YOU BE the JUDGE
Please give your reasons for either supporting or eliminating
SUPER MAJORITY
RULE
in the
U.S. SENATE
Saturday, July 29, 2017
82 comments:
IF YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND THE FOLLOWING, YOU DON'T BELONG HERE, SO KINDLY GET OUT AND STAY OUT.
We welcome Conversation
But without Vituperation.
If your aim is Vilification ––
Other forms of Denigration ––
Unfounded Accusation --
Determined Obfuscation ––
Alienation with Self-Justification ––
We WILL use COMMENT ERADICATION.
IN ADDITION
Gratuitous Displays of Extraneous Knowledge Offered Not To Shed Light Or Enhance the Discussion, But For The Primary Purpose Of Giving An Impression Of Superiority are obnoxiously SELF-AGGRANDIZING, and therefore, Subject to Removal at the Discretion of the Censor-in-Residence.
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.
Eliminating...we can't have a rule that is. only enforced when one party is in power.
ReplyDeleteWhy not? Isn't that EXACTLY what we've been saddled with for the past eight years?
DeleteObviously we CAN have it.
The questions we need to address are,
"Do we WANT it?
"Do we NEED it?
"What might the LONG-RANGE CONSEQUENCES BE, should we GET IT?"
Repeal the current majority rule now and the Democrats will go back to 51 to pass the minute they're in the majority. Do it 8 years from now and "perhaps" they will have learned a lesson. Tit-4-Tat.
Delete...all other "games" fail to teach lessons.
DeleteAMEN, FJ!
DeleteAMEN!
Eliminate it. What Thersites said, and, it's the right thing to do.
ReplyDeleteThere's a simple question that gets to the real core of this argument. Now, the answer can't be something like "well, that didn't happen so there" or such. And for some, you really have to reach deep to pull out an honest answer.
DeleteHad Hillary won the ecection, Dems flipped the Lower Chamber, and we had a 52 to 48 Democratic controlled Senate, would you favor a change in the 60 vote filibuster rule?
If you want to eliminate the rule for Trump but wouldn't want tofor Hillary, it would be interesting (or, possibly disturbing) to hear your rationale.
Well, Ronald, when they were in power under the leadership of the odious "Hairy Red," the DEMOCRATS set aside the sixty vote rule in order to force THEIR [unwelcome] agenda on a helpless electorate.
DeleteHad that not been the case, we would not be saddled with the mare's nest of inequity and self-contradicting factionalism that is OBAMACARE today.
We could simply say "What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander," and let it go at that, but I'd prefer a deeper examnation of the virtues and faults in each of the opposing positions.
I have always believed that the MAJORITY ought to have the authority to decide whatever course of action may be in dispute.
I despise all the finagling, manipulation, deceit and disingenuous posturing that dominates the political scene.
You are RIGHT to question why one party should be able to "get away" with a manipulative move to gain advan/tage at the expense of the other –– as long as the SAME standard applies to ALL factions concerned.
It's challenging to rationally converse with this "alternative facts" menality that today's so-called conservatives have seemed to normalize themselves to but what you are arguing is inconsistent with facts.
DeleteNo, Ds didn't set aside the rule in order to enforce an agenda but rather made it apply to advancing the seating of federal judges which Rs refused to allow. These empty seats were creating huge backlogs and jamming the system. This also occurred after repeated warnings from Reid to allow some moderate judges to proceed. Rs wouldn't budge. Even after the change, a great deal of these nominees were confirmed at or near 100 to 0. So it had nothing to do with qualification or but rather obstruction and sabotage by a very defiant GOP. The change never included legislation or the SCOTUS nominee.
This change came years after ACA became law so even if these imaginary changes had been made by Reid, your accusation is nonsensical.
Your "fair for the goose" premise is also flawed as it seems to suggest that any tweak in the rules from Ds justifies a full-scale unprecedented blow up by Rs, regardless of the reason for the original tweak.
You seem to take the long road home to say that changes made by Ds are had but the same changes, and even far more drastic changes made by Rs is just fine.
