Boner Blinks!
- Thread starter signalmankenneth
- Start date
Just proves that Republicans can and do negotiate and vote in the best interests of the public even if they don't get all they would want, rather than be like the thick headed, narrow-minded, my-way or the highway Democrats, that demand everyone accept what they think is best for us, whether we like it or not......
but then we always knew that anyway...
but then we always knew that anyway...
Mott the Hoople
Sweet Jane
You mean like the Iraq war? You mean like your either with us or with the terrorist? You mean like cutting taxes during time of war? You mean like opposing modernizing the world most expensive health care system? You mean like opposing finance reforms? Were talking about those Republicans? Yea....right.
It just goes to show you that two months before an election is a lot of time.
I rather anticipated your response Pavo as it's typically partisan.
The fact is, Obama and the Democrats have a big political edge over Republicans that can be used to sway the publics mind.
Look there's no denying were in a mess and their no denying that solutions to the mess were in are not coming fast enough for a lot of people suffering trough hard times and they want change. One things for sure, voting for ideologically conservative Republicans who got us into this mess in the first place aint the change people want.
That's the political capital that Democrats have in the upcoming election and believe me they are going to use it.
From irresponsible imperial adventurism and immoral war of aggression in Iraq to mismanaging our nations fiscus, to dropping the ball on the war on terrorism, to being asleep at the wheel when a city drowned, to organizing trade agreements which shipped our high paying manufacturing jobs over seas to failing to enforce the law while greedy Wall Street gamblers collapsed our economic system then fighting to reward those same people with huge bonuses for not only failing but nearly destroying our banking system there's not a whole lot of trust for you wacked out right wing nuts and your partisan identity politics.
Good Luck
New member
And this shows what a totally fucked in the head left wing nut you have become. Your head is so far up the donkey's ass you are looking out its nostrils, and you actually have the gumption to call someone else partisan?
Just for one, it has been pointed out REPEATEDLY that many of the manufacturing-job-exporting free trade agreements were negotiated by Clinton's administration. And before you go all "republicans had congress", try to get your head out of the donkey's ass long enough to learn howe our government works. (ie: the EXECUTIVE branch negotiates treaties, the senate can only refuse to ratify, which is rarely done.)
And speaking of failing to sign off on a controversial piece, if it's all the republicans' fault, why was it a democratic president that signed the law repealing Glass Steagall?
Bottom line: you are one of the most blindly partisan twits on this sight. And every time you point out the partisan leaning of another poster, you need to look in the fucking mirror.
For real?
Then, in that case, someone has been "repeatedly" lying.
NAFTA was a free trade scheme wet-dream for conservatives years before clinton, and the treaty was negotiated by Ronald Reagan and Poppy Bush. As I recall, Poppy ceremoniously signed the final treaty with the Mexican Prez and the Canuck PM, and then tried to ram it through fast track approval before clinton came into office.
Don't you remember the 1992 election, with Perot and all that crap? Does it dawn on you in that case, that it was President Poppy that was finalizing the negotiations on NAFTA.
Clinton said he would support Poppy's NAFTA if elected, but only after modifying it with more pro-labor and pro-environment amendments. Which is what he did. When clinton came in, he modified it was some pro-labor stuff that Poppy and Reagan didn't see fit to have in it. Still, it was a total sell out by Clinton to support Poppy Bush's NAFTA agreement. As I recall, most democrats in congress voted against the final version, even with clinton's modest pro-labor amendments.
Also, I'm 99% sure you were also wrong on only the senate voting on these. I think these trade agreements are treated differently from regular treaties, and that ultimately there is some kind of implementation act that has to be brought before a congressional vote. I'm almost positive that house voted on a NAFTA and a CAFTA implementation act, before anything was implemented.
Last edited:
Yep...just like the Iraq war, voted on and passed by the US Congress to allow the President to use force .....VOTED ON AND PASSED.....
Taxes....VOTED ON AND PASSED
the rest of your post is just partisan nonsense.....
House of Representatives approved NAFTA on November 17, 1993, by a vote of 234 to 200. The agreement's supporters included 132 Republicans and 102 Democrats. NAFTA passed the Senate 61-38. Clinton signed it into law on December 8, 1993; it went into effect on January 1, 1994.[
Good Luck
New member
LOL Look again at when NAFTA was ratified. If Clinton had added so much protection, why did so many manufacturing jobs float south of the border within a few years of the treaty? Why did so many lumber jobs float north of the border to Canada - which hit Montana quite hard.
Fact is Clinton did far more than simply agree to pursue NAFTA if elected. He was full blown in support of it from the get-go. And NAFTA is not the only trade agreement signed under Clinton. Try looking at the histories of SAFTA (1995) and CEMAC (1999). Are you going to claim those were republican inventions, only brought to being by Clinton?
And while most (but not all) democratic senators voted against NAFTA, the majority was not huge. Try to remember, 1993 dems still controlled congress. It was relatively early in Clinton's administration, and he still had them eating out of his hand. So much for you memory of events. (ie: selective so you don't have to acknowledge the fuckups of your beloved donkeys.) And I won't even mention your complete ignorance of congressional involvement with treaty negotiations - which is little to none. They ratify. A few on certain committees may have some input, but the majority of negotiations is an executive power. (try reading the Consitution. It is very clear.) Amazing what happens to real thought when one wears a donkeys ass for head gear.
