http://lucas2012infos.wordpress.com/2013/07/2...
Are you part of the "ordered pattern of growth of the evolution into the mind of light & the energy that directs you toward wholeness?" Do you "look thru the eyes in yer feet?"
You seemed "put out" because GW Bush is no longer the main topic on this thread. Did you wanna do some more Bush bashing? Or was there something else ya wanted to bring up, not covered between Sep 07 and the 2-3 years following? You think Bush rigged the 2 towers with det cord?
It was an off the cuff cheap shot at ya, you know I'm always doing that....., just playin'.

To answer your mayan related question, yes. It helps to understand the it's meaning in order to do it tho.

To answer your last question, NO!

I do think the neocons fubar'd everything....but no, I don't think bush had any role in the 911 attacks......but he did screw things up afterward.
Yellow Star

Savage, MN

#170648 Oct 22, 2013
Posted from work but getting back to work, ya won't here from me till this evening. Enjoy my time away.
Lyndi

Sarasota, FL

#170649 Oct 22, 2013
BobinTX wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm running out of characters, but I have a reading assignment for you...
http://clashdaily.com/2013/10/republican-lead...
The Clash Daily? Are you KIDDING me?? Could you have given me anything further right wing yahoo or extremist to look at?
Some articles at a glance:

*** RELIGION OF PEACE MY A##: The Media Hates Gracious
Christianity and Loves Violent Islam

*** CHEW ON THIS SATAN: Texas House Passes 20 Week Abortion ban.("Chew on this -----> Satan?") lol-

*** Radical Leftists vs. Decent Folks: Will There Be Blood?

*** D.C. Weirdness Update: Tirade Was The Fruit of the Holy Spirit, House Stenographer Says

*** Hey, Christians: Grow a Spine and Declare Islam a Vile Doctrine
===

And then there's have the enter to win an African hunting safari sponsored by the Clash Daily.
http://clashdaily.com/safari-giveaway/
(7 grand is the 1st prize and a box of cigars is 2nd prize.)

I was particulary moved by the women posing next to the dead zebra she shot. Brave girl, shooting a dangerously grazing beast from the equidae family. Of course there was the that box of cigars incentive. What girl could resist that? I'll betcha a nickle, bobin, she's pro life too!(No irony there.(ahem.

Anyway, please don't do that to me again. Don't make me read junk.
==

Btw, maybe you already addressed this and I missed it but tell me again. Had the senate republicans gone along with Cruz, what exactly was the Tea Party plan when Obama vetoed it (as he most certainly would have) and sent the thing back to the congress?
Lyndi

