Oh Happy Day: Boehner Resigns from His Speakership And Congress

[FaninAma]

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/26/us/john-boehner-to-resign-from-congress.html

I wonder if my Congressman, Tom Cole, will have to follow him out the door since he had his head up Boehner's @$$ so far it will take surgery to remove it. I bet Peter King's head is about to explode.

[Turd_Ferguson]

Good riddance. McConnell should be next.

[Soonerjeepman]

"It became clear to me that this prolonged leadership turmoil would do irreparable harm to the institution," Boehner said. "This isn't about me. It's about the people. It's about the institution."

yes it is you idiot...you didn't follow what the people wanted.

[SicEmBaylor]

I.e. Meadows was getting very close to securing the votes to remove him as Speaker, and he didn't want to risk that indignity.

Now, if the caucus supports a legitimate conservative as Speaker then it will be a signal they've received the message. If they get behind McCartney then it's a sign of 'business as usual.' Amash for Speaker!

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

They need someone who doesn't fear the Media, and will challenge the democrats and RINO's. The US needs to confront statism. It's time. Destabilizing maybe, but it must be done.

[hawaii 5-0]

I'm all for term limits for Congresspersons.

And Lobby reform.

Some of those fossils shoulda been gone long ago.

5-0

[hawaii 5-0]

I.e. Meadows was getting very close to securing the votes to remove him as Speaker, and he didn't want to risk that indignity.

Now, if the caucus supports a legitimate conservative as Speaker then it will be a signal they've received the message. If they get behind McCartney then it's a sign of 'business as usual.' Amash for Speaker!



Exactly.

5-0

[FaninAma]

They need somebody who will push back aggresively against the encroachment of the Executive and Judicial branches on the authority of thelegislative branch. I do not believe for one moment that the Founding Fathers meant for the Legislative branch to be the weakest of the 3 supposedly co-equal branches.

[SoonerorLater]

New boss same as the old boss.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

They need somebody who will push back aggressively against the encroachment of the Executive and Judicial branches on the authority of the legislative branch. I do not believe for one moment that the Founding Fathers meant for the Legislative branch to be the weakest of the 3 supposedly co-equal branches.nochit

[Curly Bill]

Good riddance to Boehner - the sniveling, weak, piece of crap!

[rock on sooner]

Welp, if you thought Congress was in gridlock, just wait. It's gonna get
a lot worse.....

[Curly Bill]

They need somebody who will push back aggresively against the encroachment of the Executive and Judicial branches on the authority of thelegislative branch. I do not believe for one moment that the Founding Fathers meant for the Legislative branch to be the weakest of the 3 supposedly co-equal branches.

Quite the opposite in fact!

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

I've seen that the R in the House could be pushing for another RINO as speaker, Kevin McCarthy

[SicEmBaylor]

Welp, if you thought Congress was in gridlock, just wait. It's gonna get
a lot worse.....

I like how the progressive view of a 'productive' Congress is defined by how much rubber stamping it does for the executive branch.

[Serenity Now]

I like how the progressive view of a 'productive' Congress is defined by how much rubber stamping it does for the executive branch.

I kind of agree. An effective Congress's would negotiate and get changes in legislation that would involve a compromise by both parties. A successful congress for the next two years will be measured by how much they buck the administration.

[Soonerjeepman]

I'm all for term limits for Congresspersons.

And Lobby reform.

Some of those fossils shoulda been gone long ago.

5-0

Yup...don't hold your breathe...voting themselves out of the job not going to happen

[hawaii 5-0]

Yup...don't hold your breathe...voting themselves out of the job not going to happen


I don't hold my breath on anything posted on this Bored. It's for entertainment value only. Nothing will get resolved here or in Congress.

5-0

[Soonerjeepman]

I don't hold my breath on anything posted on this Bored. It's for entertainment value only. Nothing will get resolved here or in Congress.

5-0

Relax Francis....I know. It was a bit of sarcasm.

[hawaii 5-0]

Relax Francis....I know. It was a bit of sarcasm.


I was being a bit sarcastic myself. I allow several of my Liberal friends (the ones who think I'm too conservative) to see the antics posted on this Bored.

Besides the humorous rants of the neo-cons they really love the 12 year olds Toad and Curly Sue.


5-0

[Turd_Ferguson]

(the ones who think I'm too conservative)Wow...they must be some real flamers.

[champions77]

We see how the Rhinos have "gone along" with most every Democratic initiative. I think it is important to ask why?

