Republicans block Hagel vote for now

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

  • 5

    yabits

    The politics of personal pettiness driven to new lows.

  • 7

    Laguna

    So much for "advise and consent." Pathetic.

  • 3

    SushiSake3

    Unreal.

    First the GOP triggers America's first every currency rating downgrade, now this.

    Anti-American to the core.

  • -5

    Surf O'Holic

    Hagel needs to answer. It's not a "rubberstamp" automatic process. That's the function of Senate approval.

  • -9

    Wolfpack

    Conservatives can only help America by opposing President Obama at every turn. If slowing down Hagel's confirmation leads to more transparency in the Benghazi whitewash then it's all to the better. I say hold out until the President allows the survivors to testify in Congress on what really happened last September 11th (ie. minus the video BS).

  • -6

    Surf O'Holic

    "Anti-American to the core"

    Pretty sure the US Constitution is the pinnacle of what is "American".

    Article 2 Section 2: states the powers of the POTUS including checks on said powers:

    " 2. He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments."

    Note the " and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate" part. That's the checking of the power. There is a president, not a dictator, although the law Obama signed in 2012 gives himself more unchecked power.

  • -8

    bass4funk

    @Wolf

    You mean the way the Dems opposed Justice Supreme Court John Roberts and tried to slow Bush down at every turn. Why is it you Dems have such short turn memories. Hagel is horrible, that conformation hearing was unbearable to watch. The man can't talk, makes unintelligible and in-cohesive sentences. Hagel is a Democrats dream of what they want to see in a Republican, spineless, weak and will do the bidding and whim of this radical President and with each year, Hagel is sounding more like a liberal. He should do what the late Senator Arlen Spector did switch parties. That would be the best thing instead of pretending to be a Conservative.

    I say hold out until the President allows the survivors to testify in Congress on what really happened last September 11th (ie. minus the video BS).

    What happened??? We already know what happened. We saw and heard Hillary. "I like to do other things on the weekends, I just don't like Sunday talk shows" What a crock of BS!

  • -10

    bass4funk

    @Sushi

    First the GOP triggers America's first every currency rating downgrade, now this. Anti-American to the core.

    GOP is at fault for the downgrade?? I guess Obama's out of control spending and GDP growth of less than 2% and constant, constant borrowing from China wouldn't have anything to do with it. Naaaaah.

  • 3

    SushiSake3

    Bass - "GOP is at fault for the downgrade?

    Yes.

    It was GOP brinksmanship that created the uncertainty that triggered Moody's to downgrade the currency.

    Or did the Fox News history revisionists make you believe something else?

  • 0

    SushiSake3

    Every American's president Obama should nominate John McCain, then after the conservatives get all excited and he gets the nomination, the president should just veto it - just for a laugh - and to show the GOP they need to start acting like adults for once. 

  • 2

    SushiSake3

    Bass - "Hagel is horrible, that conformation hearing was unbearable to watch. The man can't talk, makes unintelligible and in-cohesive sentences."

    What do you expect? He's a former Republican..... :-)

  • -1

    Serrano

    Sushi - Conservatives wouldn't get excited about John McCain being nominated. And would you really want Obama to embarrass himself, which is what he would do if he did what you suggest?

  • 3

    Laguna

    How conservatives defend this circus is amusing. Of course, there is the "Benghazi! Benghazi! Benghazi!" cry, which is totally irrelevant to the issue - Hagel had nothing to do with it. GOP fanatics even questioned Jack Lew, Obama's nominee as Treasury Secretary, about it. Their mindset does not preclude summoning Bo, the White House dog, for hearings on Benghazi! Benghazi! Benghazi!

    Of course, they are not so stupid as to use Benghazi! Benghazi! Benghazi! as their stated reason for holding up Hagel's nomination; instead, they state that they need more time to look into his finances. There might be Iranian or North Korean money in there, they imply; in other words, Hagel, a longtime former GOP Senator, might be a traitor! While watching revolutions eat their own babies might be fun and all, one might wonder why the sudden interest in personal finances; it was, after all, only a few short months ago when Romney had their full support.

    This "Obama likes it so it must be evil and anti-American" shtick is getting not only tiresome but dangerous. This is not some labor board leader; this is the Secretary of Defense.

  • 4

    yabits

    Note the " and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate" part.

    LOL!! Two "opposing" senators, McCain and Graham, have already said they will invoke cloture without a single bit of additional "advice" being given. So Hagel will be approved, since he's already gotten 58 votes.

    The Republicans are just stalling to make the United States look very bad in the eyes of the world. There's an important meeting of NATO next week that our Secretary of Defense won't be able to attend due to the childish peevishness of a handful of idiotic Republicans.

  • -4

    bass4funk

    @Sushi

    Yes.

    Ahhh, no, but hey whom am I to argue with people that love watching the More Of the Same National Barack Channel.

    Or did the Fox News history revisionists make you believe something else?

    Sorry, the ratings of the History Channel still break the record of msnbc. :-)

  • -6

    bass4funk

    @sushi

    What do you expect? He's a former Republican..... :-)

    That is now what he always technically was, a liberal Democrat. And I wondered where that speech impediment came from.

  • -5

    bass4funk

    @Sushi

    Every American's president Obama should nominate John McCain, then after the conservatives get all excited and he gets the nomination, the president should just veto it - just for a laugh - and to show the GOP they need to start acting like adults for once.

    When have the Dems acted like Adults? 30 years ago?? This president and his admin. Don't have a clue when it comes to governing and it clearly shows with Hagel. but then again, I shouldn't be surprised at all what this President does. One step closer to bringing the country down.

  • 2

    SushiSake3

    Bass - "One step closer to bringing the country down."

    LOL! You need to stop welding your TV channel switch on Fox News. :-)

  • 3

    SushiSake3

    Bass - "One step closer to bringing the country down."

    Can't you come up with something a little more original like "Obama is ramming XYZ down our throats!!!" or "Obama and his socialist policies are turning America into Europe!!!" or a variation of the above?

    Oh wait.....

    Really, you guys scare yourselves witless. Why? :-)

  • 2

    SushiSake3

    And Bass, is "One step closer to bringing the country down" spoken with the same level of paranoia as that behind the howls of "Let's take our country back!!!!" (from what, exactly?)

  • -5

    Surf O'Holic

    @yabits,

    You focused only on the "advice" part and overlooked the "consent" part.

    Hagel will probably get the green light soon enough, but not immediately. Should the entire Senate simply abdicate their role of checking the Executive?

  • 4

    SuperLib

    Wolfpack: Conservatives can only help America by opposing President Obama at every turn.

    They laid out their vision for America and lost to a Democrat president with 8% unemployment. Right now they are existing completely in their own vacuum.

  • -3

    SushiSake3

    Superlib - "They laid out their vision for America and lost to a Democrat president with 8% unemployment."

    Obama is a Socialist Muslim, too, or so my conservative friends on JT would have me believe...... :-)

    Good times! :-)

  • 0

    smithinjapan

    Clearly the Republicans haven't learned one iota from the shellacking they took in the last election. The constant 'NO's with no reason just don't cut it any more. But hey, they can keep it up all they like and lose the next election as well.

  • -1

    sailwind

    They laid out their vision for America and lost to a Democrat president with 8% unemployment.

    Exactly what vision did they lay out? Only those that would consider themselves interested in politics would actually be able to coherently answer that without the usual partisanship. I would be interested to hear what you thought the vision they tried to lay out was outside of the Media filter that had it that they're vision was all about throwing granny off the cliff, gutting every social program since the dawn of time, forcing women back into the fifties by being barefoot, pregnant and staying in the kitchen where they belong and just cares about the rich and they're Cayman island bank accounts.

  • 0

    SushiSake3

    Sail - " I would be interested to hear what **you **thought the vision they tried to lay out was outside of the Media filter that had it that they're vision was all about throwing granny off the cliff, gutting every social program since the dawn of time, forcing women back into the fifties by being barefoot, pregnant and staying in the kitchen where they belong and just cares about the rich and they're Cayman island bank accounts."

    Um...mate, it seems like you were caught outside the "Media filter."

    What you described above were actual GOP policy goals.

    Sorry you got the wrong end of the stick.

  • -1

    sailwind

    What you described above were actual GOP policy goals.

    What I describe is asinine and ludicrous and respectfully ask that you attempt to answer my query in a rational manner. What exactly was the GOP vision they tried to lay out for the country?

  • -1

    SushiSake3

    Sail - "What I describe is asinine and ludicrous and respectfully ask that you attempt to answer my query in a rational manner. What exactly was the GOP vision they tried to lay out for the country?"

    You said it yourself:

    The GOP do/did want to "throw granny off the cliff" by "gutting every social program" "forcing women back into the fifties by being barefoot, pregnant", and they do - clearly - "just care about the rich."

    You don't seem to understand - they were/are serious, and - as you correctly stated - they ARE "asinine and ludicrous."

    Thanks.

  • -1

    SushiSake3

    Sail, every reason you stated was a key reason the GOP lost the election.

    They were the architects of their own destruction.

    Yes, I think it's pretty funny, too. :-)

  • 1

    SuperLib

    sailwind: Exactly what vision did they lay out?

    Rick Perry, Michele Bachmann, Ron Paul, Mike Huckabee, Herman Cain, Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum, Mitt Romney.

    Where would you like to begin?

  • -1

    zurcronium

    Republicans cant accept the vote of the American people. Obama won in an electoral landslide. But the republicans still play the just say no to Obama no matter what, even if it damages the country. It is not real party any longer, it is a suicide pact for the country. The republicans will not be happy until they completely destroy democracy and again tank the economy.

  • 0

    sailwind

    Where would you like to begin?