Sarasota, FL

#170651 Oct 22, 2013
Maybe someone from the Tea Party could rebut this editorial.
(edited for space)
WASHINGTON — "There are no winners here," President Barack Obama declared. Then, with an elegant air of nonpartisanship, Obama began to fashion the shutdown into a political weapon. Here's how he's going to deploy it:
1. Economic excuse.
Obama rattled off the damage: families going without paychecks, home buyers and small businesses unable to get loans, consumers cutting back on spending, CEOs reporting that the fiscal anxiety had "set back their plans to hire over the next six months." Even the "threat of default," said the president, "increased our borrowing costs, which adds to our deficit."
Today, this litany of laments looked like simple compassion from the president. But over the next year, it can serve as an excuse. If economic growth or deficit reduction isn't where we'd like it to be, Obama can blame the shortfall on the "Republican shutdown" or the "Tea Party shutdown."
2. Republican downgrade.
Two years ago, when Standard and Poor's downgraded the government's credit rating, it cited our high deficits as well as the 2011 debt ceiling standoff. Ever since, Republicans have argued that the deficits, not the standoff, caused the downgrade.
This time, we haven't been downgraded, but we've been put on a credit watch by Fitch, another ratings agency. And this time, there's no ballooning deficit.
3. National security.
Obama is constantly accused of weakness. No matter what he does in Iran, Egypt, Libya or Syria, the old portrait of the Democratic president as soft on foreign policy never goes away.
What usually helps Democrats in this area is economics. Their devotion to American labor at the expense of free trade comes across as tough on foreigners. But the fiscal showdowns of 2011 and 2013 could add a new twist.
On Thursday, Obama reported that U.S. diplomats have "been hearing from their counterparts internationally. Some of the same folks who pushed for the shutdown and threatened default claim their actions were needed to get America back on the right track, to make sure we're strong. But probably nothing has done more damage to America's credibility in the world, our standing with other countries, than the spectacle we've seen these past several weeks. It's encouraged our enemies. It's emboldened our competitors. And it's depressed our friends who look to us for steady leadership."
4. The value of government.
"One of the things that I hope all of us have learned these past few weeks is that it turns out smart, effective government is important. It matters. I think the American people, during this shutdown, had a chance to get some idea of all the things, large and small, that government does that make a difference in people's lives. You know, we hear all the time about how government is the problem. Well, it turns out we rely on it in a whole lot of ways. Not only does it keep us strong through our military and our law enforcement — it plays a vital role in caring for our seniors and our veterans, educating our kids, making sure our workers are trained for the jobs that are being created, arming our businesses with the best science and technology so they can compete with companies from other countries. It plays a key role in keeping our food and our toys and our workplaces safe. It helps folks rebuild after a storm. It conserves our natural resources. It finances startups. It helps to sell our products overseas. It provides security to our diplomats abroad. So let's work together to make government work better, instead of treating it like an enemy."
Congratulations, Tea Party. In the midst of Obamacare's glitch-ridden debut, you did the one thing that could make us love our government: You took it away and held it hostage.
http://www.silive.com/opinion/columns/index.s...

Since: Dec 07

Location hidden

#170652 Oct 22, 2013
*I edited numbers into your post. I hope its ok.
bad bob wrote:
<quoted text>
1. War is necessary when bad people (either in power or militants) murder or abuse other people (usually innocent men, women, & children) and refuse to stand down.

2. War is necessary when ruthless dictators threaten nearby smaller nations
or invade nearby nations, or refuse to abide by the resolutions of a world governing body (UN). Without military intervention, despots have nothing to fear and will continue doing bad things.

3. War is also necessary when bad people are a threat to ANY western interests overseas, such as taking control of oil fields, oil production or oil transporting, and shipping lanes.

4. War is necessary if another country attacks the US. If asked, the US may
go to war to assist an ally being attacked or threatened by invasion.

5. Generalities seem fine on paper or in print, but the dynamic world doesn't always operate page by page. I hafta agree with William's first reply. Haven't gotten to the rest of them yet.
1. Good people are being killed daily by bad people in other countries.
How many must be killed in order to justify War on those nations?
10, 100, 1000, 10,000 etc…
Should War be declared when your standard is met? And without bias?
Which countries should engage in this War?

2. Do you think the U.N. is a viable form of Government?
Do the Nations respect its authority?
Do you think that the “despots” as you put it, fear its teeth?
And again, when your standard is met, should War proceed without bias against the guilty Nation(s)? And by whom?

3. Are you associating these bad people with Nations / Governments / Extremists?

4. What if the ally is known to be corrupt and to also, from time to time, engage in unacceptable hostility against their own citizens?

5. Agreed, the World operates on generalities.
I’m guessing if more specifics were adhered to, War would cease for many of the very same reasons you stated above. Certainly a dark mark against human behavior.

Since: Dec 07

Location hidden

#170653 Oct 22, 2013
WildWeirdWillie wrote:
<quoted text>I think it's really doubtful that Stalin could have 'cleaned Hitler's clock' without the U.S. and the UK being in the war. We tied up hundreds of thousands of troops and their equipment on the west coast of Europe, and sucked hundreds of thousands more into the battles in North Africa and Italy even before the invasion of France. Absent the US and UK in the war, those forces would have been available for service on the Russian front - enough to be a game changer.

