Boehnoer Blinked!

[rock on sooner]

DHS funded for the rest of the fiscal year by a bill that had
no riders....a clean one....wow, heckuva way to run the gubment!

Here's a thought....awww, nm...

[okie52]

Rock...once the court shot down executive amnesty I thought the pubs should have funded it right then figuring it will be a while before the courts can overturn the decision....it also gave them an out with the base.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

court schmort congress schmongress constitution whazzat. Democrat talking points and their megaphoned trumpeters are what goes in today's America. It's all executive power, at least until the democrats regain congress.

[SicEmBaylor]

Well, he's a **** sucking weeping Oompa Loompa, so who could be surprised?

[SicEmBaylor]

There's a considerable amount of hypocrisy by many who criticize this (rightfully so). A few facts need to be kept in mind:

1)A REPUBLICAN President, George W. Bush, created the Department of Homeland Security -- an entirely new cabinet level bureaucracy built from the ground up. When we talk about the 'growth of government', this is a concrete example of such growth.

2)The DHS routinely threatens the liberty and civil rights of ordinary American citizens while organizing to combat a "right-wing revolution."

3)DHS is largely responsible for the militarization of police forces by selling military-grade equipment and vehicles to law enforcement agencies while providing new training programs that treat law-abiding citizens as adversaries to be monitored as opposed to citizens to be protected.

4)DHS and the entire national security apparatus continues to have strong conservative/Republican support despite the threats and dangers posed to civil rights/liberties.

...with all of that in mind, it's pretty hypocritical for some to get made at that bleeding vagina -- Boehner for pushing through a DHS funding bill. The agency should never have been created in the first place, but everyone was too busy praising the hell out of Bush as he expanded the size and scope of government in ways that Clinton and Carter could only have dreamed of -- a policy continued by his successor. DHS was and remains a Republican created and Republican funded Federal agency that has no reason to exist.

[dwarthog]

I don't think you can lay the DHS 100% at Bush's feet. He did sign into law it's creation but this was in the works for a while as a recommendation from the Hart-Rudman commission started under Clinton to study how to handle "homeland" security moving forward etc. and they bent Bush over pretty hard after 9/11 saying if he had followed their recommendations that would have been prevented the attack.

The whole don't let a crisis go to waste mentality.

I agree with you, damn thing is a mistake. They should be looking outward instead of inward. Militarizing police forces and monitoring American citizens who have legitimate disagreements with the government which is within our rights, is bull****.

It's amazing how quickly and how willing people are to give up rights under the pretense of being safe.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Little doubt the voters erred bigtime by not electing algore and john effing kerry in 00 and 04, and would be srsly advised to vote in Hillry or Warren or whomever d in 16:concern:

and BTW, muchos kudos to us, for wisely choosing Bear in 08 and 12.Without Him, we wouldn't have gotten all the free chit from govt, and the warm and generous welcome to all the new citizens.

[TheHumanAlphabet]

I am done with Boner and the Repubs. I will vote to screw them up as much as possible from here on out. Why? They are no retort to the Leftists, they are just leftist lite. They were given a mandate this past election and have given us all the finger intheir capitulation. Definitely the party of Neville Chamberlain...

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

and so it goes, the election that marked the end of opposition to statism. Teddy Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, you finally prevail! the Joy!

[Soonerjeepman]

The problem is there are no choices...sucks. I'll vote for every new person in the primaries....but it won't matter. Then we are stuck with a pub or dem....a vote for the independent is a vote for the dem.

Like I've said many times before...it's a joke. They ALL are in bed with each other. They only want to keep themselves in office and us paying for it. I would bet that the majority of American Citizens, legal, 75% would support term limits...yet it NEVER gets brought up...EVER.

[olevetonahill]

The problem is there are no choices...sucks. I'll vote for every new person in the primaries....but it won't matter. Then we are stuck with a pub or dem....a vote for the independent is a vote for the dem.

Like I've said many times before...it's a joke. They ALL are in bed with each other. They only want to keep themselves in office and us paying for it. I would bet that the majority of American Citizens, legal, 75% would support term limits...yet it NEVER gets brought up...EVER.

Yup the Big money boys got em all in their pockets.

