Andy9o8 2 #26 February 25, 2015 Quote The GOP hated Clinton, too. Clinton still managed to work with them. Clinton knew how to relieve all that pent-up tension and frustration of office. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Anvilbrother 0 #27 February 25, 2015 Andy9o8QuoteThis was as close to bipartisan as things have been. Nine Democrat Senators voted for it. That's roughly 20% of Democrats who voted for it, a/k/a about 80% of Democrats who did not vote in favor of it. Personally, I don't think that's very bipartisan; it's just something less than a 100% party-line vote. Mind you, I came of age in the pre-Gingrich era, when strictly party-line votes in Congress were not virtually universal; for me, that level of permanent divisiveness is still a "new normal". Having said that, I'll agree with those who think a lot of this is politically-motivated. But specifically, I'll betcha it's one salvo of payback for Boehner's big "fuck you" to Obama by going behind the White House's back and unilaterally inviting Netanyahu for his speech. (In other words, Boehner did the first "fuck you". The veto is Obama's "fuck you right back".) With that single amateurish move, Boehner just guaranteed that the modest amount of cooperation he might have had from the White House will now be zero for the next 2 years. Neither house of congress has a veto-proof GOP majority, so not much legislation is going to escape Obama's veto pen wherever he chooses to wield it. Boehner's going to pay a political price for pulling that stunt, and if he thinks the GOP will be able to spin the resulting impasse to their favor in the eyes of the large Moderate wing of the electorate (pssst.. those are the ones who actually decide the elections...) come the 2016 election season, I'm predicting his gamble will lose. This right here sums up how horse shit our political system has become. I am tired of the fighting, and stonewalling, withholding of funds from this, ear marks, Louisiana purchases, black balling because you did not support my bill etc. It's time for a major change to fix this. I wonder what the right answer is. Postes r made from an iPad or iPhone. Spelling and gramhair mistakes guaranteed move along, Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dpreguy 14 #28 February 26, 2015 Yeah, good that Harry "The Puppet" Reid is out of his power position. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BillyVance 34 #29 February 26, 2015 Andy9o8 Quote The GOP hated Clinton, too. Clinton still managed to work with them. Clinton knew how to relieve all that pent-up tension and frustration of office. For sure! "Mediocre people don't like high achievers, and high achievers don't like mediocre people." - SIX TIME National Champion coach Nick Saban Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
airdvr 210 #30 February 26, 2015 dpreguyYeah, good that Harry "The Puppet" Reid is out of his power position. Old Harry looks like he pissed off the wrong guy.Please don't dent the planet. Destinations by Roxanne Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 2 #31 February 26, 2015 airdvr***Yeah, good that Harry "The Puppet" Reid is out of his power position. Old Harry looks like he pissed off the wrong guy. Note which side of his face. Also note that not only are Bill Clinton and Obama both lefties, they're also both lefties. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skypuppy 1 #32 February 26, 2015 ryoderThe Whitehouse reasoning for the veto: "Because this act of Congress conflicts with established executive branch procedures and cuts short thorough consideration of issues that could bear on our national interest -- including our security, safety, and environment -- it has earned my veto," Obama wrote in a message to the Senate. White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest said earlier Tuesday that Obama planned to veto the bill because the State Department is still conducting a review of whether the massive pipeline — which would transport roughly 800,000 barrels of heavy crude from Hardisty, Alberta, to refineries in Port Arthur, Tex. — would serve the national interest. Source: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2015/02/24/keystone-xl-bill-a-k-a-veto-bait-heads-to-presidents-desk/ WTF? The State Dept has been reviewing it for SIX years! The environmental review was released over a year ago: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2014/01/31/four-takeaways-from-the-state-departments-review-of-the-keystone-xl-pipeline/ With the price of oil depressed, I'm wondering if an immediate approval would actually cause construction to begin. IIRC the state department has actually reported TWICE now that the impact of the pipeline on the environment would be minimal. As far as depressed oil prices, it shows that building the pipeline would lower transportation costs for the oil (while improving safety) and therefore make it easier to live with lower oil prices. One has to remember that much of the pipeline has already been built, so much of capital costs have been invested already. I would love to see the veto over-ridden in house...If some old guy can do it then obviously it can't be very extreme. Otherwise he'd already be dead. Bruce McConkey 'I thought we were gonna die, and I couldn't think of anyone Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 2 #33 February 26, 2015 Anvilbrother***QuoteThis was as close to bipartisan as things have been. Nine Democrat Senators voted for it. That's roughly 20% of Democrats who voted for it, a/k/a about 80% of Democrats who did not vote in favor of it. Personally, I don't think that's very bipartisan; it's just something less than a 100% party-line vote. Mind you, I came of age in the pre-Gingrich era, when strictly party-line votes in Congress were not virtually universal; for me, that level of permanent divisiveness is still a "new normal". Having said that, I'll agree with those who think a lot of this is politically-motivated. But specifically, I'll betcha it's one salvo of payback for Boehner's big "fuck you" to Obama by going behind the White House's back and unilaterally inviting Netanyahu for his speech. (In other words, Boehner did the first "fuck you". The veto is Obama's "fuck you right back".) With that single amateurish move, Boehner just guaranteed that the modest amount of cooperation he might have had from the White House will now be zero for the next 2 years. Neither house of congress has a veto-proof GOP majority, so not much legislation is going to escape Obama's veto pen wherever he chooses to wield it. Boehner's going to pay a political price for pulling that stunt, and if he thinks the GOP will be able to spin the resulting impasse to their favor in the eyes of the large Moderate wing of the electorate (pssst.. those are the ones who actually decide the