By the way, trump himself was against changing the rules when Ds help power. But of course, he's a serial liar and a life long con man so that isn't unexpected.
Ronald J. Wart has just made an argument of justification based on exigency.
DeleteThe Democrats did it; in Ronald's opinion for justifiable reasons.
Mr. Wart asserts, in the same breath, that Republicans' justification is not sufficient.
Ronald J. Wart's argument is built upon quicksand, since the standard for right and wrong exists only in his own ideologically-biased feelings and opinion.
Unquantifiable terms like "Drastic" are rat turds topping a horrible recipe and a sure sign the cook has no understanding of logic. The Ad hominem and Tu Quoque squeal Ronald ends his blather-filled missive with shows without a doubt Ronald J. Wart is a fallacy-riddled prog bereft of the powers of reason and independent thought.
It is within Senate rules to change the particular rule in question. When to do so and how to defend the decision is a political question.
Actually Marvin, your recreation of my words and assessment of my argument is a product from you, not me.
DeleteThe word "drastic" is quite appropriate. Let's walk through a condensed version. Under Obama, Rs grinded legislation to a halt, refused any legislation from Obama regardless of its merit, and refused any nominees regardless of qualifications. This was causing court backloads and literally jamming the judicial system. Ds warned several time that if Rs wouldn't at least cooperate on some moderates, they'd change the rules.
And they changed the rules for Fed judges only.
Now the above is factual. It's not byperboil or a partisan axe grinding but just reality. So far so good?Questions?
Now Mitch changed the rules on the very first SCOTUS nominee, right off the bat. And now while denying Ds a voice in anything, even on healthcare which reflects on just under 20% of the economy.
So yes, the Ds move was a drastic response to Rs obstruction whereas the Rs is sole a power grab and shuts out the voice of the opposition. Party.
Yes, I'm fully aware of the who, when, and where of senatorial rules.
Ronald continues to argue from PERSONAL OPINION. Both parties adjusted rules when in the majority to get around minority opposition.
DeleteDemocrat intransigence in approving a mainstream judge with a stellar record and recommendations from the ABA is what drove McConnell's decision to end the 60 vote rule for Supreme Court Judges. I call it the Hairy Reed Gambit.
Let's examine this hyperpartisan, ideologically-skewed Democrat talking point from Ronald J. Wart:
"So yes, the Ds move was a drastic response to Rs obstruction whereas the Rs is sole a power grab and shuts out the voice of the opposition. Party."
This is an opinion bereft of any logical argumentation. Such a statement is pure propaganda and belongs on the DNC website or the smudged pages of the New York Times.
Ronald J. Wart has failed to ground his argumentation in facts and logic. In fact, he has not presented a true argument; he is merely regurgitating propaganda he has evidently overdosed on.
Marvin, you accuse me of being opinionated and then proceed to classify Gorsuch as mainstream and then go further to use that as some matter-of-fact justification for rule changes.
DeleteYour opinion are facts and warranted here while mine are propaganda and shouldn't be allowed?
OKAY, GUYS. It's time for BOTH of you to SHUT UP, and GET the HELL OUT of MY space.
DeleteThese long wonded exchanges of disingenuous, quasi-erudite, insolence and name callibng are beyond tedious. They are BAAAAAAAAWRING.
Invariably, diatribes are abysmally DULL.
Now SCOOT! And please DON'T come back.
Notice please the way Mr. Ward CONSTANTLY attributes motives to those he opposes by presenting them as ESABLISHED PROVEN FACT. That's the same things as "putting words in someone else's mouth: –– always a lamentable practice.
DeleteNotice too the way he gets increasingly accusatory and unpleasant when I try to respond with at least a modicum of balance.
People of this bigoted, intransigent ilk –– usually-but-not-always leftists –– will NEVER give an opposing voice CREDIT for ANYTHING, and will never never NEVER admit they are WRONG, even in the face of irrefutable proof that their notions are false and their pet theories don't hold water.