    If you wish to talk individual visions for the country by a Conservative that's fine. You've changed what you originally posted unless I misread it. I took it to mean that you meant the overall Conservative vision was laid out and still lost to President with a now 7.9 percent unemployment rate. I'm still curious as to what exactly was the convervative vision that was laid out this election as it seemed to be party sparse in the Media coverage. But individuals it is. So what was Governor Perry's vision that he laid out for the country?

  • 0

    SushiSake3

    "Rick Perry, Michele Bachmann, Ron Paul, Mike Huckabee, Herman Cain, Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum, Mitt Romney."

    Wha I found very, very disturbing was that the conservatives didn't think this group was anything but a bunch of clowns.

  • -2

    SushiSake3

    Honestly, if the GOP props up a bunch of deluded, bone-headed, religious extremists like they did the last time, they will - utterly predictably - get butt whipped again in 2016.

    I've said it before: an uneducated voter base will elect uneducated representatives. 

    That's not an insult - the conservatives have demonstrated this not just with GWB but with the last crop in 2012 as well.

    Like attracts like. 

    It's not just a law of physics. 

    The only way around it is to improve education, an area the GOP also seems dead set on downsizing.

    They will get what they sow and be none the wiser.

  • 0

    SuperLib

    sailwind: If you wish to talk individual visions for the country by a Conservative that's fine.

    That was the slate they put before the American people and it was absurd.

    I'm still curious as to what exactly was the convervative vision that was laid out this election

    I guess I'd have to choose the one put out by Mitt Romney. As to what they was, we'd have to get into specific dates. If you're so concerned about the media distorted conservative message then why don't you just tell me what it really was. Negative points for mentioning Paul Ryan and his imaginary math.

  • -1

    SushiSake3

    Sail - "I took it to mean that you meant the overall Conservative vision was laid out and [they] still lost to [a] President with a now 7.9 percent unemployment rate."

    Correct.

    Sail - "I'm still curious as to what exactly was the convervative vision that was laid out this election"

    Are you saying you don't know? If you don't know now, what did you vote for back in November???? They were only campaigning for, what...in excess of a year?

    Sail - "So what was Governor Perry's vision that he laid out for the country?"

    Whatever it was, it was rejected, along with every other GOP candidate and their ideologies.

    It that's not telling you guys something, I honestly don't know what will.

  • 0

    Madverts

    "I took it to mean that you meant the overall Conservative vision was laid out and still lost to President with a now 7.9 percent unemployment rate."

    Hardly fair not to use "vision" in the plural when discussing Mitt Romney's '12 Flip-Flop-a-Thon, now is it Sailwind?

  • 1

    sailwind

    Are you saying you don't know?

    Not at all, I'm asking quite plainly if you actually do know what the overall Conservative vision for the country was during the past election. No offense, but I still haven't got a coherent response to a pretty straightforward question by you or anyone else that jumping in now. Lot's of character assassinations as usual and typical denigration of anybody who doth dare embrace the heretical title as being a believer in Conservative principles of Government.

    I'd like to think that prior to the election and all the Media coverage on it that at least somewhere there would be at least a smidgen of some sort of real coverage as to what vision Conservatives were about without a bunch of partisan nonsense and it would be pretty easy for anyone to point it out.

    Perry's overall vision from his speech throwing his hat in the ring was this by the way:

    "I will work every day to make Washington, D.C. as inconsequential in your lives as I can, and free our families, small businesses and states from a burdensome and costly federal government so they can create, innovate and succeed. With the help and courage of the American people, we will get our country working again."

    http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0811/61286.html#ixzz2Ktn0dItx

  • 3

    Laguna

    ... the overall Conservative vision for the country....

    An entirely meaningless phrase. Conservatives, just as do liberals, come in many shades, advocate different policies and approaches, and emphasize different issues. Thus, the primaries; if all candidates were the same, primaries would be rather superfluous.

    The GOP is in a bad place now, though. Take immigration; while most Democrats support reform which leads to citizenship, many do not. Their reasons vary (environment, say, or labor rights), but their opposition on this issue is simply a nuance in their whole. Not for the GOP. It right wing, typified by the Te Party,increasingly requires litmus tests for its members; fail, and you'll be primaried from the right. This is precisely the reason why the Senate is holding up Hagel's nomination: It will happen; they know it will happen; heck, most of them, in their hearts, want it to happen - but the can not appear weak in the face of Obama's choices, whatever they are, whether they support it or not, for fear that they will be challenged by the right.

    That "Turd Blossom" Rove is now considered a RINO by many in his party is the height of irony, but it is also a clear symbol of how the GOP is tearing itself apart. Fear has paralyzed them such that they cannot even carry out their basic Constitutional duties. 2014 looks bad for them; 2016 will likely be worse.

  • -1

    Madverts

    Sail,

    It's a bit hard to describe vision when it's clearly the lack of vision the malaise of today's, radicalised, Republican party. All the whining about a media bias as I've already said is nothing more than attitude of the person in denial that blames their parents for all their failures and shortcomings instead of tackling their issues head on. All of you hardcore tea-party swingers moan incessantly about how bad Obama is yet he soundly defeated Romney after the most bitter and dishonest campaigns run by the conservatives, possibly ever.

    As this article once again reminds us; since Obama's election the Republican opposition has but only one vision - obstruction. They couldn't care less how damaging it is for the rest of the country or how potentially catastrophic their brinkmanship could actually be.

    Enjoy the wilderness out there, maybe send us a postcard....

  • -2

    sailwind

    An entirely meaningless phrase. Conservatives, just as do liberals, come in many shades, advocate different policies and approaches, and emphasize different issues.

    Yet, fall under one overall vision umbrella that is far from meaningless at to the people that adhere to it at all. You've describe nothing but a coalition centered on a central vision that all in the coalition agree upon despite factional wedge issues priorities.

    All the whining about a media bias as I've already said is nothing more than attitude of the person in denial that blames their parents for all their failures and shortcomings instead of tackling their issues head on.

    Interesting take you have there. Though hate to disappoint you, my "issues" are pretty simple if your a Conservative your Media coverage is going to suck. Calling my parents isn't going to change it much.

    Rather then worrying about how many times I call my folks to see how they are doing, I'm more interested if you can actually put away the partisan clap-trap and actually answer my original simple question because you and everyone else so far still haven't really provided a coherent answer....What exactly was the GOP vision they tried to lay out for the country?

    Obama's vision was pretty summed up in the words "fair and balanced approached" it was reported so often by the media over and over that even your most mentally impaired low information voter could grasp it when it came time to pull that lever in the booth.

  • -2

    SushiSake3

    Sail, what was the GOP vision?

    As I said, you articulated it quite well yourself:

    "....vision was all about throwing granny off the cliff, gutting every social program since the dawn of time, forcing women back into the fifties by being barefoot, pregnant and staying in the kitchen where they belong and just cares about the rich and they're Cayman island bank accounts."

    Now, can YOU please get serious and explain why you thought it WASN'T that?

    Just before election day, the GOP passed a bill (? I'm not quite sure what it was called) that would have banned abortions in ALL cases.

    If that's not going to keep women "pregnant and staying in the kitchen", pray tell what is?

    And yes, the GOP was planning to "gut every social program" - they were howling for it with Chairman Ryan leading the charge.

    And the "and just cares about the rich" bit. Republicans in their thousands were all for caring for the rich by preserving the elites' tax cuts.

    So no, your claim that your quote above was "asinine and ludicrous" - was ludicrous in itself, and pretty disturbing you would label it as such.

  • -3

    bass4funk

    @Sushi

    LOL! You need to stop welding your TV channel switch on Fox News. :-)

    And watch the good rev. Al Sharpton on the network that NEVER criticizes or ever sees ANY faults in Obama, the channel that basically picks up and carries his water bucket.

    Thanks, but no....

    Can't you come up with something a little more original like "Obama is ramming XYZ down our throats!!!" or "Obama and his socialist policies are turning America into Europe!!!" or a variation of the above?

    Don't need to, you just said it for me. ;D

    Oh wait.....

    Really, you guys scare yourselves witless. Why? :-)

    I think it's the Dems that are coming unglued. Let Van Jones explain it.

    http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/340566/van-jones-marco-rubio-dangerous-democrats-andrew-johnson

    behind the howls of "Let's take our country back!!!!" (from what, exactly?)

    From the incompetent Democrats. Choosing Hagel proves that. The Dems would never stand behind a traditional conservative. That's why Hagel is a God's send for the democrats

  • -3

    SushiSake3

    And of course, at the core of the conservatives' electoral thumping was religion. 

    Specifically Christianity, the religion that gives them cover to abuse, persecute and kick the LGBT community in the gut, the religion that gives them cover to actually try to pass laws that dictate what women do with their own bodies due to their interpret ion of biblical teachings, the religion that gives them cover to ignore climate change due in part to their belief that life on this planet is all coming to an end anyway with Christ's second coming/the Rapture, and the religion that gives them cover to ignore basic science and evolution and instead force themselves to believe in the Creation story, all the biblical talking animals, lightning strikes against "evil people", folks walking on water, and all the other fairy tales - all without a single shred of evidence to back any of it up.

    So, they praise the same god whose teachings were largely responsible for losing them the election.

    Why?

  • 4

    Laguna

    Yet, fall under one overall vision umbrella that is far from meaningless at to the people that adhere to it at all.

    That is very true. Also true is that willful ignorance of reality in the long-run is very self-debilitating. A certain clique in the GOP seems intent on painting the Democratic Party as anti-capitalism and thus anti-American. (The same group also tends to poo-poo global warming and is otherwise very skeptical of science when it does not suit their goals.)

    This group, in their race to distinguish themselves both from the Democrats and from GOP rivals, shrinks two steps back for every step the center takes towards them. Its dogmatism brooks no ideological transgression. Its answers are written in stone; only the evidence must be massaged to meet the forgone conclusions.

