Oh Happy Day: Boehner Resigns from His Speakership And Congress

[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/fea...607.benen.html

http://watchdog.org/31260/shno-presi...-infidelities/

Of course, it's not just presidents:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...-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.