This is the stock-in-trade of practioners of Critical Theory –– the fiendish invention of The Gramsci and the Frankfurt School's Cultural Marxist demonic Initiatives.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
DeleteRonald,
DeleteIt is not merely my opinion that Justice Gorsuch is a stellar and mainstream judge. Please review his endorsements. The ABA gave him their highest endorsement.
The Democrats voting against him in a lockstep tantrum against electoral reality was a shameful travesty and a low point in Senate history, especially given the fact that the extreme leftwing witch from the ACLU, Ruthless Ginsberg, was voted in with overwhelming bipartisan support.
In summary, Ronald J. Wart is an ignoramus and Democrat party patsy.
@ FreeThinke: Notice please the way Mr. Ward CONSTANTLY attributes motives to those he opposes by presenting them as ESABLISHED PROVEN FACT. That's the same things as "putting words in someone else's mouth: –– always a lamentable practice.
DeleteNotice too the way he gets increasingly accusatory and unpleasant when I try to respond with at least a modicum of balance.
Brilliantly stated! Your forbearance with the disputatious propagandist in question has demonstrated the patience of Job.
It is abundantly clear the provocative propagandists argues from bad faith and has no desire to arrive at the truth or any manner of comity.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteREMARKS MUST BE RELEVANT to AVOID DELETION, PP, and as surely you know by now, YOUR snotty, relentlessly belligerent, mindless iterations of putrid partisan memes are ESPECIALLY unwelcome here.
DeleteIt's an interesting time for this argument to surface. Where were the cheerleaders for it while the so-called conservative lawmakers were taking filibusters to unprecedented records?
ReplyDeleteWhen Majority Leader Bill Frist threatened senatorial rule changes during the GWB era, Rs cheered. When Harry Reid made minor changes due to an opposition party hellbent on gridlock out of spite for the Obama and even with an admission as a stratagem to unseat him, Mitch and team cried fowl. When Mitch changed the rules over trumps very first SCOTUS pick (after robbing Dems and Obama of seating ANYONE simply because of, well, Obama), Rs again cheered.
But aside from that as well as the profound hypocrisy and dishonesty of today's so-called conservatives, the rule protects absolute rule of a 1 party government and forces what should be a reach-across-the-aisle and work together concept-a government that's ultimately apt to represent all the people rather than cater solely to 1 ideology.
And at this time in history when the parties have never been as polarized and with a GOP catering solely to their corporate donors, it literally locks one side out (we saw this with McConnell's backdoor secretive TrumpUniversityCare scam).
And it becomes more problematic with a serial lying, racist, self proclaimed sexual assaulting, egomaniac con man with no regard to the rule of law or due process.
Other than that, I guess there isn't a problem with it.
And here we have, LAYDEEZE and JENNIMUN, a classic example of thoughtless, hopelessly biased, ultra-partisan rhetoric. [Note the copious regurgitation of the all-too-familiar anti-Trump memes recycled mindlessly –– and endlessly –– in the disingenuous Echo-Chambers of the Left!]
DeleteThe age-old cry of "YOU DO IT TOO" makes an insufficient, fundamentally dishonest criticism of the practice and in no way constitues an adequate REBUTTAL.
Such rhetoric shows no more depth, and carries no more weight than the childish cry of "To hell with what everyone else wants. I DON'T LIKE IT, therefore it should not be."
Just because Mr. Ward writes in decently ohrased standard English –– always commendable in my estimation, I admit –– does not lend credence to his specious, bitterly antagonistic, hopelessly biased claims.
I'm not sure at what point I struck such a nerve with you but you appear to allow your disdain override reality. Or perhaps, your deep-seated bigotry (not to be confused with racism) of liberals or such forbids you to acknowledge the blatant dishonesty, abject hypocrisy, and overwhelming incometence of the GOP as a premise in this ultra-power argument.
DeleteMy criticism does by the way have credence, your recollection of knowledge of history and senatorial rules are suspect, and surely that last kettle-calling-black/rubber-glue "specious, bitterly antagonistic, hopelessly biased claims" was satire. Right?