    Not all Republicans are like this, of course. Reagan wasn't; he would have found this trend repugnant. Five GOP Senators voted for cloture; one, LIbby of Maine, is retiring; another, Alaska's Murkowski, managed to do both what was right for the country and to flip the bird at Sarah Palin, a founding member of the former group.

    It is likely that these more traditional Republicans will find themselves increasingly isolated within their party though still popular in their states. If the GOP continues on its present course, will they remain with the part - and, if not, where will they go? - or will they be forced from the party? - or will the Tea Party types disengage from the GOP entirely and form their own party?

    The point, Sail, is that the GOP is at civil war with its own message. If you can come up with a unifying message for the GOP which will not have you attacked viciously by one side or the other (and remember, we're talking policy here, not vague aspiration), then you've got a good career ahead of you because no one else can.

  • 0

    lucabrasi

    @Sushi

    I love your posts and I'll give you a thumbs-up without even reading when I'm tired. But stop tarring all Christians with the same brush! I'm as liberal/lefty as you'll ever meet. But that's because I'm a Christian, not despite the fact.

  • -1

    Kyle Alpert

    Sail,

    Allow me to help: the Republican vision was laid out most clearly on that 'Romney Victory' site that leaked on election night: he/they want to prevent '1000 years of Darkness' that will occur if 'Others', who dont share their common heritage, are allowed to lead. For those not initiated into the various cults posing as religions and fraternal organisations, he's referring to something that Hollywood has been referring to for the past couple years.

    Conservatives are in the business of conserving the status quo. They can do it by sabotaging an economy thats set to empower a New Generation of 'Others' (as done by Bush II), or they harry/demoralize those who serve to empower said 'Others', or they can provoke large-scale conflicts/events to effectively purge said 'Others'.

    This confirmation process is just another part of an ongoing, generational system; Irrational, this is not.

  • -1

    SushiSake3

    Sail, really, whatever the GOP's "vision" was is largely irrelevant except to those who want to learn something from the party's second straight election defeat.

    To the rest of us, that "vision" was rejected. 

    Period.

    That's why the GOP lost - again.

    If you want to win again, the conservative party pundits who are saying it's a messaging problem not a message problem are themselves the problem.

    It's clearly a message problem because the message was soundly rejected. The messaging was just the icing on the side but it didn't do anything to help the cause at all, ala Richard Murdock and his "legitimate rape" fantasies.

    So, the solution - if you can call it that - is obvious and it's going to be extremely painful: change the message.

    Which means adjusting and changing your ideological beliefs and standards to keep in step with the same changes that are occurring rapidly in your nation's society.

    Regarding that, I've got 4 words for you:

    Good luck with that!

  • 0

    SushiSake3

    Lucabrasi, I was a Christian too and I used to believe all the stuff I mentioned in my above post.

    Then I actually read the Bible and my faith was crushed.

    Ironic but true!

  • 0

    Madverts

    "Though hate to disappoint you, my "issues" are pretty simple if your a Conservative your Media coverage is going to suck. Calling my parents isn't going to change it much."

    But I wasn't inferring your parents. It was an example to the Denial in which you find yourself as a radical conservative. I'm sure there's a correct medical term for this, but instead of blaming the party ideology and it's swing to 18th century politics, you prefer to invoke a media bias that only you and other disgruntled partisans can either see or understand.

    "I'm more interested if you can actually put away the partisan clap-trap and actually answer my original simple question because you and everyone else so far still haven't really provided a coherent answer....What exactly was the GOP vision they tried to lay out for the country?"

    Good for you. I've already asked you which vision you want to bring up - Mitt Romney's, as we know, where ubiquitous.

    At this point you're bringing up other topics to do anything other than acknowledge the steadfast obstructionism that passes as policy from your radicalised conservative party - it's party before country as usual and be damned with the consequences. Like I said, enjoy the wilderness, it will probably be wise to invest in property considering the time y'all are gonna spend out there...

  • -2

    bass4funk

    @sushi

    And of course, at the core of the conservatives' electoral thumping was religion.

    Specifically Christianity, the religion that gives them cover to abuse, persecute and kick the LGBT community in the gut, the religion that gives them cover to actually try to pass laws that dictate what women do with their own bodies due to their interpret ion of biblical teachings, the religion that gives them cover to ignore climate change due in part to their belief that life on this planet is all coming to an end anyway with Christ's second coming/the Rapture, and the religion that gives them cover to ignore basic science and evolution and instead force themselves to believe in the Creation story, all the biblical talking animals, lightning strikes against "evil people", folks walking on water, and all the other fairy tales - all without a single shred of evidence to back any of it up.

    So, they praise the same god whose teachings were largely responsible for losing them the election.

    Why?

    I get it. You don't like religion and you fear it. Why you want to demonize billions of people and lumping them all together. You have a lot of Conservative Jews and Muslims, you also have liberal Christians, why are you not mentioning them? I don't where you get conservatives hat LGBT? How about the LGBT trying to impose their beliefs on people that are not interested in their agendas. It's all in your head. I have quite a few conservative gay friends. Yea, you have a few over the top nut cases, but the majority of conservatives don't care, hate to burst your bubble. And the same thing goes with women's issues. We don't care! Just don't ask me to pay for their birth control or support any of their causes. I can be Pro-life and respect a woman's right to Pro-choice, you want tolerance, but you yourself are intolerant. If someone doesn't believe in evolution, then let them, it's their choice. So all of Latin Americans, Africans and Pacific Islanders are ignorant people? That's painting a real broad brush now.

  • 0

    sailwind

    Good for you. I've already asked you which vision you want to bring up

    I'm more curious if you can even articulate what the basic Conservative vision of Government really actually is. So far I haven't even got that far with anyone here at all. I'll keep trying though. Do you not want to post at least what you thinkit might be.

    you prefer to invoke a media bias that only you and other disgruntled partisans can either see or understand.

    I'd rather be interested if you can actually post any links other than maybe from Fox News that actually has put any Republican policy, proposal, idea, philosophy in any sort of positive light by the MSM since Obama came on the scene over 5 years ago now.

  • 0

    Madverts

    "So far I haven't even got that far with anyone here at all. I'll keep trying though."

    Is that because it has absolutely nothing to do with the topic?

    But I'll bite on your straw-man - and repeat myself for one final time;

    Which vision?

    Sail, you're beloved party is fighting an internal civil war, lest you did not know. They have been for some time. From the tea-party crazies to the progressives wishing to "recalibrate" the conservative vision......

    And visions aside, it's the recurring, Conservative knuckle-dragging obstruction, devoid of one sole, single novel idea that's the topic and reality here.

  • 0

    Madverts

    And let me take it to the next level Sail, and perhaps even back on topic;

    In what way does the continued GOP obstruction, this time, under the guise of the nomination of Chuck Hagel - further your idea of the Conservative vision?

    Perhaps you might choose to brush of this question as rhetorical, as any reasonable person looking at this in a non-partisan manner will deduce that their obstruction is simply because they can....... and for no other reason.

    Check it out above, the topic has one of our trolls so agitated he's blubbering about Jesus, the second coming, gays and abortion...

    What gives with you guys?

  • 0

    lucabrasi

    @Madverts

    No reason in the world to associate Jesus with conservatism. Quite the opposite, in fact....

  • -2

    sailwind

    But I'll bite on your straw-man - and repeat myself for one final time;

    Which vision?

    What strawman? Its a very simple question that I've asked. You've railed against Conservatives and Republicans for years now. Is it so much to ask after all these years as to what you think is the basic Conservative vision for governance? You've been against it for so long one would think this would be easy to respond to. I'm rather surprised that from all the posts here I still can't get a coherent response to a real simple question.

    Is this that difficult?

    As far as Hagel his confirmation hearing was a disaster and cringe worthy. He came of as totally incompetent and frankly pretty darn scary as the guy to be SECDEF during a very critical time in the DOD. His opposition is deserved he did himself no favors that even liberal outlets were forced to comment negatively on him. The Best Snark was from the liberal Slate Magazine on Hagel (great headline a classic).

    Fluster Chuck Did anyone tell Chuck Hagel there would be questions?

    http://www.slate.com/articles/newsandpolitics/politics/2013/01/chuckhagelconfirmationhearingtheformernebraskasenatorperformed_poorly.html

    And yes Madverts, I've moved on with a link so that you can comment that now and have a way out to ignore my question to you about what you actually think the Conservative vision for governance really is, you were really never going to answer it anyway.

  • 0

    SushiSake3

    Sail, probably unwittingly, last month you and Bass really clarified to me why the GOP lost in November - you both clearly said you could not change your core beliefs. 

    Indirectly related to that, I think one of the most important watershed moments of last year occurred when your President declared his support for gay marriage on national TV.

    That was unprecedented - and it showed just how rapidly attitudes are changing in U.S. society.

    And that's where your problem is rooted - the utter inflexibility of the ideology of many conservatives. 

    And you guys ARE getting it, probably without knowing it in most cases - you can see it in the Richard Murdocks who made the unfathomably inane comments they did: they too are feeling the squeeze and pressure of society's inexorable move towards freedom and flexibility and liberalism, and they are reacting out of desperation.

    And your problem - specifically - is that society is running away from you, and you - thanks to your core unwavering beliefs - are being left behind in the cold.

    The more staunchly you cling to your core beliefs, the more likely it is that the GOP in its current form will NEVER win again.

    And again, many of your and other conservatives' beliefs are rooted in the tenets of your religion. 

    Which, again, is why you just lost another election and why your base is shrinking: because your inflexible beliefs are based on your interpretation of the inflexible tenets of the Christian Bible.

    Society is moving on and conservatives have a stark choice: either move with it, or never win again.

  • 0

    Madverts

    "And yes Madverts, I've moved on with a link so that you can comment that now and have a way out to ignore my question"

    Despite it having absolutely sod all to do with the topic in hand, I've indulged you're strawman by asking you repeatedly to clarify your position on which vision you're actually talking about, since your party have several.