Belgium has nothing to do with the U.S. entry into either WWI or WWII. In WWI it was the sinking of U.S. ships at sea; for WWII, it was an attack by Japan coupled with a declaration of war on the U.S. by Germany under their treaty with Japan.
As to what kind of threat Germany represented to the U.S., I think Hitler answered that when he declared war; Japan answered that when they attacked us.
Whether Stalin could or couldn’t have is a fairly good debate.
I'm leaning toward could've.

It is true that American vessels were sunk as was mentioned in yours and a subsequent post. The word was out that Hitler was looking into acquiring some new real-estate. Can't blame a guy for wanting to widen out, as it were.

Seems to me there was a story of another country wanting the same thing. They settled on the North East Coast of, where was that again, never-mind it'll come to me later. They also slaughtered this new lands inhabitants and claimed the land for themselves. Odd, it's right at the tip of my tongue. I digress…

Found this article while researching this subject.
It says it a whole lot better than I could.
If it is accurate that is.
--
FDR was anything but a neutral before December 7. His increasingly provocative behavior in Europe can be tracked through the various Neutrality Acts to Cash and Carry to Boats for Bases to Lend-Lease. His "arsenal of democracy" speeches made it clear to the world that he wanted war with Germany and that he had involved the US in the war already. During his Fireside Chat of September 11, 1941, he all but declared war when he announced that he had ordered the US Navy to fire on German and Italian warships, without provocation, whenever they were sighted in US "defensive waters". He went on to describe those waters as the entire Atlantic, especially from US ports, along the Canadian shores, past the Greenland and Iceland coasts to the beaches of the British Isles. Then he transferred several ships from the Pacific Fleet to the Atlantic Fleet to engage in "neutrality patrols" (that is, he ordered them to search out and destroy Axis vessels).

Since: Dec 07

Location hidden

#170654 Oct 22, 2013
Continued -

In the Pacific, the provocations were more blatant. He created an entire new army, the USAFFE and its air wing, the USAAFE and stationed it astride vital Japanese shipping lanes. He beefed up bases in Guam, Midway, Pearl and the Philippines. He moved the fleet from San Diego to Pearl (CinCPac Adm James Otto Richardson so opposed the move that he was relieved of command - He claimied it was an unnecessary provocation likely to induce an attack, and he made it clear that the fleet was a sitting duck for a carrier launched air attack and could not be defended)

FDR knew he could not get a declaration of war against Germany from the Congress or the American people. He also knew that if Japan attacked, he'd be able to get into the war in Europe. The McCollum Memo is just one of the smoking guns that make it fairly clear that the US wanted to provoke an attack. The seizure of all Japanese assets in the US, the aid to Ho Chi Minh and the Vietminh, the embargoes, especially the oil embargo and the Hull Note were gasoline on the fire.

Germany and Japan signed the Tripartite Pact as a mutual defense treaty. It was intended to stop US provocations by letting FDR know that if the US declared war on any of the parties, he would be involved in a two front global war across two oceans. Hitler also pledged outside the agreement that if Japan attacked the US, he would declare war on the US as well. It was only a 'gentleman's agreement', but Hitler kept his word.

Had the US not been involved in the war in Europe, the outcome would have been the same. It would have taken longer (maybe a year, maybe less) but the Red Army still would have won. By the time the US finally got into the shooting war in November 1942, Barbarossa had been repelled, the German defeat at Moscow had crippled the overall invasion plan and the tide at Stalingrad was turning. By the time the US/UK troops landed in Italy, the end of the war had already been determined. If Stalingrad didn't prove the point, Kursk and Smolensk did.

In the East, China would have held on in a war of attrition for years. Without the naval war, Japan could have continued the fight for some time, but without vital resources, she'd have had to reach a political end of the conflict.

Hitler wanted Japan to concentrate on the Indian Ocean. This would have cut India out of the British Empire and would have closed the Suez. That would have given the Germans the Middle East with its oil and a second route into the Soviet Union. He knew Japan was not going to declare war on the USSR, but his goal was to reach an accord with the UK. He never wanted war with the British and he was not overly concerned about the US military (which was one of the weakest and most poorly equipped armed forces in the war in 1941). He was worried about the US industrial strength, but FDR had already unleashed that against anyway. The formal declaration of war put the factories on war production full-time, but the 'arsenal of democracy' had already been devoting a large share of its output against the Axis.