Ronald,
DeleteThe Democrats have their own raft of "corporate donors." Please review some campaign cash websites. After the Bush crash in 2008, Democrats did the bidding of corporate finance and ended up almost completely destroying local main street banks because of resulting policy of their legislation that choked off the cash supply to all but the big corporate banks. Not saying the GOOP wouldn't have done the same, but this was Democrat policy, which minus some embroidery and flashy festoonery, is indistinguishable from GOOP policy.
Mr. Ward introduces concepts like principles and hypocrisy into a political dispute. Priceless!
Politics is about power. Democrats know how to wield it brutally and with the boring, razor sharp precision of a Panzer Korps attack.
The GOOP ends up cutting themselves with the sword and having to run to the school nurse. Sad.
Anyway, you're one-eye blind. A wiser man in your position would be more circumspect about hurling criticisms at others.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
DeleteThank you, Silver, but we need always to keep this in mind:
DeleteNo matter what may come to pass
An ass will alwys be an ass.
Sadder still, –– and all too true ––
Elephants can be asses too!
~ An FT "On the Spot" original
};^)>
Poor Ronald's a numbing bore ––
DeleteHe's naught but a D'Rat whore ––
A shill for ill will ––
A bitter old pill ––
Who begs to be kicked off the floor!
~ Lime Rickey
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteIf you hope to avoid DELETION, comments MUST relate to the stated TOPIC.
DeleteWe do not accept BOILERPLATE.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteIf you hope to avoid DELETION, remarks MUST relate to the stated TOPIC.
DeleteThis is neither a Dumping Ground nor a Free-for All than welcomes stray commentary of ANY variety.
With passage of the 17th Amendment, the US Senate became a second House of Representatives, albeit with less people and more ornate decorations.
ReplyDeleteHaving said that, President Trump is full of it when he blames the Democrats and Senate rules for the serial self-immolating failures of the GOOP.
I didn't realize they had the vote until I read your blog this morning.
I have been avoiding politics. Watching the GOOP fall through Democrat trap doors, shoot themselves in the face with cannons and strain mightily to paper over their serial lies is a disgraceful display that makes me sick to my stomach.
I didn't follow the GOOP's shambolic stagger to vote on their own ObamaCare because I am not a fan of Circle Jerk Snuff Porn.
Many now accuses congress of acting as a UNIPARTY, Silver.
DeleteWhatever "opposition" the GOP gives the D'RATS amounts to little more than a Punch & Judy Show –– "Bread & Circuses" to distract the masses and keep the rabble at bay.
Can you think of a good argument to refute that allegation?
'
I wish I could, but can't.
REGARDING the SEVENTEENTH AMENDMENT
Delete[T]he structure of Congress in the written Constitution has barely been touched since 1791. The only constitutional amendment to do so in a substantial way is the Seventeenth Amendment, which removed from state legislatures the power to choose U.S. Senators and gave that power directly to voters in each state.
According to James Madison, giving state legislatures the power to choose Senators provided a “double advantage,” both “favoring a select appointment, and of giving to the State governments such an agency in the formation of the federal government as must secure the authority of the former.” ...
By requiring the consent of two different constituencies to any legislation — the people’s representatives in the House and the state legislatures in the Senate — the composition of the Senate was seen as essential to the system of bicameralism, which would require “the concurrence of two distinct bodies in schemes of usurpation or perfidy ..."
https://constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/amendments/amendment-xvii?gclid=EAIaIQobChMItuOettmx1QIVmUwNCh3VPgyWEAAYASAAEgJUcPD_BwE
@ FreeThinke: "Can you think of a good argument to refute that allegation?"
DeleteNo. You hit the bullseye. Dems and Repubes are the Crips and Bloods of politics. They may engage in some turf battles, but they both have the aim of preying upon the American people.
Thank you, Silver. Now WHEN do you suppose The People are going to get wise to the FARCE their government has made of the "Democratic Process?"