    Feel free to clarify at any time. Thanks.

  • -2

    Surf O'Holic

    Ha Ha Ha! Left-wingers and neo-cons falling all over each other! Ha Ha Ha!

  • 0

    SushiSake3

    Bass - "I get it. You don't like religion and you fear it."

    Claiming I fear something I don't even believe in is just ridiculous. But I realize you were just joking. :-)

    Bass - "How about the LGBT trying to impose their beliefs on people that are not interested in their agendas."

    Examples please?

    Bass - "It's all in your head."

    Quite the opposite. GOP-controlled states passing draconian anti-abortion laws isn't all "in my head." It's written into state laws and influencing the lives of millions of American women.

    Bass - "And the same thing goes with women's issues. We don't care!"

    But you will quite happily vote for candidates who work to actively quash women's rights.

    I get it. I just don't get you.

    Bass - "I can be Pro-life and respect a woman's right to Pro-choice, you want tolerance, but you yourself are intolerant."

    Quite the opposite. I'm pro-choice. I only get rubbed up the wrong way if something someone does affects me directly. Folks like you and your conservative pals are pin-up idols of intolerance in that you are actually willing to vote to restrict the rights and choices of people you don't even know and will never meet.

    You only >perceive< me to be intolerant because in reality, I'm simply pushing back against the intolerance of people like you.

    Every action has a reaction and what you and many conservatives don't think about is which one occurs first.

    I have close Christian friends who do the same thing -  cry foul when non-believers get feisty against their evangelism attempts without realizing the push back is a response to the Christian's intolerance in pushing their religion onto others.

  • 1

    SushiSake3

    Sail - "I'm more curious if you can even articulate what the basic Conservative vision of Government really actually is"

    I'll bite.

    "Small government" and "low taxes."

    Happy now, or do I need to post one more to win the all expenses paid holiday to New Caledonia? :-)

  • 2

    SuperLib

    sailwind: I'm more curious if you can even articulate what the basic Conservative vision of Government really actually is. So far I haven't even got that far with anyone here at all. I'll keep trying though.

    You're parsing the conversation to the point where it's becoming meaningless. Go through my past posts and you'll see dozens of times where I say "everyone wants more efficient government" or "everyone wants to eliminate wasteful spending". Then the next thing I said is that Republicans aren't the ones to do it and it's based on whatever example is at hand, like Sandy relief that was almost held up in order to insert a cheap political message (i.e. I'm the true conservative here).

    I'm assuming at this point that you feel you are a conservative yourself, and you'll give a definition that suits whatever you think it means. And from that point my guess is that you'll blast other conservatives that aren't conservative enough, and tell us that they aren't real conservatives.

    Recently there have been some Republicans who have come out and said that the party needs to change. Do you support those statements?

  • 0

    Madverts

    "Recently there have been some Republicans who have come out and said that the party needs to change. Do you support those statements?"

    That's why I have no idea why he's talking about some requisite Conservative vision the rest of us can't get when I only hear noises that are anything but unified from the GOP.... they recently held an "autopsy" for Pete's sake to discuss their election loses.

    It would seem to be some of the more moderate Conservatives that are breaking ranks that realize that change has to come and fast if they don't want to bomb out again in the midterms. Even Karl Rove is trying to sideline the tea-party radicals.

  • 0

    SuperLib

    That's why I have no idea why he's talking about some requisite Conservative vision the rest of us can't get when I only hear noises that are anything but unified from the GOP.... they recently held an "autopsy" for Pete's sake to discuss their election loses.

    Seems like the conservative message is simple: It's not the one that they delivered in the elections, it's not the one that the media tells you it is, and it's not the one that people even think they know. It's just something that if we really understood we could sideline all the rape comments and government hijacking and really get behind them and support.

  • -2

    bass4funk

    Quite the opposite. GOP-controlled states passing draconian anti-abortion laws isn't all "in my head." It's written into state laws and influencing the lives of millions of American women.

    That is your opinion.

    But you will quite happily vote for candidates who work to actively quash women's rights.

    The way this president is quashing our rights? I don't know what it is with you thinking that conservatives want women at home barefoot and pregnant, if you think that, then I must say, you really don't know what you are talking about. You know for a fact, all conservatives hate women's rights! Again, you need to stop generalizing.

    I get it. I just don't get you.

    Why, because I don't agree with your one-sided POV?

    Quite the opposite. I'm pro-choice. I only get rubbed up the wrong way if something someone does affects me directly. Folks like you and your conservative pals are pin-up idols of intolerance in that you are actually willing to vote to restrict the rights and choices of people you don't even know and will never meet.

    I don't think it's the conservatives that are intolerant here on this thread.

    You only >perceive< me to be intolerant because in reality, I'm simply pushing back against the intolerance of people like you.

    I don't perceive anything, but I will say, you have a right to your opinion.

    Every action has a reaction and what you and many conservatives don't think about is which one occurs first.

    Same goes for Liberals.

    I have close Christian friends who do the same thing - cry foul when non-believers get feisty against their evangelism attempts without realizing the push back is a response to the Christian's intolerance in pushing their religion onto others.

    Goes both ways. You got annoying Christians and annoying Atheists.

    Sushi, now that I gave you a rebuttal, can we get back to talking about Hagel, if that is ok with you?

  • -1

    sailwind

    Recently there have been some Republicans who have come out and said that the party needs to change. Do you support those statements?

    Not at all. I think Bill Whittle actually sums it up the problem the Republican's and Conservatives have and what needs to be done to overcome it. A little over the top but he's dead on overall.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wgxlp2UJI5I

  • 0

    Madverts

    Agreed Sail, Republicans that matter know fine well the message voters have rejected is the right vision for the party after all.

    They just need to smile more:

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/13/colbert-on-karl-roves-ant_n_2678942.html?utm_hp_ref=comedy

  • -1

    sailwind

    Madverts,

    Thanks, but Steve Colbert's snarky form of humor is pretty stale. Pretty sad that the intellectual inspiration for the left the past years has been Jon Stewart, no wonder the U.S is in such a sad state.

  • 0

    sailwind

    Madverts,

    Also just for your consideration. Your average U.S citizen has been so dumb down over the past two or three generations that to get to them, you need to dumb down the message to get their votes. The Republicans are horrible at this as they tend to be a bit older and still operate in a mode that they can "explain" policy in depth instead of being eviscerated by a twenty second sound bit taken out of context and be stuck forever explaining that instead of the policy by the press.

    Republicans and Conservatives have to treat every press encounter as hostile and every interview as hostile. The Republicans have to accept that your average voter actually believes Jon Stewart is somehow worthy of being the benchmark for serious politics and have to dumb down their message to the pop culture level, that is the reality of today.

  • 0

    Madverts

    "The Republicans are horrible at this as they tend to be a bit older and still operate in a mode that they can "explain" policy in depth instead of being eviscerated by a twenty second sound bit taken out of context and be stuck forever explaining that instead of the policy by the press."

    Yes damn those young 'uns and the horrid, horrid for misinterpreting old men's comments about rape! Or evolution!

    At this point Sail I must only assume you're living in an alternate reality to the rest of us where Republicans aren't making utter fools of themselves. In fact speaking of comedy mate, and I mean this in the spirit of fun as someone who's known you for a good few years, you sound more like Stan Smith from American Dad with each day that passes :D

  • -1

    sailwind

    At this point Sail I must only assume you're living in an alternate reality to the rest of us where Republicans aren't making utter fools of themselves.

    Madverts,

    This happened just two days ago: Marc Rubio gave the Republican rebuttal to Obama's State of the Union Speech He then took a drink of water that wasn't telegenic. He had to reach for it to take a swig before he resumed his speech.

    Silly Season Begins: Rubio Watergulp Scandal Shows The Media’s Dwindling Appreciation for Substance

    So what happens when a respected 41-year-old Cuban-American Republican U.S. Senator is put on the national stage?

    The media turns him into a punch line. And if you’re like most Americans too busy to devote hours of time to watch the State of the Union and its rebuttal, the news you got this morning portrayed Rubio as Cindy in the infamous spelling bee episode of the Brady Bunch (Cindy aces all tests in school until a red light on a camera during a televised contest freezes her beyond repair).

    Poor impression made.

    Mission accomplished.

    Only 44 months until Election Day.

    The same cable anchors who lament not being taken seriously enough—all while taking our elected leaders to task for not tackling the serious issues of the day—have turned political analysis into Nancy Kerrigan vs. Tonya Harding. It’s all a baton and figure skating judging now…

    Deficits? Jobs? GDP? Guns? Taxes? Solutions?

    Who cares?

    Marco Rubio. Drank. Water. On the air.

    And the Fourth Estate wonders why its own approval rating is washing down the drain…

    http://www.mediaite.com/online/silly-season-begins-rubio-watergulp-scandal-shows-the-media%E2%80%99s-dwindling-appreciation-for-substance/

    I rest my case. Madverts

  • 2

    globalwatcher

    Hagel has nothing to do with Benghazi. The Republican party is becoming a "Stupid Party" as Jindal stated. Hagel should be confirmed.

  • -2

    Wolfpack

    Hagel has nothing to do with Benghazi. The Republican party is becoming a "Stupid Party" as Jindal stated. Hagel should be confirmed.

    Democrats would have to be stupid to believe that it doesn't make any difference that the US ambassador and three other Americans were murdered and no one should be held responsible for it. That is what the Obama administration believes and holding up the Hagel nomination in order to compel Obama to provide some information is legit. Obama will not even allow other Americans on the scene to come forward and disclose what they know about what happened. That just doesn't make any sense.

    Hagel is a disaster as a Secretary of Defense. As such, he is a perfect fit for the Obama administration.

  • 3

    SuperLib

    Wolfpack: Democrats would have to be stupid to believe that it doesn't make any difference that the US ambassador and three other Americans were murdered and no one should be held responsible for it. That is what the Obama administration believes and holding up the Hagel nomination in order to compel Obama to provide some information is legit.