[SicEmBaylor]

I don't think you can lay the DHS 100% at Bush's feet. He did sign into law it's creation but this was in the works for a while as a recommendation from the Hart-Rudman commission started under Clinton to study how to handle "homeland" security moving forward etc. and they bent Bush over pretty hard after 9/11 saying if he had followed their recommendations that would have been prevented the attack.

The whole don't let a crisis go to waste mentality.

I agree with you, damn thing is a mistake. They should be looking outward instead of inward. Militarizing police forces and monitoring American citizens who have legitimate disagreements with the government which is within our rights, is bull****.

It's amazing how quickly and how willing people are to give up rights under the pretense of being safe.

Uhm, yes, you can lay it entirely at the feet of Bush. He was the President of the United States and the House of Representatives was solidly Republican at the time. Any argument to the contrary is ridiculous spin. Bush enthusiastically established the DHS.

[SicEmBaylor]

The problem is there are no choices...sucks. I'll vote for every new person in the primaries....but it won't matter. Then we are stuck with a pub or dem....a vote for the independent is a vote for the dem.

Like I've said many times before...it's a joke. They ALL are in bed with each other. They only want to keep themselves in office and us paying for it. I would bet that the majority of American Citizens, legal, 75% would support term limits...yet it NEVER gets brought up...EVER.

That's an asinine and bull**** thing to say, and I'm so sick of hearing that damned argument that it gets under my skin every time. No. A vote for an independent (or third party which is really what I think you mean) is NOT a vote for a Democrat. It absolutely is not. Either a Republican earns your vote or he doesn't. I have absolutely NO respect for someone who votes Republican when there is an independent/third party candidate available more in-line with that person's politics...whether it be from the left or the right. Either you vote for someone you legitimately believe in or DON'T VOTE! Because doing otherwise is the reason the country is in the shape that it's in. YOU are the problem....not someone who votes Democrat....YOU are the problem. Let me make this clear: Stop voting because you're ****ing the country up.

[dwarthog]

Uhm, yes, you can lay it entirely at the feet of Bush. He was the President of the United States and the House of Representatives was solidly Republican at the time. Any argument to the contrary is ridiculous spin. Bush enthusiastically established the DHS.

Didn't say any of that wasn't true. That he signed it and republican's and dem's enthusiastically supported it is correct.

Just pointed out the "concept" wasn't his and he initially pre 9/11, hadn't committed to supporting it. That's not spin. Just the way it unfolded.

Whether he would have supported it in a world without 9/11 taking place is anyones guess, but initially that wasn't the case.

[SicEmBaylor]

Didn't say any of that wasn't true. That he signed it and republican's and dem's enthusiastically supported it is correct.
Most enthusiastically supported it, but when you say a line like "The President signed it...", the implication is that the DHS bill was not his own. Make no mistake, the creation of DHS was very much his plan regardless of the fact that the creation of that agency was built upon previous work -- that's largely irrelevant. Most legislation on that scale is the result of work done and proposals in previous years -- sometimes decades in the making. That's neither new nor special to the case of DHS.


Just pointed out the "concept" wasn't his and he initially pre 9/11, hadn't committed to supporting it. That's not spin. Just the way it unfolded.
The "concept" of any legislation is rarely the President's. That's what Think Tanks are for. You could use that same argument to absolve Obama of responsibility for the Affordable Care Act. That's how these things work. The argument you're making is absolutely no different than any other major piece of legislation any given Administration supports or proposes that Congress pass.


Whether he would have supported it in a world without 9/11 taking place is anyones guess, but initially that wasn't the case.

He would not have supported it because it's unlikely the issue would ever have been before him. It would never have reached the White House to the point that he would have had to make a decision, but pre-9/11 Bush in general was very different than post-9/11 Bush. Bush was the guy who campaigned in 2000 *against* nation building. It's one of the reasons I supported him in the 2000 primary.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Sorry Sicem, he's correct about the third party vote helping the democrat get elected. Simple math is irrefutable. As screwed up as many, too many, republicans are, I don't see any that are as damaging to the country as virtually all democrats in politics, and I agree that we are in dire straits right now as a country. But, the only thing that makes sense is to limit damage, or vote for the person that is least objectionable, and that has a chance of actually winning. Simple as that.