DeleteI know you believe that any meaningful show of resistance to the Powers That Be would be futile, and sure to die aborning, and that any hope of staging a SECOND AMERICAN REVOLUTION is foolish and completely unrealistic, so why are even bothering to write to each other since our prospects for Revival of the Spirit of '76 are patently absurd?
Nevertheless, I keep thinking of these famous words:
"What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure."
“When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.”
~ Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826)
TRUTH never changes only FASHION does. If we lose faith in TRUTH, we lose EVERYTHING that makes life worthwhile.
I agree with Ronald J. Ward. The Republicans are big fat hippocrites. Even with a majority they can't get anything done, so they change the rules. When the Democrats get back in charge well see how a party rules the Nation.
ReplyDeleteAre you DEAF, DUMB and BLIND, Baloney?
DeleteHave you not yet noticed how critical we are of the "Mainstream" GOP?
Have you not noticed how much we openly DESPISE them for their lackluster performances and apparent unwillingness to do anythung but COOPERATE with tthe LEFT's GLOBALIST-SOCIALIST anti-American, One World Government AGENDA?
Most us THINKING Cinservative-Libertarians DESPISE Mitch McConnell and Paul Ryan nd all the other go along to get along who, apparently, care for nothing but the preservation and perpetuation of their cushy little jobs that enable them to rake in great piles of dough at the American Taxpayer's expense.
You afre a FOOL if yu have failed to frecognize that REublicrats and Demopublicans are effectively COLLUDING behind the proverbial barn. Jerkng each other off, and laughing themselves silly at the incredible STUPIDITY and GULLIBILITY of –– the sheer MINDLESSNESS –– of an electorate that repeatedly supports they wretched likes of THEM.
The USA will soon be governed by a much younger and more progressive mindset than us old facts could ever understand. Our nation will soon be a younger version of Europe. There is little old facts can do to change that trajectory. It's called progress.
DeleteSo was the 17th amendment. Correct me if I'm wrong FreeThinke but I think that may be your point.
Not "PROGRESS," Klaus, it is ERROR. Another Great Blunder, another Setback, another Vain Illusion, another Chimera, another Dragon, another Noexistent Pot of Gold at the end of an ever-ephemeral Rainbow
DeleteFACTS are not TRUTH. TRUTH is ETERNAL, IMMUTABLE, OMNIPOTENT, OMIPOTENT and OMNIPRESENT. TRUTH is INESCAPABLE.
TRUTH is never subject to the whims and caprices of FASHION.
TRUTH is GOD. GOD is TRUTH.
Every bit of care, woe, pain, grief and injustice stems from humanity's ever present urge to try to ESCAPE from TRUTH.
Why snould this be so?
Because in the man pelple are SCARED to DEATH of FREEDOM.
And why is that, yu ask?
B ecause Freedom implies taking RESPONSIBILITY for oneself, the decisiins one makes, and one's actions.
I never hear the word "Escape"
DeleteWithout a quicker blood ––
A sudden Agitation ––
A flying Attitude ––
I never heard of prisons broad
By soldiers battered down ––
But I tug –– childish –– at my bars ––
Only to fail again ––
~ Emily Dickinson (1830-1886)
Miss Dickinson struggled all her life with her own skepticism –– her inabiity to Believe in God –– at least as God is presented in traditional interpretatiins of he Bible –– the simplistic theology of her time.
In a very real sense she was a "prisoner" of her lack of faith. I think she may have punished herself –– at least subconsciously –– for not being able to be the girl her stern-but-loving father brought her up to be.
The inner torment brought about by confusion, doubt, fear, and the yearning to be understood and loved for who one really is can be more acute and more powerful than any kind of mere physical deprivation especially when those supposedy closest to you and those you ook up to for guidance haven't the faintest idea who –– or what –- you are.
True. My father always talked about accepting personal responsibility. I was weaned on it. A lifetime voyage it has been.
DeleteSpeaking of the secret store of poetry which few knew existed during her lifetime Miss Dickinson wrote:
DeleteThis is my letter to the world,
That never wrote to me,--
The simple news that Nature told,
With tender majesty.