    Just like trying to hold up Sandy aid for a comprehensive review of the insurance system is legit. Or downgrading the US's credit standing in order to extract concessions on spending is legit. Or holding up the farm subsidies bill to debate food stamps is legit. Or an unprecedented number of filibusters is legit as well.

    Now we have no defense secretary because of Republican's "legit" concerns. We're all just collateral damage to them. Enjoy your Bengazi vacuum where the notion of Republican credibility actually exists.

  • -1

    Wolfpack

    I rest my case. Madverts

    Wow - perfect rebuttal. The "independent" media's support of the Hagel nomination is just the latest evidence that American journalism is dead. The media will spend the next four years identifying anyone they think is a threat to the Democrat party's next Presidential candidate and will do everything they can to attempt to undermine them. From Candy Crowley's debate assistance for Obama to the silliness over Rubio's drink of water.

    Slam dunk for Sailwind.

  • 1

    yabits

    This happened just two days ago: Marc Rubio gave the Republican rebuttal to Obama's State of the Union Speech He then took a drink of water that wasn't telegenic. He had to reach for it to take a swig before he resumed his speech.

    This is so laughably, embarrassingly idiotic. Enough of the "liberal" media took plenty of time away from his drink of water to make a very key point: Rubio had plenty of criticism of Obama, but not a single new idea to counter that criticism.

    The Republicans are like the food critic who thumbs his nose at everything coming out of the gourmet chef's kitchen, but when you ask him what he can prepare, he doesn't want to bring up the fact that all he's got is week-old oatmeal, warmed over. You need a lot of liquid to wash down week-old oatmeal.

  • -5

    Wolfpack

    SuperLib:

    Now we have no defense secretary because of Republican's "legit" concerns. We're all just collateral damage to them.

    Except that Leno Panetta - the current Secretary of Defense - is still on the job and has stated that he will remain on the job until his successor is confirmed. Hagel will get his vote. Making up things doesn't do your criticisms of Republicans any good. Just another straw man argument by the Obammunists.

    It is amazing how supporters of Obama have a complete lack of curiosity for the bungling and irresponsibility that led to the deaths of four people working for the US government. Obama is as secretive as J. Edgar Hoover.

    What is collateral damage is Obama's stupid idea for a sequester. It is going to end up costing the military while the war still goes on in Afghanistan. All because Obama refuses to cut a single dime from domestic spending. His role as commander-in-chief comes secondary to his role as monarch to the unenlightened masses and spender-in-chief.

  • -1

    sailwind

    FREEDOM! BENGAZI! SOCIALIST! MUSLIM! FOREIGNER! EMPEROR! JESUS!

    How would you like to dumb that down?

    People that utter those things are racists.

    Next

  • 3

    Madverts

    wolfpack,

    "Slam dunk for Sailwind"

    Heh, yup - he found an article that agreed with his OCD regarding the mainstream media and you agree with it so clearly I stand corrected.

    Personally I imagine Sail is pretty glad for the distraction from his failure to address the topic despite all the others he's dragged in, but I'm betting everything in my wallet right now he's pretty embarrassed having a poster using terms like "Obammunists" defend him.

    "Democrats would have to be stupid to believe that it doesn't make any difference that the US ambassador and three other Americans were murdered and no one should be held responsible for it."

    As a Bush supporter and an ardent advocate of the lies that sent thousands of Americans to their deaths in Iraq, we all know the Bengazhi "outrage" is faux partisan outrage. It's beyond pathetic, even coming from you.

    Basically you're voicing your support for the one and only thing the Republican Party can bring to American politics these days, obstruction. And as Sailwind blissfully ignored above, the only real reason for this is simply because they can, the American people be damned.

    I find it astounding that's this is justified because Hagel is such a poor choice he's perfect for an Obama administration which you yourself have been calling the worst ever administration - even amazingly, heh, before the man was first inaugurated in 2009....

  • 3

    Madverts

    Sail,

    "Deficits? Jobs? GDP? Guns? Taxes? Solutions?"

    I watched Rubio's English language retort - it offered absolutely nothing in ideas or substance other than the promise of further obstruction. The pressure is clearly on Rubio as the one and only candidate the GOP think they can field in 2016, yet his address appeared that of an amateur, so yes I think a bit political humour is in order. You sure didn't mind it when Obama bombed the first debate and the media and comedians used it.....(I suppose the conspiracy was halted due to some technicality there too)

    I realize you're not as far gone as Mr Obammunist above, but there is going to be a point when howling at the media is no longer going to soothe the Denial of your beloved party as it continues to implode. At this rate you've got a good chance of loosing the House in the mid-terms. And believe me if Karl Rove even agrees with me, it might be time to lift the blinkers and remove your hands from your ears man.

  • 0

    yabits

    Near "slam-dunk" for Madverts.

    You sure didn't mind it when Obama bombed the first debate and the media and comedians used it.....(I suppose the conspiracy was halted due to some technicality there too)

    LOL. Note also that the "media" was in total agreement that Hagel's performance was awful in his Senate hearing. Clearly more conspiracy at play here.

  • 0

    Madverts

    "Note also that the "media" was in total agreement that Hagel's performance was awful in his Senate hearing. Clearly more conspiracy at play here."

    Only in partisan, "pissed we can't win an election" la-la-land.

    I'm surprised someone with a brain like my man Sailwind would circuitously take this particular axe to the grinding stone. If "the media cannot put any Republican policy, proposal, idea or philosophy in any sort of positive light since Obama came on the scene over 5 years ago" I'd be asking myself why dammit, instead of howling conspiracy.....

  • 0

    yabits

    If "the media cannot put any Republican policy, proposal, idea or philosophy in any sort of positive light since Obama came on the scene over 5 years ago" I'd be asking myself why dammit

    What we can hope for, at a minimum, is that whoever our opponents may be, that they have some basic level of rationality and reasonableness. Once someone gives in to easy explanations such as conspiracies have to offer, they've thrown in the towel and can't be reasoned with, only ridiculed.

    There is so little meaningful content coming from the Republicans of today -- whether in opposition to Hagel or Obama's SOTU address -- that something as simple as taking a drink of water stands out. All Rubio had to do was to first beg his audience's forbearance and then take a drink of water and (perhaps) make light of that need. It's what Obama would have done -- something that absolutely inflames his lessors.

  • 2

    SuperLib

    Wolfpack What is collateral damage is Obama's stupid idea for a sequester.

    I've seen you mention this before. It was an agreement by both parties, so saying that Obama owns this is fantasy. Republicans signed off on it as well. We just didn't know they fully intended to make it happen if they didn't get their way.

  • 0

    Madverts

    "What we can hope for, at a minimum, is that whoever our opponents may be, that they have some basic level of rationality and reasonableness."

    Oh, you'll always get that from Sailwind to be fair. It's the only reason I bother.....

    Rubio looked amateurish - not just the awkward water gulping, he wasn't at home where the GOP leaders thrust him. Let's face it, 2016 is going to be a re-run on 2012 - they have nobody that can face Hilary Clinton so they will be throwing someone to the wolves. I wonder how many in the GOP powers-that-be were actually pretty darned glad to finally get rid of Romney by giving him the losing nod last year....

  • -1

    Wolfpack

    @SuperLib:

    I've seen you mention this before. It was an agreement by both parties, so saying that Obama owns this is fantasy. Republicans signed off on it as well. We just didn't know they fully intended to make it happen if they didn't get their way.

    Oh please. This idea came from the Obama administration. Bob Woodward is pretty openly Liberal and that is what he reported in his most recent book. No one has proven that factoid to be false.

    Apply your rationale about the sequester to the decision to go to war with Iraq. It was Bush's idea but many Democrats supported it, including a majority of Democrats in the Senate (Clinton, Edwards, Kerry, etc). If Obama didn't introduce the idea of the sequester in the negotiations it never would have come up and it wouldn't be about to come to pass. So if you can say that Bush "owns" the Iraq War after it was voted on in a bipartisan fashion, then Republicans can say that Obama "owns" the sequester since he pushed for it in the negotiations.

    Like I said, Obama "owns" the sequester. It was a tactical mistake on his part - just admit it.

  • -1

    Wolfpack

    @Madverts:

    but I'm betting everything in my wallet right now he's pretty embarrassed having a poster using terms like "Obammunists" defend him.

    What's so bad about the word "Obammunist"? The man does act as a dictator by attempting to go around Congress at every opportunity. He refuses to moderate his own policy agenda and is incapable of compromising or negotiating in good faith. The word fits his style of governing quite nicely.

    As a Bush supporter and an ardent advocate of the lies that sent thousands of Americans to their deaths in Iraq, we all know the Bengazhi "outrage" is faux partisan outrage. It's beyond pathetic, even coming from you.

    Are you referring to the same lies that Hillary Clinton independently validated through her friends in her husbands administration due to the fact that she didn't trust President Bush? The same lies that the UN accepted as fact? Bush acted based on the intelligence he was given. I don't see how you can blame him for that. You can't expect the man to go undercover in the Iraqi desert himself to look for evidence before making the decision. John Kerry and Clinton voted for the war yet Obama made them both Secretary of State. Besides, Hussein was a horrid dictator - I don't know why Liberals continually lament his demise.

    Basically you're voicing your support for the one and only thing the Republican Party can bring to American politics these days, obstruction. And as Sailwind blissfully ignored above, the only real reason for this is simply because they can, the American people be damned.

    Republicans are simply doing to Obama exactly what Pelosi and Reid did to Bush? Remember Bush's push to reform Social Security? Democrats wouldn't even talk to Republicans about it despite the fact that the program is in dire financial condition. It is slated to go bankrupt right around the time the last Baby Boomers move into the system. All they did was say "no" to the Republican agenda. I think Democrats deserve the same treatment they gave Bush. By doing so, Republicans may give the country a chance to avoid a financial and economic calamity.

