If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Daily Sparks Tribune)   Richard Burr (R-eally doesn't care about national security, NC) derails a Senate Armed Services hearing to protest the health care bill. It's cool, the commander of the US Strategic Command needed to use his airline miles anyway   (charlotteobserver.com) divider line 173
    More: Dumbass, Richard Burr, Armed Services Committee, U.S. Sen, Claire McCaskill, armed forces, unanimous consent, state attorney general, Senate Armed Services  
•       •       •

2541 clicks; posted to Politics » on 25 Mar 2010 at 1:16 AM (4 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



173 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread
 
2010-03-24 08:49:09 PM  
When is the GOP going to figure out that stomping your feet and throwing a tantrum because you did not get your way makes them look like spoiled 3rd graders?
 
2010-03-24 08:50:37 PM  
Didn't he use to play a really fat lawyer who was in a wheelchair?
 
2010-03-24 08:53:37 PM  
Don't blame me. I didn't vote for the idiot.
 
2010-03-24 08:56:15 PM  
justbob2000: When is the GOP going to figure out that stomping your feet and throwing a tantrum because you did not get your way makes them look like spoiled 3rd graders?

Well, there remains absolutely nothing in the main media outlets calling them on it, so I'm thinking they're going to keep it up for a while.
 
2010-03-24 09:02:43 PM  
"Sen. Burr has taken his obstructionism so far that he's willing to put it before our national security," said DNC spokeswoman Joanne Peters.

Yes they are. Idiots.
 
2010-03-24 09:14:04 PM  
GAT_00: justbob2000: When is the GOP going to figure out that stomping your feet and throwing a tantrum because you did not get your way makes them look like spoiled 3rd graders?

Well, there remains absolutely nothing in the main media outlets calling them on it, so I'm thinking they're going to keep it up for a while.


Pretty much THIS.

I doubt we'll see Newt Gingrich, John McCain, or Liz Cheney asked their opinion about this issue during any of their inexplicably numerous cable news appearances.
 
2010-03-24 10:12:38 PM  
Hey Bobby Boy, you got a job lined up for next year yet? 'Cuz you fin to get Dole-d.
 
2010-03-24 10:13:57 PM  
...And this is why you don't type before you've had caffeine. I meant to call him Dickie Boy, a far more appropriate appellation.
 
2010-03-24 10:18:10 PM  
Richard Burr can suck my balls.
 
2010-03-24 10:44:09 PM  
So...Generals come from Hawaii, and Korea, and you're upset about the one from Nebraska?
 
2010-03-24 10:48:12 PM  
Times like this kinda makes you want to bring back dueling.

*sigh*

ok folks, here's a thought. Let's not get outraged or flustered about these stories. Instead, I suggest we collect, collate and compile all these little stories so that when these guys come up for re-election we have something to tell their voters.
 
2010-03-24 10:52:23 PM  
Oh Ironside, when did you get so bitter?
 
2010-03-24 10:53:25 PM  
Weaver95: ok folks, here's a thought. Let's not get outraged or flustered about these stories. Instead, I suggest we collect, collate and compile all these little stories so that when these guys come up for re-election we have something to tell their voters.

Yeah, that will work.

Just promise to be pro life/pro death penalty, and they will vote for you no matter what you do.
 
2010-03-24 10:54:46 PM  
Weaver95: Instead, I suggest we collect, collate and compile all these little stories so that when these guys come up for re-election we have something to tell their voters.

If voters listened to reason, paid attention to history (i.e. the history of the candidates they vote for), and were swayed more by facts than by appeals to emotion, I suspect we wouldn't be in this situation.

So, while I think it is an admirable idea, I have my misgivings about how well it would work. All the candidates have to do is (continue to) push the right emotional buttons, and all of the facts you gather will be for naught. :(
 
2010-03-24 10:57:20 PM  
So, why does he hate the troops so much?

Are corporate profits really that much more important than our troops' safety?

Interesting....
 
2010-03-24 10:59:13 PM  
I love it how stalling and being obstructionist is such an admirable trait when Democrats do it (new window), but holy god, how dare the Republicans ever do anything similar.
 
2010-03-24 11:03:23 PM  
Vindibudd: I love it how stalling and being obstructionist is such an admirable trait when Democrats do it (new window), but holy god, how dare the Republicans ever do anything similar.