The Dems have won most every major PR battle is what it comes down to. Boehner or McConnell were not able to communicate the GOP message in a way that kept them from looking the part of the "bad guys" with their attempts to reform parts of government that need desperately to be reformed. Efforts to reform welfare were met with "Republicans want to starve little children". Efforts to reform Medicare and Medicaid were responded to with "Republican want to roll Granny over a cliff". Efforts to rein in the EPA were met with "Republicans want dirty air and dirty water". Efforts to keep tax dollars out of funding abortions was met with "Republicans have a war on women", and efforts to halt Obamacare was met with "Republicans don't want Americans to have health care" or "Republicans idea of Healthcare is for you to die young".
Boehner was not able to effectively repudiate these ridiculous comments by the Dems, effectively losing the PR battle each and every time. Of course the mainstream media was more than willing accomplice with the Dems too.
So nothing got done to block the Dems, and the nation has suffered because of it. The Billions of waste, fraud and abuse has served to increase the National debt to almost 19 TRILLION.
So until the GOP gets leadership that can effectively communicate a cogent, understandable message to the American people, we will not see any substantive changes made in the way DC conducts their business. And our great Republic suffers because if it.

[Soonerjeepman]

We see how the Rhinos have "gone along" with most every Democratic initiative. I think it is important to ask why?

The Dems have won most every major PR battle is what it comes down to. Boehner or McConnell were not able to communicate the GOP message in a way that kept them from looking the part of the "bad guys" with their attempts to reform parts of government that need desperately to be reformed. Efforts to reform welfare were met with "Republicans want to starve little children". Efforts to reform Medicare and Medicaid were responded to with "Republican want to roll Granny over a cliff". Efforts to rein in the EPA were met with "Republicans want dirty air and dirty water". Efforts to keep tax dollars out of funding abortions was met with "Republicans have a war on women", and efforts to halt Obamacare was met with "Republicans don't want Americans to have health care" or "Republicans idea of Healthcare is for you to die young".
Boehner was not able to effectively repudiate these ridiculous comments by the Dems, effectively losing the PR battle each and every time. Of course the mainstream media was more than willing accomplice with the Dems too.
So nothing got done to block the Dems, and the nation has suffered because of it. The Billions of waste, fraud and abuse has served to increase the National debt to almost 19 TRILLION.
So until the GOP gets leadership that can effectively communicate a cogent, understandable message to the American people, we will not see any substantive changes made in the way DC conducts their business. And our great Republic suffers because if it.

no doubt...well written. One I'll talk about is PP. Defund the abortion part...but yet the dems want to make it about women's health and rights...lol. Yes, under the law they have the "right" to kill their baby....BUT let THEM pay for it. See how far it goes then.

[hawaii 5-0]

Defund the abortion part....


Done and done.

See the Hyde Amendment of 1976.

5-0

[champions77]

no doubt...well written. One I'll talk about is PP. Defund the abortion part...but yet the dems want to make it about women's health and rights...lol. Yes, under the law they have the "right" to kill their baby....BUT let THEM pay for it. See how far it goes then.

+1. Also the PP gives a lot of campaign contributions to Democratic candidates. What a deal, you fund PP with government tax dollars, then prop up Dem candidates with donations from PP.
BHO did this a bunch with the green energy initiatives, using Tax dollars to support the Solendra's of the world, then Solendra supported Dems with campaign contributions. It is all so slimy and unethical. It needs to stop, I don't care what party is doing it. It used to be called a "conflict of interest" and was illegal, if not unethical.

[TheHumanAlphabet]

Welp, if you thought Congress was in gridlock, just wait. It's gonna get
a lot worse.....
Good!

[Serenity Now]

Done and done.

See the Hyde Amendment of 1976.

5-0

Every red state audit of PP has verified this as true. The most recent is Missouri.

Funny how the basic facts are lost on most.

[Serenity Now]

+1. Also the PP gives a lot of campaign contributions to Democratic candidates. What a deal, you fund PP with government tax dollars, then prop up Dem candidates with donations from PP.
BHO did this a bunch with the green energy initiatives, using Tax dollars to support the Solendra's of the world, then Solendra supported Dems with campaign contributions. It is all so slimy and unethical. It needs to stop, I don't care what party is doing it. It used to be called a "conflict of interest" and was illegal, if not unethical.
I'm sure you were appalled by the Citizens United ruling, right?

[dwarthog]

I was being a bit sarcastic myself. I allow several of my Liberal friends (the ones who think I'm too conservative) to see the antics posted on this Bored.

Besides the humorous rants of the neo-cons they really love the 12 year olds Toad and Curly Sue.


5-0

You allow?

How very magnanimous of you.

[Soonerjeepman]

Done and done.

See the Hyde Amendment of 1976.

5-0

4. Since the Hyde Amendment passed, only four states have voluntarily decided to use their funds to cover abortion. Another 13 states are required to do so by court order, just as they would other forms of health care. Thirty-two states and the District of Columbia basically follow the Hyde Amendment as the congressman intended, with some small variations. One state, South Dakota, only pays for abortion when a woman’s life is in danger, but not in cases of rape and incest — an apparent violation of federal law.

Apparently 17 states still use taxpayer money for abortions...