As I said, this is over-simplified. The is a whole lot more. You won't get it from biased 'histories'. Look at the official documents and the events as they unfolded if you are truly interested.

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index...
Lyndi

Sarasota, FL

#170655 Oct 22, 2013
NEWS-FLASH wrote:
*I edited numbers into your post. I hope its ok.
<quoted text>
1. Good people are being killed daily by bad people in other countries.
How many must be killed in order to justify War on those nations?
10, 100, 1000, 10,000 etc…
Should War be declared when your standard is met? And without bias?
Which countries should engage in this War?
2. Do you think the U.N. is a viable form of Government?
Do the Nations respect its authority?
Do you think that the “despots” as you put it, fear its teeth?
And again, when your standard is met, should War proceed without bias against the guilty Nation(s)? And by whom?
3. Are you associating these bad people with Nations / Governments / Extremists?
4. What if the ally is known to be corrupt and to also, from time to time, engage in unacceptable hostility against their own citizens?
5. Agreed, the World operates on generalities.
I’m guessing if more specifics were adhered to, War would cease for many of the very same reasons you stated above. Certainly a dark mark against human behavior.
War will cease when it is determined there is nothing of value worth defending.

Catcher1

Since: Sep 10

Fremont, CA

#170656 Oct 22, 2013
Lyndi wrote:
<quoted text>
The Clash Daily? Are you KIDDING me?? Could you have given me anything further right wing yahoo or extremist to look at?
Some articles at a glance:
*** RELIGION OF PEACE MY A##: The Media Hates Gracious
Christianity and Loves Violent Islam
*** CHEW ON THIS SATAN: Texas House Passes 20 Week Abortion ban.("Chew on this -----> Satan?") lol-
*** Radical Leftists vs. Decent Folks: Will There Be Blood?
*** D.C. Weirdness Update: Tirade Was The Fruit of the Holy Spirit, House Stenographer Says
*** Hey, Christians: Grow a Spine and Declare Islam a Vile Doctrine
===
And then there's have the enter to win an African hunting safari sponsored by the Clash Daily.
http://clashdaily.com/safari-giveaway/
(7 grand is the 1st prize and a box of cigars is 2nd prize.)
I was particulary moved by the women posing next to the dead zebra she shot. Brave girl, shooting a dangerously grazing beast from the equidae family. Of course there was the that box of cigars incentive. What girl could resist that? I'll betcha a nickle, bobin, she's pro life too!(No irony there.(ahem.
Anyway, please don't do that to me again. Don't make me read junk.
==
Btw, maybe you already addressed this and I missed it but tell me again. Had the senate republicans gone along with Cruz, what exactly was the Tea Party plan when Obama vetoed it (as he most certainly would have) and sent the thing back to the congress?
Lyndi, your posts recently have been so damn reasonable.

What's going on?

“Help Cecil Help!”

Since: Dec 06

Lafayette IN

#170657 Oct 22, 2013
NEWS-FLASH wrote:
<quoted text>
Whether Stalin could or couldn’t have is a fairly good debate.
I'm leaning toward could've.
It is true that American vessels were sunk as was mentioned in yours and a subsequent post. The word was out that Hitler was looking into acquiring some new real-estate. Can't blame a guy for wanting to widen out, as it were.
Seems to me there was a story of another country wanting the same thing. They settled on the North East Coast of, where was that again, never-mind it'll come to me later. They also slaughtered this new lands inhabitants and claimed the land for themselves. Odd, it's right at the tip of my tongue. I digress…
Wow. I never thought of that. Since the United States expanded in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries at the expense of the Native peoples, the United States had no right to protest Hitler's expansions in Europe in the twentieth.