And you don't get the irony of the reverse?

It is impossible to take the moral high ground if you do not actually occupy that territory first.

And, for the record, you can't wrap yourself in the flag and then play these games either. I do hope that folks remember this incident come primary time to get a better Republican into the slot. And by better, I mean someone who actually thinks about the whole Republic, as opposed to putting corporate profits before our troops and citizens.
 
2010-03-24 11:03:24 PM  
Fellow North Carolinians; we could have had Erskine Bowles instead of this louse in 2004, but noooooo. We had to have two of the laziest senators in a century with him and that harpy Dole.
 
2010-03-24 11:04:22 PM  
Vindibudd: I love it how stalling and being obstructionist is such an admirable trait when Democrats do it (new window), but holy god, how dare the Republicans ever do anything similar.

so I take it you believe that showing such disrespect to high ranking members of the military is entirely acceptable behavior for Republican congressmen?
 
2010-03-24 11:12:10 PM  
Weaver95: Vindibudd: I love it how stalling and being obstructionist is such an admirable trait when Democrats do it (new window), but holy god, how dare the Republicans ever do anything similar.

so I take it you believe that showing such disrespect to high ranking members of the military is entirely acceptable behavior for Republican congressmen?



Like when Boxer was lecturing a General for calling her ma'am? (new window)

Like that kind of disrespect?


Just pointing out that people need to be outraged when both sides do it. Otherwise, be happy with the hypocrite label.

Look, here's the real problem. Democrats after years of biatching about reconciliation and partisanship gave Republicans the finger and used both to ram this healthcare bill down our (the peoples') throats. So turnabout is fair play. I know that payback is a biatch but I don't think anyone on the conservative side is really all that pissed off. You can't biatch about rules and protocols when you are going to throw them out the window to get your way. These are the consequences for the Democrats.
 
2010-03-24 11:13:37 PM  
Vindibudd:
Just pointing out that people need to be outraged when both sides do it. Otherwise, be happy with the hypocrite label.


um...but you aren't outraged with both sides do it. you're only upset about the democrats.

hmm...what was that comment again.....the one that was so popular not long ago....

oh yes!

YOU LIE!
 
2010-03-24 11:15:14 PM  
hubiestubert: Vindibudd: I love it how stalling and being obstructionist is such an admirable trait when Democrats do it (new window), but holy god, how dare the Republicans ever do anything similar.

And you don't get the irony of the reverse?

It is impossible to take the moral high ground if you do not actually occupy that territory first.


Yes, go figure that. The Democrats hold that territory? When did that happen? When they filibustered judicial nominations for the FIRST TIME IN HISTORY? Is that the high ground? And when Republicans thought about but ultimately did not go reconciliation? That kind of territory?
 
2010-03-24 11:16:12 PM  
Vindibudd: I love it how stalling and being obstructionist is such an admirable trait when Democrats do it (new window), but holy god, how dare the Republicans ever do anything similar.

You certainly picked an interesting case to demonstrate Democratic "obstructionism." Pickering was appointed by Bush to the 5th Court of Appeals as a recess appointment, and served there for nearly a year. Read up on his qualifications, or lack thereof, and you can see why he eventually decided to retire.

I know you will not bother to read through this, but anyone who does will see that talking about Democratic obstructionism in terms of court appointments is ludicrous, if not downright deceitful.

How's about some instances of times when the Democrats voted unanimously to block something a Republican president proposed? Preferably something post-Civil War.
 
2010-03-24 11:16:24 PM  
Vindibudd: ram this healthcare bill down our throats

You know how I can tell you're a Foxbot?
 
2010-03-24 11:16:52 PM  
Vindibudd:
Yes, go figure that. The Democrats hold that territory? When did that happen? When they filibustered judicial nominations for the FIRST TIME IN HISTORY? Is that the high ground? And when Republicans thought about but ultimately did not go reconciliation? That kind of territory?


so, ok. lets assume for a moment that you really are upset that 'both sides' are 'bad'. you've given us a lot of material covering the sins of the democratic party. What do you think the Republicans have done wrong?
 
2010-03-24 11:19:07 PM  
Vindibudd: hubiestubert: Vindibudd: I love it how stalling and being obstructionist is such an admirable trait when Democrats do it (new window), but holy god, how dare the Republicans ever do anything similar.