[Serenity Now]

4. Since the Hyde Amendment passed, only four states have voluntarily decided to use their funds to cover abortion. Another 13 states are required to do so by court order, just as they would other forms of health care. Thirty-two states and the District of Columbia basically follow the Hyde Amendment as the congressman intended, with some small variations. One state, South Dakota, only pays for abortion when a woman’s life is in danger, but not in cases of rape and incest — an apparent violation of federal law.

Apparently 17 states still use taxpayer money for abortions...

Some states utilize other funds on their own volition to pay for some abortions. Oklahoma does not. I'm sure there's a strong correlation to red/blue states.

[hawaii 5-0]

4.

Apparently 17 states still use taxpayer money for abortions...



But not via Planned Parenthood.

Some interesting testimony on CSpan today about funding Planned Parenthood. Seems the Committee wants to make judgment without even seeing the unedited video condemning Planned Parenthood.


5-0

[champions77]

I'm sure you were appalled by the Citizens United ruling, right?

No not really, more appalled by the lack of integrity of the politicians we elect these days. Aren't you?

You know beginning with the Administrations of Bill Clinton, we had a segment of the population that dismissed the nefarious and tawdry conduct of Bill Clinton. We heard everything from I didn't vote to elect a Pastor, I voted to elect a President. The case was made that as long as ole Bill did his job well, then what he did (behind the scenes, including the oval office I presume) was okay, that all the banter about morals and integrity really didn't matter? Of course these assertions were made by....Democrats. They were the first to "relax" the morals standards that had been in place since Washington, at least to the extent seen in Bill Clinton.
I never understood why Dems were so forgiving of their beloved Bill, at least to the flawed notion that if he was doing a good job then what does it matter? What does it matter? If you will screw around on your wife, then most likely you will screw around on the Nation, and do things behind the scenes that are not in the country's best interest. Why is that so hard for a Dem to understand? Being a scumbag does not mean you only become one at 5:00. You are one 24/7.

[SicEmBaylor]

No not really, more appalled by the lack of integrity of the politicians we elect these days. Aren't you?

You know beginning with the Administrations of Bill Clinton, we had a segment of the population that dismissed the nefarious and tawdry conduct of Bill Clinton. We heard everything from I didn't vote to elect a Pastor, I voted to elect a President. The case was made that as long as ole Bill did his job well, then what he did (behind the scenes, including the oval office I presume) was okay, that all the banter about morals and integrity really didn't matter? Of course these assertions were made by....Democrats. They were the first to "relax" the morals standards that had been in place since Washington, at least to the extent seen in Bill Clinton.
I never understood why Dems were so forgiving of their beloved Bill, at least to the flawed notion that if he was doing a good job then what does it matter? What does it matter? If you will screw around on your wife, then most likely you will screw around on the Nation, and do things behind the scenes that are not in the country's best interest. Why is that so hard for a Dem to understand? Being a scumbag does not mean you only become one at 5:00. You are one 24/7.

Clinton, in so far as how he governed post-94, was the most politically conservative President since Ronald Reagan. I'd cut off my left ball sack to have Clinton rather than Obama or W. Bush.

---------

On another matter, I've said before I'm conflicted about abortion. I oppose it after the fetus becomes viable, but I don't understand the extreme pro-life position here. Given the number of impoverished out-of-wedlock minority births, why do you want these sacks of cells to be born only to grow up and become street thugs who steal your **** and slit your throat walking out of a restaurant for the $20 bucks in cash you may have in your wallet? **** them, if you ask me. I'd rather their mothers give them the coat hanger treatment well before it comes to that point.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

No not really, more appalled by the lack of integrity of the politicians we elect these days. Aren't you?

You know beginning with the Administrations of Bill Clinton, we had a segment of the population that dismissed the nefarious and tawdry conduct of Bill Clinton. We heard everything from I didn't vote to elect a Pastor, I voted to elect a President. The case was made that as long as ole Bill did his job well, then what he did (behind the scenes, including the oval office I presume) was okay, that all the banter about morals and integrity really didn't matter? Of course these assertions were made by....Democrats. They were the first to "relax" the morals standards that had been in place since Washington, at least to the extent seen in Bill Clinton.
I never understood why Dems were so forgiving of their beloved Bill, at least to the flawed notion that if he was doing a good job then what does it matter? What does it matter? If you will screw around on your wife, then most likely you will screw around on the Nation, and do things behind the scenes that are not in the country's best interest. Why is that so hard for a Dem to understand? Being a scumbag does not mean you only become one at 5:00. You are one 24/7.I have long contended that the Clinton "administration" was the beginning of the dems realizing they can get away with practically anything, and will not be destroyed, nor even badly damaged by the Media. Clinton was so corrupt and didn't really try to hide it much, because he realized the Media was actively on his side.