    As for Hagel, he will get his vote. He will become Secretary of Defense (for the Palestinian Lobby). And yes, he fits in nicely with the worst president in my lifetime - maybe ever.

  • -1

    sailwind

    You sure didn't mind it when Obama bombed the first debate and the media and comedians used it.....(I suppose the conspiracy was halted due to some technicality there too)

    The first time your low information voter got see President Obama raw and unfiltered? Not edited by the Media? Hate to state the obvious but nobody could ignore how bad he did even Comedians in the tank for him. He didn't have his Media "cloak of invisibility" working for him that night at all. Don't worry they got back to "What about your gaffes Mr. Romney mode soon enough"

    Secondly there is no Media conspiracy. A conspiracy is something ones hides as to ones true motives and intent. The MSM doesn't hide its bias and water carrying for Obama at all, anybody that actually claim different is flat out not even bothering to think for themselves and are just useful parrots .

    The Media was enthralled it help elect America's first Black President showing the entire world that activist journalism can indeed correct social injustice and then went throwing everything it had to protecting him from harm since he came on the scene. Anyone who dares to oppose is going to be smeared as either a racist, woman hater, gay basher, ignorant gun toter, backward thinking neanderthal. This is the dumbing down to the lowest level and what sticks in the brain of your low information voter.

    Republicans are obstructionists, old angry white guys who believe the bible version of creation in 7 days and are just backward twits. The Media is on a mission to aid the Democrats to send the Republican party into oblivion as a political force in America life.

    Two voices on the internet understand this completely:

    I previously wrote about how BuzzFeed Politics has combined “the culture” and savvy crafting into a highly effective tool for undermining Republicans with subtle and not-so-subtle mockery. “Look at the goofy cat, look at the goofy celeb, look at the goofy Republican” is more dangerous to us than a 5000-word article in The New York Times Sunday Magazine.

    http://legalinsurrection.com/2013/02/upworthy-or-how-we-are-losing-the-internet-to-lowest-of-low-information-young-liberals/#more

    And if anyone actually reads anything anymore:

    http://ace.mu.nu/archives/336869.php

    I'll leave you with a quote In the above link that sums this up:

    The true source of Obama's power is completely overlooked (or willfully ignored) by the GOP, perhaps because it is too terrifying to contemplate, too awesome to engage: that he has completely removed an investigative and anti-authoritarian media (in Mencken's famous adage, one committed in part "to afflicting the comfortable") from the political dynamic. Obama operates with the most massive propaganda arm ever been seen in modern history. He is essentially invulnerable. At no point did Romney/Ryan come close to addressing this sick truth so dangerous to our society and freedoms.

  • -1

    sailwind

    If "the media cannot put any Republican policy, proposal, idea or philosophy in any sort of positive light since Obama came on the scene over 5 years ago" I'd be asking myself why dammit, instead of howling conspiracy.....

    Madverts,

    Missed this, my apologies. I don't need to ask why, a reporter already did that for me and has the answer for anybody to see. The same Rolling Stone reporter that ended General McChrystal's career.

    Reporter On Obama’s ‘Amateurish’ Press Corps: ‘When They’re Near Him, They Lose Their Minds’

    he revealed that journalists who covered President Barack Obama during the campaign were sometimes so overcome by his presence that they would “lose their minds” and behave in “juvenile” and “amateurish” ways. Among other anecdotes, Hastings admitted that he once had the opportunity to ask the president hard questions, but was so similarly moved by his presence that he only asked “soft” questions.

    http://www.mediaite.com/tv/reporter-on-obamas-amateurish-press-corps-when-theyre-near-him-they-lose-their-minds/

  • 1

    yabits

    Oh, you'll always get that from S_ to be fair. It's the only reason I bother.....

    I'm afraid that responding to a question about why the media seemingly can't seem to put any Republican policy, proposal, idea or philosophy in a positive light with a response that they have "lost their minds" in the presence of Obama is towards the opposite end of the spectrum from rationality and reasonableness.

    It might explain an apparent failure to be critical of Obama -- proven false in in this thread -- but it does nothing to explain the point you made.

  • -1

    sailwind

    I'm afraid that responding to a question about why the media seemingly can't seem to put any Republican policy, proposal, idea or philosophy in a positive light with a response that they have "lost their minds" in the presence of Obama is towards the opposite end of the spectrum from rationality and reasonableness.

    It is not rational or reasonable to think that there isn't a single Republican proposal, idea or philosophy that carries absolutely zero positive features. To take a position that their is nothing at all positive to the Republicans which you do defies common sense, is totally irrational and begs the question 'have you lost your mind".

  • 2

    yabits

    It is not rational or reasonable to think that there isn't a single Republican proposal, idea or philosophy that carries absolutely zero positive features.

    If that was the position taken, it would not be rational or reasonable. For example, if 90% of the American people are in favor of universal background checks, it could not be said that the opposing position has "absolutely zero positive features." What is zero or near-zero are the number of Republican policies and proposals that be said to claim support from a majority of the American people.

    As it regards Hagel, a majority of the American people think he should be approved. The resistance to his nomination to this point has ranged from the truly nutcase (Ted Cruz) to the admission (by McCain) that the opposition is due to Hagel's not buying into the Republican line lock, stock and barrel; ie - not being partisan enough. There has been nothing in the way of honest "advice and consent" from the Senate's minority party in this.

  • 2

    Madverts

    wolfpack,

    "What's so bad about the word "Obammunist"?"

    Absolutely nothing I guess. That's the level of discussion that you're happily at and I'm happy for you.

  • 1

    Madverts

    "The first time your low information voter got see President Obama raw and unfiltered?"

    Uhm, no actually.

    His opponent probably can't remember but he did debate John "Benghazi" McCain. In fact, I hear the old fella is thinking of changing his name to "McBenghazi" to make it easy for him to remember since that is about all he's got to offer the American people these days. But I digress...

    Can you tell me what in the hell that diatribe about the media has got to do with topic, Sail? One of the 20 year old lads working for me starting prattling on about the Illuminati this evening, and how they've secretly ruled the earth for centuries and bada-bing et bada-boom. He obviously just got introduced to the internet world of conspiracy - believe me you sound no different in your crusade in its' current form, yet I feel you should know better...

    It isn't just the media that have rejected what the Republicans have to offer - more importantly, voters have too. Obama's r-election should have been a big wake-up call but it would seem a great many of you would prefer to remain in Denial rather than see the writing on the wall. I'm hoping it's before you end up like the Wolf.....and I guess you can take that as genuine concern.

  • 0

    Madverts

    Yabits,

    "but it does nothing to explain the point you made."

    You've lost me.

  • 0

    yabits

    You've lost me.

    Sorry. I believe your point was that the media wasn't putting any Republican policy, proposal, etc., in a positive light. The response to that point was something about the members of the press "losing their minds" in the presence of Obama.

    There didn't seem to be a rational connection between the two things.

  • 0

    Wolfpack

    @Madverts:

    Absolutely nothing I guess. That's the level of discussion that you're happily at and I'm happy for you.

    As if calling conservatives "knuckle-dragging" obstructionists - as you wrote in a recent post - raises the bar on thoughtful discussion. I'll have you know that obstructionism is a time honored part of political combat. For example, when Bush wanted to change Social Security to allow Americans to have a choice to actually own their own assets (I know, that is a shocking concept), Pelosi and Democrats obstructed his efforts. Was that a sign of "knuckle-dragging" on the part of Liberals?

    Besides, the delay of Hagels nomination is not obstruction. When John Bolton was nominated for UN Ambassador, Democrats delayed and delayed his nomination demanding more and more documents. His nomination was delayed so long that he was finally given a "legal" recess appointment. That is obstruction. Hagel will get a vote because unlike Democrats, Republicans believe that Executive Branch and Supreme Court nominees should get one. I often wish Republicans would play the game exactly as the Democrats do and give their opponents more delay and even "obstruction" than they do.

    As he demonstrated by his inept nomination hearing Hagel is not up for the job. But hey, neither is his boss!

  • 0

    sailwind

    It isn't just the media that have rejected what the Republicans have to offer - more importantly, voters have too.

    That's my point Madverts. The voters have not rejected what the Republicans have to offer at all. The House of Representatives changed barely at all along with the Senate. President Obama won with less votes then he had in 2008 he did not increase his margin from 2008 he decreased it. The Republicans increased to 30 the number of Governors in the nation with an R by the name and increased at the State legislator level all across the nation.

    The election in 2012 was status quo at the national level, the American people did not embrace the Democrats and they did not reject the Republicans. They voted for divided Government and that is exactly what they got. But at the state and local level the Democrats were not able to gain any traction at all and have been roundly defeated in the battles they chose such as Wisconson despite a heavly funded recall attempt against Governor Walker they lost badly. He actually increased his original vote total as opposed to Obama who decreased his original vote total.

    No offense but since you like to decry my "media conspiracy" I have to ask did it ever occur to you that you just parrot articles many time without knowing it? Such as you've done here with the claim voters rejected what the Republicans have to offer. The facts are different. They rejected Romney the individual they did not reject Republicans anywhere else at the State and national levels. 2010 was a rejection of the Democrats. 2012 was ground gained for the republicans at the local and state level and status quo at the national.

  • 1

    Madverts

    I would hope you expect me to read and digest articles before forming an opinion, rather than simply parroting them Sail....

    I guess you still haven't come to terms with this but Obama won an electoral landslide against Romney, and more importantly the essential popular vote, contrary to your election eve prediction I thankfully never took to the bank :p....

    I appreciate partly what you are saying on a regional level, but the whole off-topic subject you brought in from the outset of this thread is the "conservative vision" for the country - so I'm at a loss as to how you expect your last argument to stick on a a national level unless you're going to bring something else in. Face it, voters rejected your conservative vision(s).