[Soonerjeepman]

That's an asinine and bull**** thing to say, and I'm so sick of hearing that damned argument that it gets under my skin every time. No. A vote for an independent (or third party which is really what I think you mean) is NOT a vote for a Democrat. It absolutely is not. Either a Republican earns your vote or he doesn't. I have absolutely NO respect for someone who votes Republican when there is an independent/third party candidate available more in-line with that person's politics...whether it be from the left or the right. Either you vote for someone you legitimately believe in or DON'T VOTE! Because doing otherwise is the reason the country is in the shape that it's in. YOU are the problem....not someone who votes Democrat....YOU are the problem. Let me make this clear: Stop voting because you're ****ing the country up.

that's bull****, screw you...so voting for your independent / third party has got you where? It'll be a day that he11 freezes over that a third party will even get close to winning anything.. I vote for the challenger in the primaries and it's usually not even close..but I try. Tell me how well voting for your independent has turned out? Has any of them ever beat out a dem? I really could care less if you, some internet person I've never met, never will, nor has ANY value to me respects me...lol.

[Soonerjeepman]

Sorry Sicem, he's correct about the third party vote helping the democrat get elected. Simple math is irrefutable. As screwed up as many, too many, republicans are, I don't see any that are as damaging to the country as virtually all democrats in politics, and I agree that we are in dire straits right now as a country. But, the only thing that makes sense is to limit damage, or vote for the person that is least objectionable, and that has a chance of actually winning. Simple as that.

yup

[SicEmBaylor]

Sorry Sicem, he's correct about the third party vote helping the democrat get elected.
That works both ways. It can also help, and has helped, Republicans get elected. But that's beside the point -- if a Democrat gets elected because the Republicans offer a ****ty candidate then that's nobody's fault but Republicans. The inability of you or other Republicans to take responsibility for the fact that Republicans haven't offered a product worth buying is astounding to me. It's simple capitalism. Either offer the market something they want to buy or go out of business. But don't blame the consumer for making a choice consistent with that consumer's needs and beliefs.


I don't see any that are as damaging to the country as virtually all democrats in politics, and I agree that we are in dire straits right now as a country. But, the only thing that makes sense is to limit damage, or vote for the person that is least objectionable, and that has a chance of actually winning. Simple as that.

Of course you don't which is why the country is in the state that it's in, it's the reason the Republican Party has a difficult time winning national elections, and it's the reason that the public doesn't trust the Republican agenda.

[SicEmBaylor]

yup

Compelling counter-argument, sir.

[FaninAma]

The only viable option to reversing the power grab by the federal government is state and local nullification......just ignore their mandates.

[SicEmBaylor]

The only viable option to reversing the power grab by the federal government is state and local nullification......just ignore their mandates.

Agreed! It takes *very* willing Republicans on the state level to buy into that though, and there aren't too many of those. There will never be enough of those kinds of Republicans if people keep voting for *any* kind of Republican with an (R) next to their name.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Agreed! It takes *very* willing Republicans on the state level to buy into that though, and there aren't too many of those. There will never be enough of those kinds of Republicans if people keep voting for *any* kind of Republican with an (R) next to their name.Are you the new Sooner8th, with an insistence on always having the last comment in a thread?

[SicEmBaylor]

Are you the new Sooner8th, with an insistence on always having the last comment in a thread?

I didn't realize the thread or the conversation had 'ended' and that all comments were to cease.

[rock on sooner]

Sorry Sicem, he's correct about the third party vote helping the democrat get elected. Simple math is irrefutable. As screwed up as many, too many, republicans are, I don't see any that are as damaging to the country as virtually all democrats in politics, and I agree that we are in dire straits right now as a country. But, the only thing that makes sense is to limit damage, or vote for the person that is least objectionable, and that has a chance of actually winning. Simple as that.

Ummm, just a small point here, in 2000 the Indies voted for W 48%
vs 46% for Gore. That % was reversed in 2004 but W got there twice..
In 08, Indies were 52% for Obama and 44% for McCaian, in '12 Indies
went 50% for Romney and 45% for Obama and Obama got there twice
so not sure about your argument.....

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Ummm, just a small point here, in 2000 the Indies voted for W 48%
vs 46% for Gore. That % was reversed in 2004 but W got there twice..
In 08, Indies were 52% for Obama and 44% for McCaian, in '12 Indies
went 50% for Romney and 45% for Obama and Obama got there twice
so not sure about your argument.....2000 had the raving leftist lunatic Green Party candidate, Ralph Nader, who stole votes from algore. That helped W. In the 92 and 96 elections, the hand grenade with a bad haircut Ross Perot stole votes from Bush senior and Dole, respectively, to throw the election to Der Schlickmeister.