[champions77]

Clinton, in so far as how he governed post-94, was the most politically conservative President since Ronald Reagan. I'd cut off my left ball sack to have Clinton rather than Obama or W. Bush.

---------

On another matter, I've said before I'm conflicted about abortion. I oppose it after the fetus becomes viable, but I don't understand the extreme pro-life position here. Given the number of impoverished out-of-wedlock minority births, why do you want these sacks of cells to be born only to grow up and become street thugs who steal your **** and slit your throat walking out of a restaurant for the $20 bucks in cash you may have in your wallet? **** them, if you ask me. I'd rather their mothers give them the coat hanger treatment well before it comes to that point.

Google up Johnny Chung and get back to me. The Chinese stole nuclear secrets about this time. Only a fool would not believe they were related. What you don't know is what will burn you when you have a dirty politician. Clinton was more of a politician than he was a liberal. It was all about getting re-elected, and he would compromise if it was politically expedient. But make no mistake about it, he makes Richard Nixon look like a Saint.
That so called "sack of cells" could have been you. Please don't complain when our Nationalized Healthcare deems someone in their 70's as too old to use government assets on a heart value replacement operation. If you kill babies, you will let older folks die too. All for the greater good of course.

[hawaii 5-0]

If you will screw around on your wife, then most likely you will screw around on the Nation, and do things behind the scenes that are not in the country's best interest.




Seems a lot more than a bit of a stretch.

Men (and women) have been cheating on their spouses since the Dawn of Man.


5-0

[champions77]

Seems a lot more than a bit of a stretch.

Men (and women) have been cheating on their spouses since the Dawn of Man.


5-0

lying under oath, adultery, obstruction of justice, hobnobbing with Chinese Nationalist tied into the Chinese Military. I mean Bill paved the way for the lying nut we have for President today.
Call me old fashioned, but I don't associate with liars. When you can't believe anything anyone tells you it's not ok, and most people will choose to avoid those types of people. So we have a standard. So then why is that standard lowered when it comes to the President of the United States? I don't get it.

[Serenity Now]

That's a sweet argument that you've got there. Not only do you get to blame your adversary for their shortcomings, you get to blame them for the shortcomings of your side as well.

Well played.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

lying under oath, adultery, obstruction of justice, hobnobbing with Chinese Nationalist tied into the Chinese Military. I mean Bill paved the way for the lying nut we have for President today.
Call me old fashioned, but I don't associate with liars. When you can't believe anything anyone tells you it's not ok, and most people will choose to avoid those types of people. So we have a standard. So then why is that standard lowered when it comes to the President of the United States? I don't get it.Democrats hold the power of government as the singular most important thing there is. ANYTHING goes to accomplish their goal. It is a religion to them, and guess who the enemy is in their minds. That's what there is to get.

[TAFBSooner]

No not really, more appalled by the lack of integrity of the politicians we elect these days. Aren't you?

You know beginning with the Administrations of Bill Clinton, we had a segment of the population that dismissed the nefarious and tawdry conduct of Bill Clinton. We heard everything from I didn't vote to elect a Pastor, I voted to elect a President. The case was made that as long as ole Bill did his job well, then what he did (behind the scenes, including the oval office I presume) was okay, that all the banter about morals and integrity really didn't matter? Of course these assertions were made by....Democrats. They were the first to "relax" the morals standards that had been in place since Washington, at least to the extent seen in Bill Clinton.
I never understood why Dems were so forgiving of their beloved Bill, at least to the flawed notion that if he was doing a good job then what does it matter? What does it matter? If you will screw around on your wife, then most likely you will screw around on the Nation, and do things behind the scenes that are not in the country's best interest. Why is that so hard for a Dem to understand? Being a scumbag does not mean you only become one at 5:00. You are one 24/7.

OK, I'm not writing to defend adultery, or Bill Clinton. But you do know that lots of presidents, and lots of other politicians, cheat on their spouses, don't you?

If that's your standard, the effective result is that you are voting for the candidate best able to hide their behavior. You certainly don't have to condone this behavior (and again, I don't), but presidents of all political persuasions commit adultery.

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2006/0607.benen.html

http://watchdog.org/31260/shno-presidential-history-rich-with-affairs-infidelities/

Of course, it's not just presidents:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/10150092/Drink-debauchery-and-despair-astronauts-wives-lift-lid-on-grim-reality-behind-the-smiling-Nasa-space-launches.html

Oh, wow, and the all-or-nothing view expressed in your last sentence! How do you rate Pope Francis? I assume his opposition to abortion and gay marriage meet with your approval, but his opposition to climate change and unregulated capitalism do not. Does that make him a scumbag? My point is that NOBODY is all good or all bad.

[TAFBSooner]

If you kill babies, you will let older folks die too.

How did you come to this belief? Who said that? Who believes that?