Her message is committed
To hands I cannot see;
For love of her, sweet countrymen,
Judge tenderly of me!
Ironically her wish was fulfilled beyond her wildest dreams, –– but not until forty-plus years after her death at the relatively young age of fifty-six.
"What might this have to do with politics?" you ask.
Everything and nothing.
Developing one's inner life with an eye to increasing and strengthening Faith in Something greater than our pathetically limited perceptions is TREMENDOUS help in TRANSCENDING temporal concerns for which there afre mo good solutions
ALL we can do realistically is to take a VOW to avoid participating in the Filth, Degradation, Meanness, Corruption and Morbid Preoccupation with SELF that seems to surround us.
TRUTH may burn like fire, bugt it WILL set us free –– but only IF we develop enough courage to embrace it wholeheartedly wihout reservation.
In the end the ONLY thing that matters is our relationship with TRUTH.
Dietrich Bonhoeffer, –– a notable Man of Faith ––, knew this, and that is why he was able to face down the Nazi's wihout flinching –– even as they forced him to suffer a painful, humuliating death for his unswerving devotion to Divine Principle.
In this way, Bonhoeffer died TRIUMPHANT.
As a people we seem to have have lost touch with any awareness we once have had of the immense value of cultivating an enlightened approach to faith. IF we manage to revive this, most of the internal strife that currently plagues us would :thaw, melt and resolve iself into a dew."
I suspect Dickenson was a person who spent a great deal of time in quiet introspection. Something some spend too much time doing, others too little. Finding balance is often difficult in this short life of ours, but, it is necessary if one is to find contentment and happiness. And, true contentment and happiness comes from within, not from without.
DeleteInteresting that you should reference "traditional interpretations of the Bible". In my view, nourished by my loving parents, true spirituality has little to nothing to do with the written word of men.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteHow I often do I have to TELL you people that OFF-TOPIC COMMENTS will be SUMMARILY DELETED ON CONTACT?
DeleteIt's the Registed Nurse using all those stupid names.
DeleteOf course it is! Please don't think I don't recognize Nursie Poo Poo no matter what guise he assumes.
DeleteSometimes, I go along with the gag just to humor him when he's affecting polite interest, but sooner or later he ALWAYS reverts to type, so these brief bits of cordiality don't last long.
There definitely a pathology at work there, and n truth I feel sorry for him, as I would anyone so sadly affllcted.
As the Plot thickness!
ReplyDeleteDebbie Whatshername Shultz and the DNC are under investigation.
Imran Awan and the DNC has committed Federal crimes
Comey and Lynch are under investigation.
Susann Rice and Powers are under investigation.
Hilly Clinton sends sensitive classified information over her secret hidden server to a Sexual Pervert's personal server!
Donna Brazil's give the debate questions in advance to The Hildabeast.
And the man who wants to Make America Great Again, secure the border, drain the swamp, and putting hundreds of lawyers to work defending the Democrats, is under Investigation!
Does Anyone. See Anything Wrong Here?
The GOP should implement majority rule and be done with it. Smash the barriers and roll back un-American tide of progressive sewage that has beshitted this great land!
ReplyDeleteI certainly agree. The question that should interest us most, however, is WHY is Mitch "Blabbermouth" McConnell ADAMANTLY refusing even to CONSIDER exercising this winning ploy?
DeleteUh, sorry! That was supposed to be BLADDERMOUTH Maybe "ADDERMOUTH" would have been more approriate come to think if it, the guy is such a Snake-in-the-Grass, but I still like BLADDERMOUTH,
DeleteApparently Spelchek does not, because i have to FIGHT with the goddam thing to keep the spellings I want to use in place.
The movement to destroy individuality and enforce rigid, mindless conformity is everywhere upon us.
Being the most trusted newsman in the nation, I cannot take sides in this partisan debate. I can say that Harry Reid started it!