    Also, you might remember that some of your tea party darlings bombed out big time, but not after ousting some honourable Republican moderates. This can only be seen as a costly mistake further down the line and certainly nothing more from a moment of madness from voters feeling the economic pinch.

    I've said it before, desperate people do desperate things in desperate times - the tea party are nothing but a fad of self-defeating crazies bringing rash comments, poor judgement and anger to a level they deserve not to have such a voice. Thankfully I'm sure they're just a fad that will scream themselves to implosion, and the sooner the better. But the harm they are doing is going to cost the party for years in my humble opinion.

    The Republican party needs to move back from the trend of extremist creep and return towards the centre if they want to win over voters any time soon. But since I can't even get you to acknowledge the civil war raging in your own party, or for you to accept the aforementioned skew to extremism of the past decade and more, I'm not sure where to take it from here.

    If I may bring this back on topic, namely the steadfast, pointless, obstructionism from the Republicans - I can't see how you cannot see that this is going to hurt them badly next year and beyond unless they can get it together and reign in the tea party nonsense. And even with heavyweights like Karl Rove rightly seeing the writing on the wall and declaring war on the radicals, I'm doubting they can.

  • 1

    Madverts

    "As if calling conservatives "knuckle-dragging" obstructionists - as you wrote in a recent post - raises the bar on thoughtful discussion"

    People who think the world was build in six days, 6000 years ago and that think women's bodies can shut down baby-making facilities after rape (and if they don't it's because the Dear Father in Heaven demanded it) are knuckle-dragging Neanderthals and I stand by my use of that adjective. You're own, is the pure, petty, childishness and lack of understanding of communism, Marxism or any of the other noises devoid of any intelligence that radical and often racist conservatives have been making since Obama won the 2008 election.

    Don't take my word for it:

    "Ending Abortion Is 'One Of Our Most Fundamental Goals This Year' " - John Boehner

    I'm pretty sure that guy is high up in the party, but you might wanna check. In the midst of the worst economic crisis, obstructing the President through his entire first mandate and stopping a woman from having control over her own body are the fundamental goals of the GOP. Enjoy the wilderness Mr Benghazi, you sure earned it.

  • 1

    Madverts

    Yabits,

    "I believe your point was that the media wasn't putting any Republican policy, proposal, etc., in a positive light. The response to that point was something about the members of the press "losing their minds" in the presence of Obama. There didn't seem to be a rational connection between the two things."

    I simply do not understand why the press should be expected to put Republicans in a positive light when the GOP themselves are working at what can only be seen at times their hardest at proving the opposite. The part is rightfully in disarray like a ship at sea with blown engines, and the crew savagely fighting each other about who knows best to fix it and be damned the approaching rocks.......

  • 0

    sailwind

    Don't take my word for it:

    "Ending Abortion Is 'One Of Our Most Fundamental Goals This Year' " - John Boehner

    Madverts,

    I can't take your word for it. You or whatever media source you got this from has twisted it and lied once again to demonize Republicans. This is exactly what I mean when I say you end up just being a parrot and to be honest I do even think you realize it at all. His remarks were to a pro-life rally held in Washington D.C on the anniversary of Roe vs Wade and he never called for ending abortion by passing any sort of law or by force. He believes in promoting a culture of life and to view abortion as a human rights issue as to way to make it in his exact words........

    It’s about promoting a culture of life. It’s about understanding that abortion is a defining human-rights issue of our time. Because human life is not an economic or political commodity, and no government on Earth has the right to treat it as such.

    With all that’s at stake, it is becoming more and more important for us to share this truth with our young people, to encourage them to lock arms, speak out for life, and help make abortion a relic of the past. Let that be one of our most fundamental goals this year.

    This is exactly what I mean by just parroting Media narratives and bias. Speaker Boehner's remarks to the rally are not controversial, moronic or even radical. He is making a case that thousands adhere to in promoting a culture where every child is wanted and every life is precious and framing it as a human rights issue. We are talking about a potential human being after all and whether pro-life or pro-choice a human entity is involved and is something no one can deny.

    I'll address your other comments later, I just had to point this out to you first.

  • 0

    sailwind

    Madverts,

    Apologies link for his all of his remarks at the rally in Washington.

    http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/338823/speaker-house-abortion-human-rights-issue-kathryn-jean-lopez

  • 0

    yabits

    Besides, the delay of Hagels nomination is not obstruction. When John Bolton was nominated for UN Ambassador, Democrats delayed and delayed his nomination demanding more and more documents.

    Wolfpack expects people to have forgotten the facts of the case, as he certainly has.

    When Bolton was nominated in 2005, Republicans held majorities in both houses of Congress. Bolton was virulently anti-UN, a fact that concerned the Senate Foreign Relations Committee so much that, even though Republicans held a 10-8 majority, could not get a positive endorsement of Bolton to send to the main body. That's a major embarrassment, and totally different than Hagel's case.

    i suppose that Bolton's recess appointment is an example of a president acting "dictatorial."

  • 0

    sailwind

    Madverts,

    As promised back on your previous comments. Quick sidetrack I hope you did not infer that I was accusing you personally of intentionally lying with your use of Boehner's inaccurate media comment on abortion. I reread my post and I may not have been clear enough that my chagrin is directed entirely at the media source you used and not at you at all for using it and I would like to apologize to you in advance if I came to close to inadvertently falsely accusing you of changing the original quote. I have way to much respect for you as a long time poster and heated debate partner to ever think you would intentionally mislead anyone ever .

    I appreciate partly what you are saying on a regional level, but the whole off-topic subject you brought in from the outset of this thread is the "conservative vision" for the country - so I'm at a loss as to how you expect your last >argument to stick on a a national level unless you're going to bring something else in. Face it, voters rejected your conservative vision(s).

    The reason I brought the "conservative vision" into the discussion was to see if anyone could actually be able to articulate it through the now pro-Obama dominated media. It never really was by anybody which just proves to me how effective Obama's campaign along with his media allies really was in bringing the fusion of pop culture and politics to a whole new level. The Democrats get pop culture and they get social tech along with marketing savvy.

    Republicans on the other hand are dinosaurs at this right now. Social media isn't in the republican DNA as of yet.

    Also as I've stated more or less many times I do not think the overall conservative vision of smaller government, less taxes and fiscal sanity is being rejected at all. I think it is purposely being stifled or mocked as backwards and just not being allowed out at all in any meaningful way anymore on the national level to be actually considered first. This is one of the genius aspects of Obama's campaign and his team with a totally complaint media aiding the effort. It's almost impossible for Republicans to overcome it at this point and the "civil war" in the Republican party happening right now is not so much an internal war but I think a huge overall frustration in the party at how to effectively combat the new Democrat social media dominated "industrial complex" in the age of Obama if you will.

  • 0

    Madverts

    Many thanks for your kind words Sail-san. I will reply to all tomorrow, lacking in time right now ...

  • 0

    Wolfpack

    @Madverts:

    People who think the world was build in six days, 6000 years ago and that think women's bodies can shut down baby-making facilities after rape (and if they don't it's because the Dear Father in Heaven demanded it) are knuckle-dragging Neanderthals and I stand by my use of that adjective.

    So it's guilt by association is it? Since some crazy dudes calling themselves Republicans say some nutty things you brand all with the title 'knuckle-dragging Neanderthals'. Nice trick. I could play this game with you as well. Since a "well respected" Liberal professor wants to do away with the Constitution, then all Liberals want to do the same - see, I can do that all day also. So I suppose you could say that since Chuck Hagel is supposedly a Republican then he is also guilty? No, of course not - he is a Republican in name only right... Come on Madverts - guild by association? That's pretty weak.

    In the midst of the worst economic crisis, obstructing the President through his entire first mandate and stopping a woman from having control over her own body are the fundamental goals of the GOP. Enjoy the wilderness Mr Benghazi, you sure earned it.

    This isn't the worst economic crisis - if you think so you don't know much about history. In my opinion, it isn't even the worst economic crisis in my lifetime. The unemployment rate was much higher due to Carter's presidency and we had to deal with the difficult phenomenon of stagflation. As for abortions, I am not against them assuming they take place prior to the child's heart begins to beat or brain activity commences. Women do control their own bodies - it's when they want to control the bodies of others that is at question in the abortion debate.

    Obstructing a man with dictatorial zeal isn't a bad thing in my opinion. Given that Obama cannot convince Congress to do things his way he is increasingly opting for Executive Orders. He makes threats - pass my immigration bill or I will make immigration policy myself; pass my environmental bill or I will make environmental policy myself, etc. etc. Democracy isn't easy so he wants to take the easy route and run the country himself. Thus he has earned the title Obammunist. Controlling other people's lives is his way of running the world the way he wants to. You must have ObamaCare and he will not allow you your own choice. You must have Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, etc. There is no opting out of participation in a governing philosophy that has led to upwards of $16.5 trillion in debt (six of which have come in the last 4 years alone).

  • 0

    Madverts

    "This isn't the worst economic crisis - if you think so you don't know much about history"

    World economists are against you, as is the GOP's number one nemesis, arithmetic, but whom am I to get in the way of a man that voted for George W Bush twice, and thinks that Obama is a Marxist, Muslim, communist born in Timbuktu? Heck buddy you must be right. Sorry, but's far too late to try and pass yourself off as a serious poster any more mate, you gave that up descending to political extremism, even calling Obama the "worst president ever" before he was even inaugurated.

    As to all that guilt by association twaddle in regards to the Knuckle Dragging Extremists in the bowels of your party, if you don't care to actually read my posts (as above where I mention moderate Republicans time and time and time again) then I have no more time for you.

    Like I said, keep up the ranting about Benghazi whilst you can - the Boy Who Cried Wolf clearly wasn't read to you as a child.

  • 1

    Madverts

    "As promised back on your previous comments."