Now, if you were talking actual babies, i.e., post-birth, there may be some equivalence. But if you're trying to say "If you have an abortion, you will let older folks die too," that's one of the most ridiculous things ever posted on this site.

By either side of the political divide, or even by the texas fans that used to show up here.

[SicEmBaylor]

Google up Johnny Chung and get back to me. The Chinese stole nuclear secrets about this time. Only a fool would not believe they were related. What you don't know is what will burn you when you have a dirty politician. Clinton was more of a politician than he was a liberal. It was all about getting re-elected, and he would compromise if it was politically expedient. But make no mistake about it, he makes Richard Nixon look like a Saint.
That so called "sack of cells" could have been you. Please don't complain when our Nationalized Healthcare deems someone in their 70's as too old to use government assets on a heart value replacement operation. If you kill babies, you will let older folks die too. All for the greater good of course.

I'm aware of every in-and-out of every Clinton scandal imaginable from A-Z. I did a book report on the Starr Report in 9th grade, for God's sake (Sic 'Em Judge Starr!) The problem with your theory is that Clinton still governed more conservatively than W. Bush even after the '96 election. Of course, Clinton isn't an ideological conservative -- I said as much. I said he *governed* more conservatively. Frankly, I don't care if a President governs more conservatively out of principle or pure politics since the end result is the same. There is no denying the fact that Clinton was more politically conservative than W. Bush and certainly more conservative than Obama. Clinton declared the era of big government 'over'; while Bush gave us f'ing 'compassionate conservatism' and grew government greater than any President since LBJ. So, no, I couldn't care less if he did it to get re-elected or not.
-------------------------

Those sack of cells are highly unlikely to have been me since my mother worked for Merrill Lynch and my father is a physician, we're white, and my parents had been married for two years and were 28/27 respectively before choosing to have me. I wasn't really at risk for growing up to be a thug.

And since I said that I oppose abortion as murder and morally reprehensible once a fetus is viable, it isn't likely that I'd feel the same about the elderly. Not to mention the fact that I'm not worried about an 88 year old woman with glaucoma shanking me in the parking lot.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

I'm aware of every in-and-out of every Clinton scandal imaginable from A-Z. I did a book report on the Starr Report in 9th grade, for God's sake (Sic 'Em Judge Starr!) The problem with your theory is that Clinton still governed more conservatively than W. Bush even after the '96 election. Of course, Clinton isn't an ideological conservative -- I said as much. I said he *governed* more conservatively. Frankly, I don't care if a President governs more conservatively out of principle or pure politics since the end result is the same. There is no denying the fact that Clinton was more politically conservative than W. Bush and certainly more conservative than Obama. Clinton declared the era of big government 'over'; while Bush gave us f'ing 'compassionate conservatism' and grew government greater than any President since LBJ. So, no, I couldn't care less if he did it to get re-elected or not.
-------------------------



I have never seen you give proper credit to the republican congress from 1995 through Clinton finally leaving in 2000. Newt's gang of responsible congressmen and women came in as resulting from the 1994 election, and subsequent ones until clinton left. There's no way in hel* that Clinton would have behaved as appropriately as he had to by congress if congress during that period was controlled by democrats and/or RINOS.

Consequently, I never have agreed with your saying Clinton was/is anywhere near as conservative as you seem to think he is. He just didn't want to push the envelope as much as Obear has. His shenanigans did embolden all democrats though, showing the D's what they probably could pull off if they tried. Needless to say, Bear has accomplished what I think Clinton and the democrats would have preferred to do all along.

[SicEmBaylor]

I have never seen you give proper credit to the republican congress from 1995 through Clinton finally leaving in 2000.
Of course I give credit to the Republican Congress. However, that Republican Congress was only fantastic until 1998 -- after which, they collectively developed Washingtonitis. It's the reason that the conservative wing of the GOP caucus (including Tom Coburn) orchestrated the coup that threw Gingrich out of the Speaker's chair. This is the pragmatism that made Clinton govern more conservatively -- no doubt about it. That's why I said "post-94." Again, as I said, it makes no difference whether his move toward the center was the result of ideology or pragmatism. The result was the same.

Newt's gang of responsible congressmen and women came in as resulting from the 1994 election, and subsequent ones until clinton left.
Actually, only until the 1998 cycle. Gingrich hadn't been the speaker for two years when Clinton left office.

There's no way in hel* that Clinton would have behaved as appropriately as he had to by congress if congress during that period was controlled by democrats and/or RINOS.
It was controlled for two years by "RINOS" (such a meaningless term in this day and age) which you're giving them credit for. The 106th/107th Congress were useless.

Consequently, I never have agreed with your saying Clinton was/is anywhere near as conservative as you seem to think he is.
I said he was more conservative than any President since Reagan, which is true, regardless of why he governed that way. The why is irrelevant. I never said Clinton was a conservative -- that claim would be absurd. Furthermore, if Clinton was smart and savvy enough to govern toward the center (more conservatively) with a divided Congress then what was Bush's excuse for governing as such an anti-liberty big-government advocate with both houses of Congress under Republican control plus a Republican majority on the Supreme Court?