elections...) come the 2016 election season, I'm predicting his gamble will lose. This right here sums up how horse shit our political system has become. I am tired of the fighting, and stonewalling, withholding of funds from this, ear marks, Louisiana purchases, black balling because you did not support my bill etc. It's time for a major change to fix this. I wonder what the right answer is. I don't disagree with your gut sentiment, but frankly, that's not the way politics in government has become, it's the way it has always been, especially in democratic or representative governments. As is sometimes said, it's a wretched system, but any other system is worse. Alternatives? Well, to the one extreme, anarchy would inevitably and rapidly lead to the formation of alliances, then factions, then horse-trading (including political reward and punishment), so that would be no solution; it would simply arise a new phoenix out of the ashes of the old. A middle ground, like eliminating parties and partisanship? Washington and John Adams both advocated an absence of factions in government, but they were naive: factionalism is basic human nature. To the other extreme, the only other theoretically-viable alternative, then, as I see it, would be government by decree by a highly repressive, single-point dictatorship. And, you know, boo on that. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BillyVance 34 #34 February 26, 2015 airdvr ***Yeah, good that Harry "The Puppet" Reid is out of his power position. Old Harry looks like he pissed off the wrong guy. Wow. He looks like he got punched in the fucking face, twice. "Mediocre people don't like high achievers, and high achievers don't like mediocre people." - SIX TIME National Champion coach Nick Saban Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wolfriverjoe 1,523 #35 February 26, 2015 Andy9o8 I don't disagree with your gut sentiment, but frankly, that's not the way politics in government has become, it's the way it has always been, especially in democratic or representative governments. As is sometimes said, it's a wretched system, but any other system is worse.... The (kinda) funny part about that is that we have had a pretty cooperative Congress over the last few decades. Actual bi-partisanship. Cooperation with those "across the aisle." I've heard it attributed to the fact that so many of the Representatives and Senators were veterans of WW II. They understood the concept that sometimes you have to work with people you don't like or agree with to reach a common goal. And that the goal is sometimes worth compromising on specifics. As those guys die off, we go back to what we always used to have. Research some of the crap that happened in Congress. Especially in the lead-up to the Civil War. Look up Preston and Brooks for a good example of how "cordial" they could be."There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy "~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ryoder 1,590 #36 February 26, 2015 wolfriverjoe As those guys die off, we go back to what we always used to have. Research some of the crap that happened in Congress. Especially in the lead-up to the Civil War. Look up Preston and Brooks for a good example of how "cordial" they could be. Or the Burr/Hamilton duel."There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Coreeece 2 #37 February 28, 2015 Andy9o8******"Because this act of Congress conflicts with established executive branch procedures and cuts short thorough consideration of issues that could bear on our national interest -- including our security, safety, and environment -- it has earned my veto," Obama wrote... Well isn't that ironic, in light of his other unconstitutional actions, like his immigration edict. Now all of a sudden he's concerned about following "proper" procedures and our national interest. Peshaw! As I said above, politics is give and take. When any Speaker of the House gives any President of the United States a big, public, disrespectful "fuck you" like Boehner did, there's a price to be paid. That's the reality; best embrace it. Oh, so it's boehner's fault? Pretty scary if the President can be controlled like that...hell, why not play reverse psychology games with him if he's that weak?Never was there an answer....not without listening, without seeing - Gilmour Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 220 #38 February 28, 2015 Coreeece *********"Because this act of Congress conflicts with established executive branch procedures and cuts short thorough consideration of issues that could bear on our national interest -- including our security, safety, and environment -- it has earned my veto," Obama wrote... Well isn't that ironic, in light of his other unconstitutional actions, like his immigration edict. Now all of a sudden he's concerned about following "proper" procedures and our national interest. Peshaw! As I said above, politics is give and take. When any Speaker of the House gives any President of the United States a big, public, disrespectful "fuck you" like Boehner did, there's a price to be paid. That's the reality; best embrace it. Oh, so it's boehner's fault? Pretty scary if the President can be controlled like that...hell, why not play reverse psychology games with him if he's that weak? No what is so scary is that the President can be that petty.I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Driver1 0 #39 February 28, 2015 funjumper101Every time the FACTS of a situation are pointed out to the Reich Wing Conservatives, they simply refuse to acknowledge them. Facts are completely meaningless to them. All that matters is "truthiness" that backs up the opinions of their media outlets that they parrot verbatim. The Rescumlicans started plotting against the "Kenyan socialist" (translation, that fucking nigger!) as soon as McCain lost the election. They have done everything possible to prevent any forward progress by this administration, to the point of intentionally sabotaging efforts to fix the economy. These same fucktards then verbally vomit bullshit about the president being seen as weak by Putin, Jong Un, etc. The fucktards are allowed to have it both ways by the Reich Wing Conservative followers. In the real world, if you do everything that you can to undercut, demean, insult, and heckle a sitting US president, you can't then turn around and bitch about the perception that he is weak. The fucktards have made that perception happen by their own actions. Then they have the gall to bitch about it, and the RWC followers stupidly go along with the fucktards. The RWCs are driving the USA to ruin, and are very proud of themselves for doing so. It is quite stunning to see. Liberalism is a mental disease dude.There will be no addressing the customers as "Bitches", "Morons" or "Retards"! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
