The hypocrisy

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from NowWhatDoYouWant. Show NowWhatDoYouWant's posts

    The hypocrisy

    See all these people either blaming Obama exclusively or pretending to take a "middle" stance by proclaiming that they blame both equally?

    Just imagine what they would have said if the Dems shut down congress and demanded that Bush withdraw from Iraq.

    Being as honest they are, they would undoubtedly say that Bush is 100% responsible for all consequences of such a shutdown unless he withdrew from Iraq. Right?

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from newman09. Show newman09's posts

    Re: The hypocrisy

    In response to NowWhatDoYouWant's comment:

    See all these people either blaming Obama exclusively or pretending to take a "middle" stance by proclaiming that they blame both equally?

    Just imagine what they would have said if the Dems shut down congress and demanded that Bush withdraw from Iraq.

    Being as honest they are, they would undoubtedly say that Bush is 100% responsible for all consequences of such a shutdown unless he withdrew from Iraq. Right?



    "Hypocrisy" is supposed to be reality against your hypothetical?

    Please, enough of the Bush stuff, it weakens the argument.

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from FortySixAndTwo. Show FortySixAndTwo's posts

    Re: The hypocrisy

    Wait...I thought it was against the rules to bring up "what if" scenarios???

     
  4. This post has been removed.

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from UserName9. Show UserName9's posts

    Re: The hypocrisy


    Hypocricy =

    Boehner not putting a clean CR to a house vote because he says it has no chance of passing.

    This coming from a guy who put the repeal of Obamacare to a vote 42 times, which had no chance of going anywhere.

     

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from ComingLiberalCrackup. Show ComingLiberalCrackup's posts

    Re: The hypocrisy

    In response to UserName9's comment:


    Hypocricy =

    Boehner not putting a clean CR to a house vote because he says it has no chance of passing.

    This coming from a guy who put the repeal of Obamacare to a vote 42 times, which had no chance of going anywhere.

     



    Harry Reid, by contrast,  is an exemplar of clean bipartisan legislative leadership....

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from ComingLiberalCrackup. Show ComingLiberalCrackup's posts

    Re: The hypocrisy

    In response to A_Concerned_Citizen's comment:

     

    One things for sure.

    The wingnuts have successfully taken the spotlight off of any shortcomings in ACA.

    Kudos.

     




     

     

    Hard to keep the spotlight away from a train wreck, though, isnt it?

    "Nothing to see here, folks, move along!"

     

     

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from DamainAllen. Show DamainAllen's posts

    Re: The hypocrisy

    In response to UserName9's comment:


    Hypocricy =

    Boehner not putting a clean CR to a house vote because he says it has no chance of passing.

    This coming from a guy who put the repeal of Obamacare to a vote 42 times, which had no chance of going anywhere.

     




    It seems the GOP attached a new rule to the CR on 9/30 that made it so only the speaker or his designee could motion to bring the bill to the floor for a vote, further ensuring that a shutdown would occur.  But you know, they didn't want the shutdown.  They just made it so the shutdown was inevitable, this after denying requests to negotiate the CR with the senate 18 times in six months.  And people wonder why Obama has no interest in negotiating with them.  

     
  9. This post has been removed.

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from NowWhatDoYouWant. Show NowWhatDoYouWant's posts

    Re: The hypocrisy

    In response to FortySixAndTwo's comment:

    Wait...I thought it was against the rules to bring up "what if" scenarios???




    Der, derpaderpityderp?

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from massmoderateJoe. Show massmoderateJoe's posts

    Re: The hypocrisy

    In response to NowWhatDoYouWant's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to FortySixAndTwo's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    Wait...I thought it was against the rules to bring up "what if" scenarios???

     

    [/QUOTE]


    Der, derpaderpityderp?

     

    [/QUOTE]

    I thought this was an arcane reference to Der Speigel but I learne dsomething new.