He just didn't want to push the envelope as much as Obear has. His shenanigans did embolden all democrats though, showing the D's what they probably could pull off if they tried. Needless to say, Bear has accomplished what I think Clinton and the democrats would have preferred to do all along.

Clinton and Obama are two very different types of Democrats even if you disregard the way Clinton governed. Clinton is very much a DLC Democrat. Obama wouldn't be caught dead associating with the DLC-wing of the Democratic Party.

The real problem here is with people not understanding the difference between real conservatism and right-wing nationalism. W. Bush is very much the poster child for right-wing nationalism -- he is *not* a conservative in the classical sense of the word. Right-wing nationalism and conservatism run in such close parallel with one another, most of the time, that few understand or are even aware of a difference. But there is a pretty damned big difference. The tracks may run parallel, but the starting and destination points of those tracks are vastly different.

[Soonerjeepman]

But not via Planned Parenthood.

Some interesting testimony on CSpan today about funding Planned Parenthood. Seems the Committee wants to make judgment without even seeing the unedited video condemning Planned Parenthood.


5-0

I'm sure you then saw where an independent lab tested the whole video and found that it wasn't tampered with or the edited parts were about going to the bathroom...

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Hey Sicem! Bottom line is I agree with you on W, and have never said I thought he is a conservative. He is a nationalist of course. He does appear to love the country, but certainly didn't follow the established laws well, especially as time went by during his presidency. You ought to say what you mean by right wing, though. I would guess that term is tricky with lots of folks. To me, it does mean conservative or constructionist. To some here it means Christian zealot.

I'm not an apologist for the unconservative things W Bush did, as I agree they were bad, and did more to screw up the republican party than we may ever know, but I will vehemently state that I'm glad we had W instead of algore and John(do you know he served in Vietnam) Kerry. Of course, it's amazing we have survived the hounds of hell administration we now have, and here's hoping there's a drastic change(a retransformation) in the next election.

[Curly Bill]

I was being a bit sarcastic myself. I allow several of my Liberal friends (the ones who think I'm too conservative) to see the antics posted on this Bored.

Besides the humorous rants of the neo-cons they really love the 12 year olds Toad and Curly Sue.


5-0

I bet that's a heck of a party - you and your friends. I'm guessing Village People reunion is what it looks like?!

But yeah, I try so hard to take this message board stuff serious to impress you and your handwringing friends. That you don't appreciate that is so mean and hurtful! Bahahahahahahahahaha!!!

[hawaii 5-0]

I'm sure you then saw where an independent lab tested the whole video and found that it wasn't tampered with or the edited parts were about going to the bathroom...


Laff O' tha Day !!!!!

There's a reason the maker of the full video refuses to testify before the Committee under oath.

5-0

[hawaii 5-0]

I bet that's a heck of a party - you and your friends. I'm guessing Village People reunion is what it looks like?!



Both you and Toad have suggested this particular group is gay. They're not. It's 3 guys and 2 women. They come over about twice a month. The guys like the West Coast schools and the girls don't give a shlt about football but they love to see this forum for a good time. Me too !

BTW I do have several gay friends both men and women. None are flamers. 4 of them have grown kids. I also have a gay cousin in Texas, a whorn grad who swears he's right of Ted Cruz. Gay isn't restricted to Liberals.

5-0

[champions77]

I'm aware of every in-and-out of every Clinton scandal imaginable from A-Z. I did a book report on the Starr Report in 9th grade, for God's sake (Sic 'Em Judge Starr!) The problem with your theory is that Clinton still governed more conservatively than W. Bush even after the '96 election. Of course, Clinton isn't an ideological conservative -- I said as much. I said he *governed* more conservatively. Frankly, I don't care if a President governs more conservatively out of principle or pure politics since the end result is the same. There is no denying the fact that Clinton was more politically conservative than W. Bush and certainly more conservative than Obama. Clinton declared the era of big government 'over'; while Bush gave us f'ing 'compassionate conservatism' and grew government greater than any President since LBJ. So, no, I couldn't care less if he did it to get re-elected or not.
-------------------------

Those sack of cells are highly unlikely to have been me since my mother worked for Merrill Lynch and my father is a physician, we're white, and my parents had been married for two years and were 28/27 respectively before choosing to have me. I wasn't really at risk for growing up to be a thug.

And since I said that I oppose abortion as murder and morally reprehensible once a fetus is viable, it isn't likely that I'd feel the same about the elderly. Not to mention the fact that I'm not worried about an 88 year old woman with glaucoma shanking me in the parking lot.

