Who do you think will be the first t o report this, Sawyer,Williams, Couric,....:

http://michellemalkin.com/2011/02/24/video...ass-you-f**got/

 

 

 

Very constructive..

 

 

How about this one;

 

http://michellemalkin.com/2011/02/23/video...works-activist/

 

there is a media blackout for most major outlets on this stuff. Very different from the coverage the Tea Party protests got.

Edited February 25, 201115 yr by mr_genius

Do you guys consider everyone in a union to be a "thug"?

Do you guys consider everyone in a union to be a "thug"?

Only if they're also Packer fans.

Only if they're also Packer fans.

 

Don't you mean Super bowl champion Packer fans.

Don't you mean Super bowl champion Packer fans.

Thug.

Do you guys consider everyone in a union to be a "thug"?

 

durrr

As to the whole filibuster/quorum debate, all is fair in love and war. Its fair when the Republicans do it, its fair when the Democrats do it. There are reasons why rules about quorum were created. And for most votes in Wisconsin, quorum is not required.

 

Some of our founding fathers were extremely concerned about tyranny of the majority, and that cuts against both Democrats and Republicans. We are nation built on compromise, our entire govt structure is built on the idea of making people compromise.

 

Disagree with the system all you want, but Republicans and Democrats are playing by the rules. Its up to the majority to figure out a way to convince the minority to agree.

 

As this is the Republican thread I will only post neutral statements, I feel that is a fair compromise to me posting in this thread.

Point goes to Walker:

 

http://www.jsonline.com/blogs/news/117101638.html

 

Gov. Scott Walker on Monday afternoon responded to comments President Barack Obama made earlier in the day about the protests in Madison:

 

Walker’s office issued this statement:

 

“I'm sure the President knows that most federal employees do not have collective bargaining for wages and benefits while our plan allows it for base pay. And I'm sure the President knows that the average federal worker pays twice as much for health insurance as what we are asking for in Wisconsin. At least I would hope he knows these facts.

 

“Furthermore, I’m sure the President knows that we have repeatedly praised the more than 300,000 government workers who come to work every day in Wisconsin.

 

“I’m sure that President Obama simply misunderstands the issues in Wisconsin, and isn’t acting like the union bosses in saying one thing and doing another.”

Also, this from Obama's statement earlier in the day:

 

"If all the pain is borne by one group – whether it’s workers, or seniors, or the poor – while the wealthiest among us keep getting tax cuts, we’re not doing the right thing. I think that’s something Republicans and Democrats should be able to agree on."

 

is hilarious. Guess you're not doing the right thing, Mr. President.

Edited February 28, 201115 yr by Jenksismybitch

Point goes to Walker:

 

http://www.jsonline.com/blogs/news/117101638.html

 

Agreed here, if he's being accurate, that's a good point.

 

Also, this from Obama's statement earlier in the day:

 

 

 

is hilarious. Guess you're not doing the right thing, Mr. President.

Not so much here though - he specifically pushed to NOT have that tax cut anymore for his bracket. I'd say he can own the higher ground on that one.

 

Agreed here, if he's being accurate, that's a good point.

 

 

Not so much here though - he specifically pushed to NOT have that tax cut anymore for his bracket. I'd say he can own the higher ground on that one.

 

He pushed for a week and then caved without a fight. He doesn't own the high ground on that issue at all. He's like every other politician - in it for himself and the money that put him in office.

There's still something that doesn't seem right about a Republican attacking Obama for caving in to Republican demands.

There's still something that doesn't seem right about a Republican attacking Obama for caving in to Republican demands.

 

Conservative, if not libertarian. I also don't agree with most of the current GOP's social policies. But that's why the 2 party system we have sucks. Neither party represents the majority of people.

 

Conservative, if not libertarian. I also don't agree with most of the current GOP's social policies. But that's why the 2 party system we have sucks. Neither party represents the majority of people.

 

Fair enough, but I think that criticism would fit better in the Dem thread. Plenty of people on the left were pissed at him for caving on that (and the estate tax), and it was a Republican party demand. Just seems odd that it's in the ® thread.