If a third party candidate is perceived conservative, he or she splits the conservative vote with the republican. On the rare occasion when the third party candidate is perceived whacko liberal, such as when Nader ran, he or she takes votes from the democrat. Complicated it's not.

[rock on sooner]

Heh, "hand grenade with a bad haircut"

[dwarthog]

That works both ways. It can also help, and has helped, Republicans get elected. But that's beside the point -- if a Democrat gets elected because the Republicans offer a ****ty candidate then that's nobody's fault but Republicans. The inability of you or other Republicans to take responsibility for the fact that Republicans haven't offered a product worth buying is astounding to me. It's simple capitalism. Either offer the market something they want to buy or go out of business. But don't blame the consumer for making a choice consistent with that consumer's needs and beliefs.


Of course you don't which is why the country is in the state that it's in, it's the reason the Republican Party has a difficult time winning national elections, and it's the reason that the public doesn't trust the Republican agenda.


As a Precinct Chairman what actions are you taking to get good candidates, I.E. "product" on the ballots for people to vote for?

Additionally, once you have them on the ballot how are you ensuring that it's known a particular candidate is bringing something to the political process that is moving the Republican party the right direction?

[SoonerorLater]

I have still yet to figure out if you are a Republican or even just conservative how it is of any benefit to vote for the "typical" Democratic candidate as opposed to even a moderate RINO type, assuming there aren't any glaring character flaws or criminal indictments etc.

[SicEmBaylor]

As a Precinct Chairman what actions are you taking to get good candidates, I.E. "product" on the ballots for people to vote for?
Well, I myself ran so there's that. ;)


Additionally, once you have them on the ballot how are you ensuring that it's known a particular candidate is bringing something to the political process that is moving the Republican party the right direction?
A good example are the candidate interviews we used to conduct for a non-partisan conservative organization I was a member of and worked for when I lived in Texas for ten years. That's the benefit of being a conservative first and foremost and a Republican last. When you spend time vetting candidates and conducting private interviews, you get a better sense of an individual. That's not to say we were always right, but when misled it's important to primary them out when possible or simply pull support entirely and let the chips fall where they may.

[SicEmBaylor]

I have still yet to figure out if you are a Republican or even just conservative how it is of any benefit to vote for the "typical" Democratic candidate as opposed to even a moderate RINO type, assuming there aren't any glaring character flaws or criminal indictments etc.

It's of no benefit at all, and I've never once argued that a person should vote Democrat over a Republican unless that Democrat is demonstrably more conservative than the Republican. What I have argued until I'm blue in the face is not voting for a Republican simply because they are a Republican -- if they don't demonstrably make an effort to expand individual/civil liberties while reducing the size and scope of government then you shouldn't vote for them. That means abstaining or voting third party, but I've never argued voting Democratic.

[SoonerorLater]

It's of no benefit at all, and I've never once argued that a person should vote Democrat over a Republican unless that Democrat is demonstrably more conservative than the Republican. What I have argued until I'm blue in the face is not voting for a Republican simply because they are a Republican -- if they don't demonstrably make an effort to expand individual/civil liberties while reducing the size and scope of government then you shouldn't vote for them. That means abstaining or voting third party, but I've never argued voting Democratic.

As a practical matter it would be pretty rare where of your two choices the Democrat would be more conservative than the Republican candidate. In this case doing nothing (abstaining) is, in and of itself doing something, as the Democratic candidate would be the net benefactor of inaction. Same with a third party throw-away vote.

[SicEmBaylor]

As a practical matter it would be pretty rare where of your two choices the Democrat would be more conservative than the Republican candidate. In this case doing nothing (abstaining) is, in and of itself doing something, as the Democratic candidate would be the net benefactor of inaction. Same with a third party throw-away vote.

Well, that view is idiotic and borderline insulting but continue to do as you please. Its been working out incredibly well thus far.

[FaninAma]

As a Precinct Chairman what actions are you taking to get good candidates, I.E. "product" on the ballots for people to vote for?