Wow, so now Clinton was a conservative? I guess you forget that his wonderful wife Hillary was appointed to head a committee for a Nationalized Healthcare plan. It was done in typical Clinton style, behind closed doors, with only certain industry "experts" invited, and was such a colossal failure in its design, that it was even rejected by a good number of Democrats, and it led to the GOP taking over control of Congress in 1994. That conservative Clinton approved of "welfare reform" kicking and screaming, but after seeing that the majority of Americans approved of the effort, he then signed off on it, later even touting it as one of his accomplishments.
Make no mistake about it, Bill Clinton is no conservative, but he was a screwd politician. The Contract with America became a rallying cry for a lot of Americans, and Bill could see the excitement around it and could see that opposing it would not be in his best interest politically. So he went along with it, and after falling approval numbers after Hillary's Healthcare fiasco, he was re-elected President.
So Bill was a politician first, a liberal second, unlike the current occupant of the White House who has only shown us that compromise is not in his repertoire, and who has shown himself to be a rigid, radical leftist, hell bent on transforming us in ways that most would not approve.
Your notion that since you came from a financially secure background that there was not a need for abortion. That Sir fails to recognize the numbers of people that do it for convenience sake, that having a baby would "crimp their style", having nothing to do with their particular status economically.

[Serenity Now]

Bill Clinton is no conservative, but he was a screwd politician. Freudian slip? Are you referring to Monica?


Your notion that since you came from a financially secure background that there was not a need for abortion. That Sir fails to recognize the numbers of people that do it for convenience sake, that having a baby would "crimp their style", having nothing to do with their particular status economically. Poverty plays a large role in abortions. Much larger than religious background. Only 23% of US women seeking abortion identify as non-religious. More identify as Catholic AND Protestant and almost as many identify as Evangelical.

[SicEmBaylor]

Wow, so now Clinton was a conservative?
I never said anything of the sort.

I guess you forget that his wonderful wife Hillary was appointed to head a committee for a Nationalized Healthcare plan.
I guess you didn't read where I said "post-94." HillaryCare was pre-94 election.

That conservative Clinton approved of "welfare reform" kicking and screaming, but after seeing that the majority of Americans approved of the effort, he then signed off on it, later even touting it as one of his accomplishments.
Yes, and the point is he signed it significantlly reducing the number of people on the welfare role and reducing the size of government. Whether he wanted to do it or not is irrelevant. Bush had every opportunity in the world to do the same and instead constantly found new ways to grow the size and scope of government. Once again -- Clinton governed more conservatively than Bush or Obama.


Your notion that since you came from a financially secure background that there was not a need for abortion. That Sir fails to recognize the numbers of people that do it for convenience sake, that having a baby would "crimp their style", having nothing to do with their particular status economically.

The number of educated women in stable relationships/marriages with stable financial security who end up getting an abortion is ridiculously low. I forget the statistics, but IIRC it's something like 3-4% of the total number of abortions.

[champions77]

Freudian slip? Are you referring to Monica?

Poverty plays a large role in abortions. Much larger than religious background. Only 23% of US women seeking abortion identify as non-religious. More identify as Catholic AND Protestant and almost as many identify as Evangelical.

No just poor spelling. It happens.

[Serenity Now]

No just poor spelling. It happens.

True. I referenced "Briles daughter" on a horn board and the flaming response to my poor Oklahoma education was classic. 4 links related to the possessive.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

True. I referenced "Briles daughter" on a horn board and the flaming response to my poor Oklahoma education was classic. 4 links related to the possessive.What do they think of your collectivism/authoritarian statism over there?

[TAFBSooner]

Your notion that since you came from a financially secure background that there was not a need for abortion. That Sir fails to recognize the numbers of people that do it for convenience sake, that having a baby would "crimp their style", having nothing to do with their particular status economically.

Again, how did you arrive at that belief? Can you cite studies showing such a thing? Or did you just hear it on the AM radio?

[Serenity Now]

What do they think of your collectivism/authoritarian statism over there?

I don't venture much to the politics board. I stick with the football side of the house. I can say that Austin is the blueberry in a sea of red so they can be a little more progressive than some other groups.

"Collectivism/authoritarian statism". Nice! You're all for those things when it benefits the Koch's. You're happy to assure that profits are privatized and losses are socialized. You just don't get how in the bag you really are.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

I don't venture much to the politics board. I stick with the football side of the house. I can say that Austin is the blueberry in a sea of red so they can be a little more progressive than some other groups.

"Collectivism/authoritarian statism". Nice! You're all for those things when it benefits the Koch's. You're happy to assure that profits are privatized and losses are socialized. You just don't get how in the bag you really are.I'm for free markets, Leonid, not for crony capitalism, which is what you imply by jumping on the the Koch company. If you feel like it you could explain what you mean by losses being socialized.

You might want to stick with the football side of the house here, as well.

[champions77]

Again, how did you arrive at that belief? Can you cite studies showing such a thing? Or did you just hear it on the AM radio?