     

    derp August 21, 2012 Urban Word of the Day A simple, undefined reply when an ignorant comment or action is made. Brought to life in the South Park series, when Mr. Derp made a guest apperance at South Park Elementary as the chef for a day, followed by hitting himself in the head with a hammer and exclaiming "Derp!"    
     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from massmoderateJoe. Show massmoderateJoe's posts

    Re: The hypocrisy

    In response to A_Concerned_Citizen's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to ComingLiberalCrackup's comment:

     

     

    In response to A_Concerned_Citizen's comment:

     

    One things for sure.

    The wingnuts have successfully taken the spotlight off of any shortcomings in ACA.

    Kudos.

     




     

     

    Hard to keep the spotlight away from a train wreck, though, isnt it?

    "Nothing to see here, folks, move along!"

     

     

     

     




    Hmmmm, seems even the wingnuts can't find the shortcomings in ACA any longer.

     

    Both Ryan and Cantor both wrote op-eds pushing for 'negotiations' and they mentioned ACA/Obamacare a total of 0 times. That's right, in all their caterwauling about ACA they didn't mention it once in their pleas for a 'negotiation'.

     

    Ryan's op-ed published Tuesday evening in the Wall Street Journal didn't even mention Obamacare and instead suggested entitlement reforms to replace across-the-board spending cuts under the 2011 debt ceiling law. Cantor's op-ed, also published late Tuesday, in the Washington Post is abstract attack on President Barack Obama that steers clear of any specific demands; it merely calls for budgetary negotiations as a prerequisite to averting the crises.

     

    Sounds like someone is not keeping up on their echo chamber talking points....

    [/QUOTE]

    I think the GOP decided that ACA wasn't worth the near term battle and made it as a concession to Obama in order to move forward, not that they're OK with ACA.

    ACA has its own problems the absurd 634M website costs that is still having problems (based on an NPR interview with a millenial who spent 30 minutes on the site with multiple crashes and he only got as far a creating an account).  There was also the PR problem with limited sign-ups and no one willing to say how many.  The there was the are:

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/10/obamacare-website-glitches_n_4077092.html

    Obamacare Website Glitches Reveal Larger Government Problem

    http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2013/10/09/now-we-know-obamacares-exchanges-are-a-third-world-experience/

    How Obamacare's Exchanges Turned Into A 'Third World Experience'

    http://swampland.time.com/2013/10/10/wolf-blitzer-on-obamacare-delay-it-for-a-year-make-sure-it-works/

    After a segment where CNN reporter Brian Todd reported that the administration had been warned months ago about glitches that are plaguing the health care websites, Blitzer commented, “They had three years to get this ready. If they weren’t fully ready, they should accept the advice Republicans are giving them, delay it for a year, get it ready and make sure it works.”

    Read more: http://swampland.time.com/2013/10/10/wolf-blitzer-on-obamacare-delay-it-for-a-year-make-sure-it-works/#ixzz2hQ6tqOTu

    The last et tu Wofie moment made it easy for the GOP to walk away fromACA right now as they have their own problems and GOP piling on would just be viewed as mean spirited.

    and the best most predictable ACA story is this one.

    Obamacare 'Enrollee' Chad Henderson Now Says He Didn't Sign Up For Coverage

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/03/obamacare-launch_n_4037136.html

    Chad Henderson, who told The Huffington Post and numerous other news outlets that he had enrolled in health coverage via the Obamacare health insurance exchanges, recanted his story Friday.

    This article replaces an earlier version, published Thursday, which reported incorrectly that Chad Henderson and his father enrolled in Obamacare.

    Chad's social media accounts indicate that he has volunteered for Organizing for America, an organization affiliated with the president's election campaigns and the Democratic National Committee. Organizing for Action, a successor entity, has promoted enrollment under Obama's health care law. HuffPost disclosed this in its original report.

    On Wednesday, Chad told HuffPost that he volunteered during the president's reelection campaign last year. Asked by email at the time whether he remained active, Chad wrote, "I have been involved very little since the last election. I still may tweet stuff out in support of things, but as for actually attending staff meetings I have not."