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich will officially form an exploratory committee regarding running for the 2012 Republican Presidential Nomination.

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich will officially form an exploratory committee regarding running for the 2012 Republican Presidential Nomination.

 

Can't wait for the Dems out there who will flip flop from backing Clinton ("who cares what he does so long as he's effective") to going after Newt ("values? what values can he possibly stand for?").

Can't wait for the Dems out there who will flip flop from backing Clinton ("who cares what he does so long as he's effective") to going after Newt ("values? what values can he possibly stand for?").

 

Well, if Gingrich tries to claim moral authority or go on about the "sanctity of marriage," it's a legitimate argument to point out that he's on his third marriage and treated his previous wives pretty poorly. It's not flip-flopping because Clinton and Clinton backers aren't typically making "sanctity of marriage" or socially conservative arguments.

 

It's not that Gingrich's personal marriage life really has any impact on his ability to govern, it's that it runs in direct contradiction to arguments for social policies he supports.

Well, if Gingrich tries to claim moral authority or go on about the "sanctity of marriage," it's a legitimate argument to point out that he's on his third marriage and treated his previous wives pretty poorly. It's not flip-flopping because Clinton and Clinton backers aren't typically making "sanctity of marriage" or socially conservative arguments.

 

It's not that Gingrich's personal marriage life really has any impact on his ability to govern, it's that it runs in direct contradiction to arguments for social policies he supports.

 

 

Didn't Clinton sign DOMA? .

He pushed for a week and then caved without a fight. He doesn't own the high ground on that issue at all. He's like every other politician - in it for himself and the money that put him in office.

Honestly, he's monetarily set for life anyway. I highly doubt he was trying to protect his own very small income change. It was pretty clear what happened - he didn't want it, but compromise forced his hand.

 

Honestly, he's monetarily set for life anyway. I highly doubt he was trying to protect his own very small income change. It was pretty clear what happened - he didn't want it, but compromise forced his hand.

 

So the rich never try to increase their wealth?

 

But yes, I agree it was probably less from a self-interested standpoint as it was/is helping the money that got him elected. But the added perk probably helped. And I don't buy that he needed to cave on that issue to compromise. That's yet another issue that the Democrats could have easily won the PR battle on, but they (continually) don't know what the country wants, or don't care to know, and it continues to screw them in the long run.

Fair enough, but I think that criticism would fit better in the Dem thread. Plenty of people on the left were pissed at him for caving on that (and the estate tax), and it was a Republican party demand. Just seems odd that it's in the ® thread.

 

There's a lot of different Republican leaning opinions on many of these issues.

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich will officially form an exploratory committee regarding running for the 2012 Republican Presidential Nomination.

 

 

Whorebag.

More of those damn Republicans using charged political language to prove a point

 

I personally don't care about this crap, and i think if Repubs and Dems want to use blood/fighting/guns/whatever language to prove their point that's their prerogative. I don't believe for a second that anyone actually condones violence when using that language.

 

It got me laughing about how f***ed up this country is though. We're the obese, middle aged house wife watching Oprah and infomercials all day people of the world. We spent 2 weeks (or more) talking about this issue and obviously it's now an afterthought. But I just read a fantastic SI article about Rose and it was all about his "killer" instinct and drive. It begins: "A killer was born in a game of cutthroat." Not a peep about how terrible it is to use that language and to expose that kind of thinking to children. Shocking.

 

 

I guess he forgot how well it worked out for Dan Quayle when he went after "Murphy Brown":

 

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/...an/#more-149072

 

I guess he forgot how well it worked out for Dan Quayle when he went after "Murphy Brown":

 

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/...an/#more-149072

 

While I might agree with his opinion (that she's a role model sending an involuntary message) it's pretty stupid to point that out. What is she supposed to do? Go into hiding? Get an abortion? Ok, so she screwed up. I'm guessing even she would admit that. But there's nothing to be gained by pointing the finger at her about it. It's not like she's promoting how great it is to have been knocked up before being married or in a committed relationship, or even that she's telling people it's ok to be a single mom. She's just a famous person who happens to be going through this.

 

Now, if he's going after people in the media who glorify this type of situation, then maybe he's got a point.