Last edited:
Good Luck
New member
As for Boner's actions, they only make sense. Republicans go with the flow and extend or make permanent the middle class tax cuts, they win. Dems won't get credit because the cuts were republican legislation, strongly opposed by the democrats of the time, which only got minimal democratic support by adding in the expiration. If it were not for the dems, there would be no expiration to worry about extending. (Not that the dems will ever admit to that little fact. But I hope to hell the republicans pound it home the next two months exactly who did what when it comes to those tax cuts.)
Republicans are going to win big in 2010. How big depends on several things. Going ahead and making most of the tax cuts permanent will mean that many more seats in 2010.
Republicans are going to win big in 2010. How big depends on several things. Going ahead and making most of the tax cuts permanent will mean that many more seats in 2010.
hotdog
Victory Shall Be Mine
Haven't you seen the Obama deception. Greed had nothing to do with the Economic callapse. Wall Street deliberatly destroyed the economy to seize more control over the American economy as well as the world economy at large. Wall Street cares more about power then it does about money. It wasted and Lost a ton of money just for a little more power.
Mott the Hoople
Sweet Jane
I've met Boehner. He's the rep from the district I grew up in. He's an empty suit. He's never, ever uttered an original thought and is absolutely brilliant at not saying anything. If he wasn't from an old money Catholic family from Cincinnati he'd be unelectable in that district and were talking about a district that would gladly vote for Hitler as long as he's a German Catholic. He couldn't get elected dog catcher in Franklin county.
Mott the Hoople
Sweet Jane
Are you related to Asshat Hotdog?
zoombwaz
Radical Moderate Populist
You don't know shit, as you have clearly no grasp of current reality, as shown by your ascribing the traits of each party to the
other party. The GOP hasn't done anything, as in damn near zero, in the best interests of the public for over thirty years. The GOP was the "my way or the highway" party, even going so far as to threaten to carry out what they referred to as the "nuclear option" of abolishing the filibuster if the Dems dared use it to block their regressive policies or the appointment of industry lobbyists to head the agencies ostensibly regulating the industries they served. Best interests of the public? Like hell. Can you say, "conflict of interest," boys and girls? Sure you can. Can you say, "the fox is guarding the hen house?" Sure you can, unless you're a knee-jerk, bat-shit-crazy, right-wing parrot with his head so far up his ass he can actually see daylight. Now, these same Repugnicans who once threatened the nuclear option if they didn't get their way, have used the filibuster more than any other minority party in the history of the US Senate, by more than double. And you call that negotiating? Buy yourself a dictionary, but this time use it for something other than a door stop.
Then grow a clue.
I've been doing some reading on Boehner since his name has been thrown around lately...like Ed on MSNBC calling him the tanman and such.
Got to wondering who he was. Anyway, it seems that he was from a working class family of 12....somthing like 3rd oldest so he had to help raise the younger siblings. Definitely a Catholic. I think he had to work in a bar his folks owned really early in the morning cleaning it up and such. He took 7 years to get through college (not sure if it was grad school or not) because he had to work during the day and take classes at night. It really doesn't sound like the dossier of a person who comes from "old money" but then I haven't been able to read the whole thing. His family may have come into wealth later in his life. That said, I respect where he came from, especially working his way through school, but the bottom line is that he is a politician whom I don't know a lot about and I am not sure I trust him. Like I said with Obama, time will tell. He ain't even speaker yet....and may never be. People might be jumping the gun.
It is funny that the older gentleman on Morning Joe this morning after hearing the Catholic, family of 12, work his way through college part said something like, "Why is this guy a republican? His story reads like a democrat." I think people get the impression that the republicans are all Paris Hilton types and forget that many around here have less education and thus, less money than I do. It is a lot of our democrats that come from wealth. Again, they're all politicians....
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
1) The bulk of the tax cuts were done in JUNE OF 2001. PRIOR to 9/11, PRIOR to the wars.
2) LMAO @ 'modernizing the world's most expensive health care system'.... so they modernized it by making it MORE expensive????
3) Tell us... WHAT did those financial reforms do? Other than create 100 new agencies and an abundance of bureaucracy? Did they get the derivatives markets regulated? Are hedge funds now under SEC regs?
ROFLMAO... tell us... why do you continue to parrot the above nonsense?
Both parties repealed Glass Steagall. Both parties pushed more home ownership. Both parties sat back and did nothing.... and the DEMS have been in control of BOTH houses of Congress since 2007. So tell us Mott... what did THEY do? The answer is the same as the Reps... NOTHING.
hotdog
Victory Shall Be Mine
I think their is one flaw in the banker globalist conspiracy the fact the a president can choose to actually use power instead of being a yes man. How could the bankers control both parties completely? Obama could have taken over the Global economy and seized power nothing could have stopped him from destroying the globalists who left them exposed after starting the financial crisis. Why would Bush have taken orders from these people? The Globalist conspiracy says that all politicians are mindless actors without an ounce of courage.
Last edited:
Sammy Jankis
Was it me?
Except the globalists control all the intelligence departments. The president only sees what they want him to see. And if he does anything off reservation, his head goes back, and to the left, back and to the left.
Hmmmmmmmm, if the Repubs hadn't passed it, then what?