    Somethings are just too easy and too funny.  Yeah the hypocrisy...................

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from Hansoribrother. Show Hansoribrother's posts

    Re: The hypocrisy

    If the government is "shutdown" then why aren't these heatlhcare sites shut down?

    Becasue the government is not shut down.

     
  14. This post has been removed.

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from Hansoribrother. Show Hansoribrother's posts

    Re: The hypocrisy

    In response to NowWhatDoYouWant's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    See all these people either blaming Obama exclusively or pretending to take a "middle" stance by proclaiming that they blame both equally?

    Just imagine what they would have said if the Dems shut down congress and demanded that Bush withdraw from Iraq.

    Being as honest they are, they would undoubtedly say that Bush is 100% responsible for all consequences of such a shutdown unless he withdrew from Iraq. Right?

    [/QUOTE]

    I can't remember the details but did they actually shut down any part of government then? Did Bush say "I will not negotiate"? I admit that I would have a different perspective, but not as bad as Obama's flip-flop between being a Senator and then President. One aspect is that the Democrats approved the use of force against Iraq. Are they then going to pull the rug out from under troops in harms way and put them in immediate danger?

    How many Republicans voted for ACA? None? A bit different. Plus what is the immediate danger to anyone if ACA is de-funded? None. OK you can drag out some excuse that Jane Doe will lose her coverage and then can't afford insurance and then has to go to the ER and maybe too late to save her life. In that case, no one forced her not to have insurance and in many cases there are alternatives like Medicaid. In the case of the Iraq War, we ordered those troops to go to Iraq. Yes they were all volunteers into the military, but they did not arrive in Iraq by matter of choice. Were the volunteers give a choice to say no in going to Iraq?

    The moral distinctions between the two cases are quite different.

    In either case the Executive Branch is responsible for maintaining the US credit rating. If Congress gives them a bad deal, they still have to decide what to pay or not pay. SInce default occurs only when dealing with debt obligations, there is usually enough cash flow at the right time to avoid default if you want to.

     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from Hansoribrother. Show Hansoribrother's posts

    Re: The hypocrisy

    In response to A_Concerned_Citizen's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to Hansoribrother's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    If the government is "shutdown" then why aren't these heatlhcare sites shut down?

    Becasue the government is not shut down.

    [/QUOTE]


    Seriously?

    This is a perfect example of the lemmings-in-suicide-vests uninformed voter.

    You've been duped.

    There is nothing that the wingnuts can/could do to stop the roll-out of ACA.....nothing, nada, zip...yet they're willing to take the country over a cliff just for their warped political principal of showing everyone that they don't like the law.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Reading comprehension and civility - not your strong points.

    I was just making a comment about the FACT that the government is NOT "shut down", not about Republicans doing anything correctly or incorrectly.

     
  17. This post has been removed.

     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: The hypocrisy

    In response to newman09's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to NowWhatDoYouWant's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    See all these people either blaming Obama exclusively or pretending to take a "middle" stance by proclaiming that they blame both equally?

    Just imagine what they would have said if the Dems shut down congress and demanded that Bush withdraw from Iraq.

    Being as honest they are, they would undoubtedly say that Bush is 100% responsible for all consequences of such a shutdown unless he withdrew from Iraq. Right?

     

    [/QUOTE]

    "Hypocrisy" is supposed to be reality against your hypothetical?

     

    Please, enough of the Bush stuff, it weakens the argument.

    [/QUOTE]

    He blames Bush because that's all they got.

     

     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: The hypocrisy

    In response to A_Concerned_Citizen's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to Hansoribrother's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    If the government is "shutdown" then why aren't these heatlhcare sites shut down?

    Becasue the government is not shut down.

    [/QUOTE]


    Seriously?

    This is a perfect example of the lemmings-in-suicide-vests uninformed voter.

    You've been duped.