    Thanks - I'm on a new project at the mo and time is scarce now the sun has finally started to shine.

    "Quick sidetrack I hope you did not infer that I was accusing you personally of intentionally lying with your use of Boehner's inaccurate media comment on abortion. I reread my post and I may not have been clear enough that my chagrin is directed entirely at the media source you used and not at you at all for using it and I would like to apologize to you in advance if I came to close to inadvertently falsely accusing you of changing the original quote."

    No, not at all. There were plenty of reports carrying the comments Boehner made at his fundie rally. Sorry Sail, but when you're Speaker of the House and general Big-wig in a political party, you expect for your comments to be in the headlines. And as Speaker of the House, when he says ramming his and other Conservative knuckle-draggers obsession with controlling what women do with their bodies and ending abortion being 'One Of Our Most Fundamental Goals This Year' it take it to mean the party he represents and the office he holds.

    Sure I can see how you manage to fit the way the title was phrased and add it to your conspiracy, one can always see what one wants to see after all, especially in the murky world of the All Seeing Eye. Reality?

    This is what you get from having high-up fundies in power and opening their mouths. No one is forcing Boehner to have an abortion, and this is but another distraction from the topic.

    "It never really was by anybody which just proves to me how effective Obama's campaign along with his media allies really was in bringing the fusion of pop culture and politics to a whole new level. The Democrats get pop culture and they get social tech along with marketing savvy."

    With all due respect, are you being obtuse here? I've asked time and time again which vision you mean, the party currently have several. Is it the radical vision? The not-so radical vision? The moderate vision? Come on now, last chance.

    "Republicans on the other hand are dinosaurs at this right now. Social media isn't in the republican DNA as of yet."

    This isn't because they don't have FB or Twitter accounts or can't sign off using LOL. They are dinosaurs for the most part. This is good Sail, I feel like we're making real progress here....

    "Also as I've stated more or less many times I do not think the overall conservative vision of smaller government, less taxes and fiscal sanity is being rejected at all. I think it is purposely being stifled or mocked as backwards and just not being allowed out at all in any meaningful way anymore on the national level to be actually considered first."

    Neither do I totally. But the problem doesn't stem from your perceived media bias, it's the very fundies that have hijacked your own party sending out the bad vibes and putting off voters contrary to any message or vision that might have any sense.

    "This is one of the genius aspects of Obama's campaign and his team with a totally complaint media aiding the effort. It's almost impossible for Republicans to overcome it at this point and the "civil war" in the Republican party happening right now"

    Again pure fantasy - the media and Team Obama have nothing to do with the Tea Party crazies detrimental actions to the GOP.

    "is not so much an internal war but I think a huge overall frustration in the party at how to effectively combat the new Democrat social media dominated "industrial complex" in the age of Obama if you will."

    Come on that's a cop-out. The only thing that is going to get the Republicans back on the map is by draging themselves in unity - both those from the 19th, and those from the 20th century right here to the present day. Like I said, blaming other elements instead of waking up to the problem only feeds the cancer.

  • -1

    JTDanMan

    "Republicans block" is all they got.

    Supposedly, they decided blocking everything was the best way to defeat Obama. Well, we saw how that worked. But really, that was just post rationalization for the Bagger Republican insane extremism. Republican blocking = Republican extremism. And it only helps them get re-elected to the House, and only because they gerrymandered the hell of of the districts. Many millions more voted for Dems for the House, but because of Gerry Mander, we got the asshat Republican, er, "majority"

    Simply put, the Republican party is broken. They cant' win elections without being nicer to brown people, but they can't be nicer to brown people because the base of the party is full of Right Wing Idiots.

  • 0

    Wolfpack

    Like I said, keep up the ranting about Benghazi whilst you can - the Boy Who Cried Wolf clearly wasn't read to you as a child.

    I really don't see why the most transparent president in history cannot allow the survivors of the Benghazi slaughter to speak to Congress. What's the big deal? Although he acts like he is a king, the Obama administration really shouldn't be above taking responsibility for it's actions (or inaction). I am still convinced that Hagel will not be filibustered or treated similarly to controversial Republican nominees of the past. That said based on his nomination hearing the man is a train wreck.

    World economists are against you, as is the GOP's number one nemesis, arithmetic, but whom am I to get in the way of a man that voted for George W Bush twice, and thinks that Obama is a Marxist, Muslim, communist born in Timbuktu? Heck buddy you must be right.

    You are just plain wrong about what economists believe - if they believe in arithmetic.

    In the first 36 months of the Obama recovery, jobs have increased by just 1.7% as compared to Bush's 43 (2.9), Clinton/Bush 41 (3.6%), and Reagan (9%). Now to per capita increase in GDP over the first 36 months the numbers are: Obama (4.3%), Bush 43 (6%), Clinton/Bush 41 (5.6%), and Reagan's (15.3%). So how are world economists against me? There is a smaller percentage of Americans with jobs now than when Obama took office. That's pretty bad this far into a "recovery".

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=axfTmFdPpP0

    Arithmetic. Do you really want to get into arithmetic? The numbers really speak for themselves when it comes to Obama's economic incompetence. When Bush ran up a $450 billion debt in his final year in office, Obama stated that this was so horrible that the man was unpatriotic. If $450 billion is unpatriotic than what is an average or over $1 trillion per year? Senator Obama would likely call that treason. It's pretty obvious Obama has a liberal arts degree - because he certainly knows little about business or economics. His strong suit is in Leftist political ideology - and it shows. No President has ever run up more debt (probably not even FDR during a world-wide war) than has Barack Hussein Obama. That right there qualifies him as the worst president ever. At current projections, Obama will have run up more debt in his eight years in office than all other presidents before him - combined.

    Yes, I did vote for Bush AND voted against Gore, Kerry, and Obama (twice thank you). I don't really think Obama is a Marxist - he is just a garden variety Southern European Socialist. I don't think Obama is a Muslim just because his father was. I could care less what religion he is (I am not religious myself). I have no problem believing he was born in Hawaii. So, is there any other whacked out beliefs that you want to ascribe to me? You are on a roll so you might as well keep it going.

    Sorry, but's far too late to try and pass yourself off as a serious poster any more mate, you gave that up descending to political extremism, even calling Obama the "worst president ever" before he was even inaugurated.

    Well, if you feel that way then it must be true - from reading your posts you surely should not be taken seriously. By the way, what is so extreme about stating a fact - Obama is a horrible president. By his own standards he is more unpatriotic than Bush 43. Surely if Obama is worse than Bush in anything he must be quite bad!

  • 0

    sailwind

    Madverts,

    Your never going to admit the Media is in the tank for Obama and the Democrats and have been since he came on the scene. I get that. But I will continue to point out the fallacy of your positions outside of what the overall media narrative reporting such as the party has been hijacked by extremists.

    But the problem doesn't stem from your perceived media bias, it's the very fundies that have hijacked your own party sending out the bad vibes and putting off voters contrary to any message or vision that might have any sense.

    If this was factual that the so called fundies had really actually hijacked the party then Mitt Romney would have never been the Repulican nominee it is just that simple.

    Again pure fantasy - the media and Team Obama have nothing to do with the Tea Party crazies detrimental actions to the GOP.

    The "Tea Party crazies" were directly responsible for handing the Democrats the largest defeat in congress since the 1930's in 2010. If this is called a detrimental action the GOP needs a lot more of them. The 2012 election kept them right where they are at.

    The question I have is why didn't the Media also focus on how Obama had zero coattails and zero real influence in changing Congress back toward the Democrat fold. Where was that Media conservation on this to the public Madverts? Isn't that just as relevant as the noise about how the Republicans are in some sort of implosion right now? Doesn't that show that the public really isn't down with Obama's policies because they sure didn't provide him a Congress to enact them. Where is that Media anaylsis and the tough questions to the Democrat party leadership??

    Ever hear a question like this out of our Media.....The President won Ms. Wasserman (DNC Chair) but the Democrats overall failed to make any real gains in Congress does that tell you that your party needs to change if they ever hope to ever regain Congress?

    You won't and that is my entire point.

  • 0

    yabits

    If this was factual that the so called fundies had really actually hijacked the party then Mitt Romney would have never been the Repulican nominee it is just that simple.

    The Tea Party loonies floated a bunch of "candidates," like Bachmann and Cain, but they turned out to be real clunkers who would have fared far worse than Romney. Meanwhile, one has only to consider how nearly every one of Romney's positions on issues veered hard right from the time he was governor of Massachusetts. (Can anyone believe this was the guy who said he'd be better for homosexual rights than Ted Kennedy?) His pick of Paul Ryan was yet another bone thrown to the "bagger-right."

    There are at least two ways to hijack a car: One is for the hijacker to throw the driver out and drive it himself, and another way is to point a weapon at the driver and force him to drive in the desired direction. Yes, it is "just that simple."

Login to leave a comment

OR
  • Sales & Marketing Staff

    Sales & Marketing Staff
    Nicolai Bergmann (ニコライバーグマン株式会社)、Tokyo
    Salary: ¥230,000 / Month Negotiable
  • Social Media Manager

    Social Media Manager
    Nicolai Bergmann (ニコライバーグマン株式会社)、Tokyo
    Salary: ¥230,000 / Month Negotiable
  • Cafe Kitchen Staff

    Cafe Kitchen Staff
    Nicolai Bergmann (ニコライバーグマン株式会社)、Tokyo
    Salary: ¥200,000 / Month Negotiable
  • Cafe Manager

    Cafe Manager
    Nicolai Bergmann (ニコライバーグマン株式会社)、Tokyo
    Salary: ¥250,000 / Month Negotiable
  • SERVICE AND SUPPORT SPECIALIST

    SERVICE AND SUPPORT SPECIALIST
    SCALA KK、Tokyo
    Salary: ¥2.5M / Year Negotiable

More in World

View all

View all