ReplyDeleteIn other news, it appears General Kelly is taking charge of the West Wing and attempting to bring order out of chaos. Reports are he has "crock blocked" Scaramouche, who now may be asking Steve Bannon to show him how to "blow" his own "horn."
And that's the way it is!
1. The dems stated they will oppose anything Trump right after the inauguration. They removed THEMSELVES from the process.
ReplyDelete2. The dems will make it a simple majority in a heartbeat if given the chance in the future.
3.As obama said, he was elected to enact his agenda. Well Trump was elected to do his agenda. Let's get it done and laugh at the crying babies
1) As the republicans did in 2009 for 8 years.
ReplyDelete2) As it ought to be.
3) Trump, in the last poll, Trump's favorite polling organizations, is at 39%.
So, lets see where it goes from here. It will be interesting. If Trump actually begins to listen to he might have a shoot at success. But it will be an uphill battle. It seems learning from history is indeed a rare thing.
Professor Victor Schenck
Shaddap, Nursie Poo
DeleteGreat thundering Jove! Must we put up with this vapid nonsense from progressive toadie interlopers?
DeleteEvery so often we must, Lord Hellpuss [LOVE that double pun! ;-]
DeleteWe must, because it exhibits such an egregious brand of non-thinking opposition to good common sense, it makes an excellent target for REFUTATION.
We do strive to keep this sort of thing at a minimum, however, –– and will continue to do so as long as the Lord allows.
Oh dear! His Lordship has escaped the manor grounds again!
DeleteLet us examine where the contemporary events of today have conveyed us. It is encumbent upon us all to reflect on the sad state of bipartisanship!
ReplyDelete1) As Emperor Barack Hussein did in 2009 for 8 years.
2) As it ought never to have been.
3) Edicts that live by the pen and the phone shall die by the pen and the phone
4) The press, in the last poll, is at 19%.
5) As we speak, a clapped-out Rat Turd Nation Progressive Dancing Boy sits soiling himself.
So, let us see where it goes from here. It will be interesting, meethinks. If Democrats and their dancing boy allies actually begin to listen to the will of the people, they might just have a shooting shot at electorial successes.
But it will be an uphill battle, straining at the reins. If we all pull together we can do it! There is no i in team! It seems learning from history is rare indeed. Rolling history up and smoking it is rarer still. Onward and upward!
Herr Doktor Professor Lestard Krabschitz von Schtinke
HEAR! HEAR! A little vulgar for my taste, perhaps, but commendable all the same. KUTGW!
DeleteCowardly Republicans:
ReplyDeleteStand up on your hind legs. Strain those flabby haunches. Learn how to roar!
Abolish all super majority rules. Remove those impediments, block out the hectoring squeals of the progressives, and crush them like the termites they are.
Smash them! Steamroll them! Shove legislative red hot pokers up their asses!
Steal Pelosi Galore's botox and watch her wither and disappear.
Assign a permanent laff track chorus to follow Maxine Gasoline Waters everywhere she wanders.
Shove Schmucky Shoomers head in the toilet, give him a chocolate swirly and then hang him by his feet, squealing like a girl, from the lighting rod atop the capitol dome.
Go Big. Go Scorched Earth. This may be your last chance, you shameful, pusillanimous poltroons.
A delghtful colorfully-phrased extremist agenda, –– and one with which I basically sympathize, despite the Madd Magazine style, –– but you know, –– and I know –– that pasture pies have a better chance of turning into gold than the GOP has of growing an adequate set of balls or a firm, unyielding spine in standing up for Principle.
DeleteThat don't go near far enough!
DeleteU. Betta Laylow said
DeleteJust how far would you be prepared to go, Bastardson?
Listen, "Professor:"
ReplyDelete1. The GOP never even BEGAN to muster the kind of vicious, blindly partisan, utterly disingenuius, wholly unprincipled, obstinate campaign against President Obama that the Left is exercising now against President Trump.