    There is nothing that the wingnuts can/could do to stop the roll-out of ACA.....nothing, nada, zip...yet they're willing to take the country over a cliff just for their warped political principal of showing everyone that they don't like the law.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Don't worry. The 50,000 people who signed up tells you all you need to know about the crushing demand for government healthcare.

    i think the thing that Democrats are really afraid of, is that the concept will die from lack of interest.

     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: The hypocrisy

    In response to A_Concerned_Citizen's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to Hansoribrother's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In either case the Executive Branch is responsible for maintaining the US credit rating. If Congress gives them a bad deal, they still have to decide what to pay or not pay. SInce default occurs only when dealing with debt obligations, there is usually enough cash flow at the right time to avoid default if you want to.

    [/QUOTE]

    Are you freaking kidding me?

    Then what is the job of Congress?

    What the heck does "power of the purse" mean if you're not going to pay bills?

    Hey spanky, the Executive Branch, Treasury in particular, is not responsible for the credit rating, in fact they have no authority other than to sign the checks to pay the bills that Congress racks up. Does the 14th Amendment mean anything to you? How about Article 1?

    Dude, seriously, that argument so gawddang stupid that it should disqualify you from voting.

    It's not surprising that these idiots are not only ignorant of the Constitution but are trying to weasel their way our from any personal responsibility of their decision to shutdown gov't.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Once again, you are wrong.  The Treasury pays the debt.  The money is there, $250 billion per month, and they need to cut a check for $20 billion.

    the ONLY way that check doesn't get cut is if Obama tells the treasury secretary to NOT cut the check.  THAT would be in violation of the 14th amendment.

    Nothing Congress has done or hasn't done has put the debt into question. there is no 14th amendment violation by Congress here.

    So, once again, you are wrong.  Heck, even Obama knows it.

     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from BilltheKat. Show BilltheKat's posts

    Re: The hypocrisy

    In response to newman09's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to NowWhatDoYouWant's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    See all these people either blaming Obama exclusively or pretending to take a "middle" stance by proclaiming that they blame both equally?

    Just imagine what they would have said if the Dems shut down congress and demanded that Bush withdraw from Iraq.

    Being as honest they are, they would undoubtedly say that Bush is 100% responsible for all consequences of such a shutdown unless he withdrew from Iraq. Right?

     

    [/QUOTE]

    "Hypocrisy" is supposed to be reality against your hypothetical?

     

    Please, enough of the Bush stuff, it weakens the argument.

    [/QUOTE]

    Sorry, Bush was a GOP nightmare and something you should be reminded of often so you don't repeat the stupidity. You cant sweep his devastating failures under the rug. They still affect us now and will long into the future. Just as this GOP shutdown will ultimately cripple the GOP. The republicans are in a major s.h.*. tstorm and they don't even realize it.

     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: The hypocrisy

    In response to BilltheKat's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to newman09's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to NowWhatDoYouWant's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    See all these people either blaming Obama exclusively or pretending to take a "middle" stance by proclaiming that they blame both equally?

    Just imagine what they would have said if the Dems shut down congress and demanded that Bush withdraw from Iraq.

    Being as honest they are, they would undoubtedly say that Bush is 100% responsible for all consequences of such a shutdown unless he withdrew from Iraq. Right?

     

    [/QUOTE]

    "Hypocrisy" is supposed to be reality against your hypothetical?

     

    Please, enough of the Bush stuff, it weakens the argument.

    [/QUOTE]

    Sorry, Bush was a GOP nightmare and something you should be reminded of often so you don't repeat the stupidity. You cant sweep his devastating failures under the rug. They still affect us now and will long into the future. Just as this GOP shutdown will ultimately cripple the GOP. The republicans are in a major s.h.*. tstorm and they don't even realize it.

    [/QUOTE]

    So, Bush is a nightmare.  And, Obama is not?

     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from slomag. Show slomag's posts

    Re: The hypocrisy

    In response to skeeter20's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to BilltheKat's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to newman09's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to NowWhatDoYouWant's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    See all these people either blaming Obama exclusively or pretending to take a "middle" stance by proclaiming that they blame both equally?