Why ... that's positively brilliant!
NEWS-FLASH wrote:
<quoted text>Found this article while researching this subject.
It says it a whole lot better than I could.
If it is accurate that is.
--
FDR was anything but a neutral before December 7. His increasingly provocative behavior in Europe can be tracked through the various Neutrality Acts to Cash and Carry to Boats for Bases to Lend-Lease. His "arsenal of democracy" speeches made it clear to the world that he wanted war with Germany and that he had involved the US in the war already. During his Fireside Chat of September 11, 1941, he all but declared war when he announced that he had ordered the US Navy to fire on German and Italian warships, without provocation, whenever they were sighted in US "defensive waters". He went on to describe those waters as the entire Atlantic, especially from US ports, along the Canadian shores, past the Greenland and Iceland coasts to the beaches of the British Isles. Then he transferred several ships from the Pacific Fleet to the Atlantic Fleet to engage in "neutrality patrols" (that is, he ordered them to search out and destroy Axis vessels).
Yahoo Answers?

Really?

“Unemployed Bush 5.3 obama 8.7”

Since: Jul 10

Location hidden

#170658 Oct 22, 2013
Lyndi wrote:
<quoted text>
The Clash Daily? Are you KIDDING me?? Could you have given me anything further right wing yahoo or extremist to look at?
Some articles at a glance:
*** RELIGION OF PEACE MY A##: The Media Hates Gracious
Christianity and Loves Violent Islam
*** CHEW ON THIS SATAN: Texas House Passes 20 Week Abortion ban.("Chew on this -----> Satan?") lol-
*** Radical Leftists vs. Decent Folks: Will There Be Blood?
*** D.C. Weirdness Update: Tirade Was The Fruit of the Holy Spirit, House Stenographer Says
*** Hey, Christians: Grow a Spine and Declare Islam a Vile Doctrine
===
And then there's have the enter to win an African hunting safari sponsored by the Clash Daily.
http://clashdaily.com/safari-giveaway/
(7 grand is the 1st prize and a box of cigars is 2nd prize.)
I was particulary moved by the women posing next to the dead zebra she shot. Brave girl, shooting a dangerously grazing beast from the equidae family. Of course there was the that box of cigars incentive. What girl could resist that? I'll betcha a nickle, bobin, she's pro life too!(No irony there.(ahem.
Anyway, please don't do that to me again. Don't make me read junk.
Darn, I thought that attacking the messenger instead of addressing the message was a tactic of lefty Democrats, but here I see it's also used by those that support the old guard, big government RINO Republicans too.
Lyndi wrote:
Btw, maybe you already addressed this and I missed it but tell me again. Had the senate republicans gone along with Cruz, what exactly was the Tea Party plan when Obama vetoed it (as he most certainly would have) and sent the thing back to the congress?
I did address it earlier, but here it is again. I doubt that it would have ever gotten to the pResidents desk for obama to veto. Harry Reid would never have allowed the House bill, unamended, to be brought to the Senate floor for a vote. Without cloture, it would have taken 60 votes to amend House bills, that would mean every Senate Democrat would have to vote against funding the government except for obamacare. It would have required some Senate Republican support too. I don't think Harry could chance putting such a bill on the floor, it may have passed, or if it failed, the voters, most of whom don't want obamacare, could take it out on the Senate Democrats that were running for re-election.

The Senate would have been the ones that refused to vote on the House bill, causing the government to shut down.

BTW, Senator Cruz addressed the strategy for 21 hours. Maybe you should have listened to the message, rather than attack the messenger.

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
News Plurality of Americans think Trump is failing (Mar '17) 10 min youareadufus 47,250
News Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 12 min Rosesz 692,153
Prove there's a god. (Mar '08) 14 min youareadufus 990,712
Crackdown On Liberal Safe Space 51 min HalloChristmasWeen 1
THE WHITAKER FAMILY of ODD, WV (Sep '11) 3 hr Just curious 78
Why are Europeans a race of savages, thieves, a... (Jun '15) 4 hr Johnny 471
TWA Flight 800 (Jul '13) 6 hr Doctor REALITY 13
More from around the web