2. As WHAT should be? Please be more specific. We are not mind readers here. If you meant that parties are supposed to oppose one another on principle you may be right. Our system of governance was PREDICATED on the idea that –– as eigtheenth-century Scottish phlosopher David Hume put it –– "Truth springs from argument among friends." The emphasis, of course, must be in "FRIENDS." Bitter enmity between thugs, unprincipled games of one-upsmanshit, degrading spectacles of specious, vacuous, fiercely disingenuous, time wasting argumentation –– the sort of thing we see too much of today –– do everything possible to AVOID cintrinting anything even faintly resembling Truth.
3. I don't believe in polls. All of them are skewed by partisan considerations, and have provemd themselves to be unfreiable indicators of Public Opinion as Trimp's stunning, so-called "upset" victory last Novemnber should have proved conclusively to any intelligent, fair-minded observer. American citizens, apparently, are neither as stuoid, ignorant or easily led as most have presupposed.
As for your final paragraph, I've heard NOTHING-BUT unsolicited "advice" from the enemedia, and from most sitting politicians and those who fancy themselves knowledgeable telling Donald Trump what he "must" or "ought" to do –– first during the campaign, –– then as president. ALL of them are continually advising Mr. Trump to STOP BEING TRUMP. The president WON precisely BECAUSE he kept doing all the things the so-called "experts" advised him NOT to do.
The Establishment is scared to DEATH of Donald Trump, because IF even HALF his agenda DOEs get implemented, it will mean the END of their damnable suzerainty over American public policy.
I, who am fortunate enough to be able to sit comfortably on the sidelines for more than ten years now, believe I have correctly identified the enormously destructive forces in play that have been dismantling everything good about our country for decades and replacing it with policies based on specious logic and meretricious pseudo-ideals.
You are right, however, in reiterating the sentiment one of my high school Civics teachers told us long ago; "The lesson we learn from History is that we learn NOTHING from History."
We all have our views. Going into detail in response to the above would be an exercise in futility. Hume was right. Since you view me as the enemy an impenetrable wall exists. No hard feelings.
DeleteEnjoy and be happy.
Professor Victor Schenck
"Going into detail in response" would overtax your pebble brain, ya pantywaist googlolly.
DeleteNow begoen wie ya, before we kick yer arse, ya nancy.
Cool
ReplyDeleteFigalena Jackson-Wethergel, said
DeleteActually it's very hot. 95º today. It usually is here in August. Where do you live, the north pole?
Speaking of Judges... anybody else ever sit in front of a TV and wonder if Judge Judy is wearing anything under that robe?
ReplyDeleteI've often done that!
DeleteTHAT OLD BROAD'S GOT A MEAT GRINDER BETWEEN HER LEGS. I'VE SEEN IT & IT AIN'T PURTY.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteTelling tales out of school is an un/welcome practice here. So are complaints and criticisms about other participants.
Deletetell me is Trump's Golf game more important than Debbie Wasserman schultz's spying?
ReplyDeleteGood point, Doris!
DeleteDebbie Wasserman Schultz’s top information technology guy, the Pakistani-born Imran Awan — who was under investigation by the FBI for theft and cybersecurity-tied abuses — was arrested at Dulles International Airport as he tried to flee the country.
ReplyDeleteIs hardly if ever in the news. But whenever I pickup a newspaper or turn on the TV or radio, all I heard is Trump said soy or other about the White House condition, or about any other stupid and nonsensical remark that he might have or might not have said!
For Heavens Sake, get real!
I wouldn't hope for any change to occur in the ENEMEDIA, Monte.
DeleteTHey are fixated on a virulent DESTROY TRUMP Agenda. We've already discssed the reasos cr this ad nauseam here.
The WORST aspect of the deplorable situation is the PERFIDY flagrantly displayed by President Trump's OWN party.
There's actually 2 ways of looking at this.
ReplyDeleteCalling the White House inhabitants a dump or the White House itself, either way theres nothing there for anybody to get all riled about.
The ban on transgender service that President Trump reaffirmed was there for eight years under Obama. It was there in his first term and his second term. And the media said nothing.
ReplyDeleteWould you give us your sources for that please?
Delete