    Just imagine what they would have said if the Dems shut down congress and demanded that Bush withdraw from Iraq.

    Being as honest they are, they would undoubtedly say that Bush is 100% responsible for all consequences of such a shutdown unless he withdrew from Iraq. Right?

     

    [/QUOTE]

    "Hypocrisy" is supposed to be reality against your hypothetical?

     

    Please, enough of the Bush stuff, it weakens the argument.

    [/QUOTE]

    Sorry, Bush was a GOP nightmare and something you should be reminded of often so you don't repeat the stupidity. You cant sweep his devastating failures under the rug. They still affect us now and will long into the future. Just as this GOP shutdown will ultimately cripple the GOP. The republicans are in a major s.h.*. tstorm and they don't even realize it.

    [/QUOTE]

    So, Bush is a nightmare.  And, Obama is not?

    [/QUOTE]

    Bush was a nightmare for destroying our economy, and you think Obama is a nightmare because he hasn't restored it quickly enough.

    Bush was a nightmare for turning a 200 billion dollar surplus into a 1.2 trillion dollar deficit, and you think Obama is a nightmare because he's only brought it back to 800 billion.

    Bush was a nightmare for allowing medical costt to double in his eight years and you think Obama is a nightmare because the ACA web site has bugs.

    Bush was a nightmare for keeping interest rates so low, that they were at zero percent when Obama took office, but you think Obama is a nightmare because of quantitive easing.

    Bush was a nightmare for allowing 9/11 to happen, for failing to bring the perpetrators to justice, and for then turning his attention to a pointless war that he could never end.  Obama ended that war and killed bin Laden, but he's a nightmare because four Americans died in Benghazi.

    You clowns need a little perspective.

    And before the blame Bush, blame Bush chants come out, I'd like to point out that without Bush the GOP has no record on anything for the past two decades.  So it seems to me you can either own Bush and defend him, or go home, because if your last proud accomplishment harkens back to before the interwebs were a series of tubes, you're not terribly relevent, are you?

     

     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from tvoter. Show tvoter's posts

    Re: The hypocrisy

    Interesting observation here...

     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from portfolio1. Show portfolio1's posts

    Re: The hypocrisy

    In response to bigdog2's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to NowWhatDoYouWant's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    See all these people either blaming Obama exclusively or pretending to take a "middle" stance by proclaiming that they blame both equally?

    Just imagine what they would have said if the Dems shut down congress and demanded that Bush withdraw from Iraq.

    Being as honest they are, they would undoubtedly say that Bush is 100% responsible for all consequences of such a shutdown unless he withdrew from Iraq. Right?

     

    [/QUOTE]


     

    We`ve all been beating this to death.  There have been 17 times in history when shutdowns were threatened, carried-out, negotiated, argued,.........etc,etc.  13 times during the Regan administration alone.  War, Nukes, Alternative Min Tax, Busing, have all been tied to these attempts (and successes) at shutdown.   This is nothing new.  The only thing different is the law, bill, amendment, etc, that is tied to the shutdown.  It seems that will always be different as we move forward and the next president and congress go down the same road.

    Plenty of hypocrisy to go around.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Actually this is VERY new. In more than one way. First, the previous times had to do with shutdown not really debt ceiling (until this current Congress). Debt ceiling issue is a real danger. Truly. If you follow what caused the "machinery" of the financial markets to freeze in 2008 and so send global economies into tailspins which have yet to reach solid recovery then you will see that this would be, if let to happen and to continue for any amount of time, would end up being worse. 

     

    Also, this time it is a different story as to the extent and degree that this is hostage taking, trying to make political policy by putting a gun to our own heads!

    One of the dangers in the current situation is that there are too many fools (yes, F O O L S) who do not have a real clue as to what they are doing.. what they are asking their politicians to do... 

    I for one do not want brain surgery done by someone who not only is not qualified but does not even believe in science and facts.

    If you do not like what I am saying I dont really care at this point except that I wish you would remain quiet while grown ups handle things.

     

     

Share