So you really think that there are not people out there who can afford a child, but for whatever reason choose to abort instead because they do not want children? Wow you need to get out more often.

[Serenity Now]

I'm for free markets, Leonid, not for crony capitalism, which is what you imply by jumping on the the Koch company. If you feel like it you could explain what you mean by losses being socialized.

You might want to stick with the football side of the house here, as well.

So, your stance is that we've not seen losses socialized over the last decade?

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

So, your stance is that we've not seen losses socialized over the last decade?again, pls. elaborate.

[FaninAma]

So, your stance is that we've not seen losses socialized over the last decade?
I don't think any true conservative or libertarian favors the regulatory capture that has occured with the executive branch regulatory agencies by Wall Street. What I don't understnd is why the left and the right can't rally together on this point. The left wants more government which naturally is corruptible by the money from wall Street. The right likes big corporations which like to spend their money corrupting government officials. Lets do away with big government and big banks. Win-win for everybody!

reg·u·la·to·ry cap·ture
NOUN


an economic situation in which regulators serve the interests of industry rather than the interests of consumers or the environment

[Serenity Now]

again, pls. elaborate.

I've been hooked up with homecoming, softball and soccer.

Think "too big to fail".

[TAFBSooner]

So, your stance is that we've not seen losses socialized over the last decade?

SN, I really doubt that he's ever seen the phrase before this thread. Way too self-explanatory a name to be used on a right-wing site.

Rush, "Socializing costs" is when a mining company leaves all its till piles on the ground for society to clean up (after absorbing enough bad health effects to motivate government to act), and leaves its open pits or abandoned shafts to fill up with water which becomes polluted and creates a health hazard.

My favorite is when an 18-wheeler does 9000 times as much damage to a highway as a private car does, yet pays a lower Oklahoma tax for diesel fuel than the car does for gasoline.

The entire phrase is "privatize gains and socialize costs." Implying that the company / industry improves its balance sheet by counting on the government or non-profits to take up the slack and clean up after them.

Many regulations are designed to force companies to clean up after themselves. That costs money, and that's why they wring their hands about regulations costing them money. But the cost is generated by their activity in the first place. Who should pay for it?

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Thnx TAFB. Nobody who wants sanity would want the socialization of damage(socializing costs) done for any private activity, and would prefer that any damaging activities be corrected by the entity that causes the damage.

[TAFBSooner]

Thnx TAFB. Nobody who wants sanity would want the socialization of damage(socializing costs) done for any private activity, and would prefer that any damaging activities be corrected by the entity that causes the damage.

And yet that's what we have. That's what comes from giving the crony capitalists way too much power over our government.

In Oklahoma an entity called the Oklahoma Energy Resources Board is cleaning up abandoned well sites all over the state. They are an example of an industry taking some responsibility in "cleaning up their mess." Although it's mostly current energy firms cleaning up after those that drilled and ran. And they are pretty much an exception.

OERB background, from their website: In 1993, leaders representing Oklahoma's oil producers and royalty owners, working with the Oklahoma State Legislature, formed the Oklahoma Energy Resources Board. Oklahoma's natural gas producers joined soon after. Our mission: to use the strength of Oklahoma's greatest industry to improve the lives of all Oklahomans through education and restoration.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Those on the right(the republican base) are against crony capitalism(akin to fascism) as well as authoritaran socialism.

[TAFBSooner]

Those on the right(the republican base) are against crony capitalism(akin to fascism) as well as authoritaran socialism.

Yet when you vote for Republican establishment candidates, you are enabling the crony capitalists.

Or you could vote for Trump - he would be a crony capitalist who is his own crony.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Yet when you vote for Republican establishment candidates, you are enabling the crony capitalists.

Or you could vote for Trump - he would be a crony capitalist who is his own crony.haha, not all republicans are for crony capitalism but all the democrats are, except for Sanders, who isn't for capitalism, period. Trump is unique among all candidates in memory, in that he doesn't need any more money to be uber rich.

[Serenity Now]

Free market capitalists: http://observer.com/2010/06/the-koch-bros-and-corporate-welfare/

[soonercoop1]

haha, not all republicans are for crony capitalism but all the democrats are, except for Sanders, who isn't for capitalism, period. Trump is unique among all candidates in memory, in that he doesn't need any more money to be uber rich.

Most of them seem to be...even the majority of ours here in Oklahoma except Bridenstine...

[SicEmBaylor]

Most of them seem to be...even the majority of ours here in Oklahoma except Bridenstine...

You say "even the majority of ours here in Oklahoma except Bridenstine" as if every Republican in our delegation isn't a corrupt establishment hack that bootlicks the leadership like a eunuch slave boy. Cole being first and foremost among them. Bridenstine is the only member of our delegation (House or Senate) with a shred of integrity and principles.