I'm sure radical regressives like Limbaugh are excited to hear from somebody how they're not responsible for socioeconomic problems (or any problems really) and thus not responsible to lift a finger to do anything about them, especially if the solutions might involve increased government spending and/or programs.
As far as I can tell, it's basically just another in a long line of conservative attempts to justify selfishness.
The Republican M.O. has essentially been to criticize anything and everything Obama has done even if it was the same identical thing that any (Republican) POTUS would have done in the exact same situation- and would have likewise been applauded had it been a Republican POTUS. As we have seen there is virtually NOTHING that Obama can do that the Republicans are above (or below) criticizing for partisan gain. It's gotten so ridiculous that I'm frankly surprised anybody takes them seriously anymore. It's like they they are so bereft of ideas and means of attacking Obama that they are reduced to trivial, nonsensical non-issues. I'm sure that many of them are depressed that they can't "Whitewater" or "Lewinsky" Obama to death like they did Clinton.
Reagan, Bush I, and GWB.
Yeah, me neither.
Where are the Republicans in Congress and what are THEY doing? Where have they been and what have THEY been doing since 01/20/09? Does he really want to go there?
If the GOP is willing to work with the Democrats to come up with a responsible and non-insane budget
I bet it could get done. As things stand now, the House GOP is going to craft an extremist budget that no Democrat would EVER accept and then blame the Democrats in the Senate for refusing to adopt it in toto. Not to mention the fact that if the Democrats DID produce a budget in the Senate, the Republicans there would just filibuster it. Is Johnson saying that he would allow for an up-or-down vote on a Democratic proposal?
then that means that voters support HIS position, not Norquist's, so Norquist is hyper-delusional if he thinks that people are going to support impeachment of Obama over letting the Bush Tax Cuts expire. Disagreeing with Grover Norquist over tax policy is NOT an impeachable offense. I also somewhat doubt if people are going to vote Obama in for a second term, as well as a hyper-obstructionist Republican Congress unless they're really dumb and don't want Obama to do anything.
if he were inclined to actually for whatever reason suggest war with Iran and hear what his rationale is for it. Thankfully, I don't believe he is interested in doing so now or in the future. The only people really pushing for war are (surprise, surprise) the same damned people whom told us repeatedly that it was essential to invade/occupy Iraq to eliminate WMDs and that picking up the pieces from the invasion and leaving would be simple. Thankfully, Obama simply doesn't belong to their cabal nor interested in membership therein. The only reason that I would ever actually support going to war with Iran or anybody else would be if they actually initiated an attack on us and/or one of our allies (i.e. Israel). Building nuclear weapons (which is unquestionably questionable in the case of Iran) is NOT (or should not be) prima facie justification for going to war with ANY country IMHO.
I agree with many previous posters that Ms. Nixon sounds more like she is bisexual (closer to the middle of the Kinsey scale) rather than gay (closer to that end of the Kinsey scale), which does seem to give one some degree of "choice" and flexibility in terms of romantic/sexual partners and behavior at any given time but most people simply don't understand enough about human sexuality and all of its nuances to fully understand what she is saying/suggesting by her comments. Most people are probably going to zero in on the "choice" aspect of her comments and come away thinking maybe it really is a *choice*.
Of course, it's quite possible that this could wind up being one of those "teachable" moments too. .
is that saying that she "chose" to be gay just gives more ammo to people whom keep pushing "gay conversion" therapies out of their misguided belief that sexual orientation is malleable and that changing one's sexual orientation to heterosexuality is desirable/necessary. I'm sure that Ms. Nixon did not mean for it to be harmful nor to have that effect. But remember, some people don't do nuance nor understand things like we do.
We definitely need to help him hold a Senate majority and win back the House. There will still be some issues in the Senate however since a supermajority won't be possible again anytime soon but what he/we can do is ensure that the rules in the Senate are changed somewhat to ensure that the filibuster can't be so horribly abused and, more importantly, make such rampant obstructionism so toxic that people might be discouraged from engaging in it in the first place.
No stone should be left unturned IMHO. There is no other way to build the kind of infrastructure necessary to produce the progressive victories we say we want at the local, state, and federal levels. Plus it's the only way AFAIK for "red" states to go "blue" (or at least purple). The only real drawback is that we will wind up with a few "blue dogs"- but, frankly, I think it's worth it when we can set the agenda.
Profile InformationName: Mara Alis Butler
Hometown: Indianapolis, Indiana
Home country: USA
Current location: Indianapolis, Indiana
Member since: Sat Feb 28, 2004, 12:13 AM
Number of posts: 24,200
About Mad_Machine76Transgender Woman /Social Worker/Case Manager working for State of Indiana. Huge Sci-Fi/Anime Geek and music lover. Hopeless \"political junkie\" and aspiring writer.
- 2023 (42)
- 2022 (84)
- 2021 (111)
- 2020 (95)
- 2019 (141)
- 2018 (176)
- 2017 (254)
- 2016 (163)
- 2015 (267)
- 2014 (447)
- 2013 (374)
- 2012 (755)
- 2011 (36)
- December (36)