Additionally, once you have them on the ballot how are you ensuring that it's known a particular candidate is bringing something to the political process that is moving the Republican party the right direction?

I think the local and state level GOP organizations are doing a much better job of presenting a marketable product to the voters. Hence the total annihlationof the democrats at those levels in the last election.

[SoonerorLater]

Well, that view is idiotic and borderline insulting but continue to do as you please. Its been working out incredibly well thus far.

.... and your logic is absurd. I hope nobody takes you seriously. It seems like you find it more important to make a statement as some ruggedly individualistic ideologue than you do to make an effort to elect the more conservative candidate, even if they are only marginally conservative or maybe not conservative at all.

A casual but certainly not exhaustive check shows that in the US Senate not one (1) Democrat received a higher conservative ranking than a Republican. Not one. In the House some but not many. Of those Democrats that did I would be willing to bet the vast majority beat an even more conservative Republican.

But hey, if it makes you feel more philosophically pure that's what's important, right?

[SicEmBaylor]

.... and your logic is absurd.
I give my vote only to candidates that, by and large, share my same values. If you want to call that absurd then had at it.


I hope nobody takes you seriously. It seems like you find it more important to make a statement as some ruggedly individualistic ideologue than you do to make an effort to elect the more conservative candidate, even if they are only marginally conservative or maybe not conservative at all.
I've spent the last 15 years working to elect conservatives. I'm not interested in simply electing Republicans for the sake of electing Republicans nor am I certain why I should be expected to break my back every cycle to elect "marginally conservative" candidates. If they aren't conservative at all then my question is, why the hell would you want them to be elected or why it would then make a difference who was elected?


A casual but certainly not exhaustive check shows that in the US Senate not one (1) Democrat received a higher conservative ranking *rating* than a Republican. Not one. In the House some but not many. Of those Democrats that did I would be willing to bet the vast majority beat an even more conservative Republican.

Not sure what your point is since I never suggested anything to the contrary. However, I actually worked on TX legislative ratings for three sessions. You have to keep in mind that only a dozen or so votes are used to tabulate ratings, and the *reasoning* behind a vote is not considered. For example, a Democrat who voted against the Medicare Prescription Drug program because it wasn't expansive enough would be given credit for a 'conservative' vote even though they voted that way because the program didn't go far enough. You have to take ratings with a grain of salt.


But hey, if it makes you feel more philosophically pure that's what's important, right?
I'm not trying to be ideologically pure in any way. I've never agreed with a candidate 100% of the time. What I expect out of someone who wants my vote is very simple. It isn't a hard standard to meet, and so long as *all* Republicans fail to demand the same thing as I do, the more we're going to be stuck with the McCains, Peter Kings, Bush families, and Romneys of the world. What I expect is that, generally speaking, they make legitimate efforts and strides to expand individual/civil liberties while reducing the size and scope of government (not just a reduced rate of growth).

More freedom-less government is what the Republican Party purports to stand for. Before voting for an incumbent, find out what they have done to accomplish either of those goals. If their record is thin or non-existent then they shouldn't have earned your vote. You may call me ideologically 'pure' all you want, but expect little and get little.

[SoonerorLater]

Not sure what your point is since I never suggested anything to the contrary. However, I actually worked on TX legislative ratings for three sessions. You have to keep in mind that only a dozen or so votes are used to tabulate ratings, and the *reasoning* behind a vote is not considered. For example, a Democrat who voted against the Medicare Prescription Drug program because it wasn't expansive enough would be given credit for a 'conservative' vote even though they voted that way because the program didn't go far enough. You have to take ratings with a grain of salt.

My point is that having an (R) beside your name is the best predictor of a more conservative voting record. It's really not disputable. Even the most moderate Republicans have more conservative voting records than their Democratic peers. Knowing that why would you not vote Republican? Always. If you are conservative, in the general election, even abstaining is like giving the Democratic candidate half of a vote. Same with throwing away a vote on third party non-contenders.

An example. Take Joe Manchin (D) and Olympia Snowe (R). Left to their own devices I would go so far as to say Machin might philosophically be more conservative than Snowe who isn't conservative at all. But simply because Snowe has the (R) by her name she will be shepherded into casting more conservative votes by Senate leadership. In the end what matters is how you vote when you get to DC.



https://votesmart.org/interest-group/1481/rating/5397#.VPjdNC5QCKU