And you don't get the irony of the reverse?

It is impossible to take the moral high ground if you do not actually occupy that territory first.


Yes, go figure that. The Democrats hold that territory? When did that happen? When they filibustered judicial nominations for the FIRST TIME IN HISTORY? Is that the high ground? And when Republicans thought about but ultimately did not go reconciliation? That kind of territory?


I was thinking campaigning on the importance of our military, and then using them as a tool for a tantrum. Democrats are at least not campaigning on those very issues, and then tossing them out when it is convenient.

I am hardly a fan of the Democrats, but this obstructionism for the sake of being obstructionist has got to end. The GOP needs to have a cohesive agenda beyond "NO!"
 
2010-03-24 11:20:30 PM  
Weaver95: Vindibudd:
Just pointing out that people need to be outraged when both sides do it. Otherwise, be happy with the hypocrite label.

um...but you aren't outraged with both sides do it. you're only upset about the democrats.

hmm...what was that comment again.....the one that was so popular not long ago....

oh yes!

YOU LIE!


Actually, I didn't think that was appropriate.

But damn, if it wasn't the truth.
 
2010-03-24 11:20:50 PM  
hubiestubert: The GOP needs to have a cohesive agenda beyond "NO!"

Actually, I kinda hope they keep this up. it will speed up the disintegration of the Republican party and open up new territory for the Libertarians.
 
2010-03-24 11:21:18 PM  
UNC_Samurai: Fellow North Carolinians; we could have had Erskine Bowles instead of this louse in 2004, but noooooo. We had to have two of the laziest senators in a century with him and that harpy Dole.

And we have an opportunity this year to correct the second mistake. The first has already been dealt with.

Wonder where Dole's carpetbagging ass is nowadays... Probably trying to pass herself off as a native Alabaman.

Weaver95: What do you think the Republicans have done wrong?

And a deep silence filled the room...
 
2010-03-24 11:21:25 PM  
Vindibudd:

But damn, if it wasn't the truth.


so what do you think the Republicans have done wrong?
 
2010-03-24 11:22:19 PM  
HansensDisease: Vindibudd: ram this healthcare bill down our throats

You know how I can tell you're a Foxbot?


You know how I can tell you know nothing about me?
 
2010-03-24 11:23:08 PM  
Occam's Chainsaw:

Weaver95: What do you think the Republicans have done wrong?

And a deep silence filled the room...


Fiery the Angels rose, and as they rose deep thunder roll'd
Around their shores: indignant burning with the fires of Orc.
 
2010-03-24 11:23:40 PM  
Weaver95: Vindibudd:
Yes, go figure that. The Democrats hold that territory? When did that happen? When they filibustered judicial nominations for the FIRST TIME IN HISTORY? Is that the high ground? And when Republicans thought about but ultimately did not go reconciliation? That kind of territory?

so, ok. lets assume for a moment that you really are upset that 'both sides' are 'bad'. you've given us a lot of material covering the sins of the democratic party. What do you think the Republicans have done wrong?



How about you come up with a list since I am busy arguing with every other liberal on this board. I'll tell you if I agree.
 
2010-03-24 11:24:04 PM  
Weaver95: hubiestubert: The GOP needs to have a cohesive agenda beyond "NO!"

Actually, I kinda hope they keep this up. it will speed up the disintegration of the Republican party and open up new territory for the Libertarians.


You'll excuse me if I don't cheer that on. Most of the Libertarian base is even more kooky, and the candidates that they pick are even more Wing Nutty...
 
2010-03-24 11:26:09 PM  
Vindibudd: implying Weaver's a liberal

*haha-ohwow.jpg*

There's a reason that drain cleaner labels say DO NOT DRINK, and I get the feeling it has something to do with this guy.
 
2010-03-24 11:26:16 PM  
Vindibudd: HansensDisease: Vindibudd: ram this healthcare bill down our throats

You know how I can tell you're a Foxbot?

You know how I can tell you know nothing about me?


I know you repeat talking points word for word.
 
2010-03-24 11:27:07 PM  
Oh, let me point out (everyone that is choosing to engage me here) that I can spend another 20 minutes on this thread as of 11:20 pm est. Just so you think I am not just running away randomly.
 
2010-03-24 11:27:19 PM  
Vindibudd: How about you come up with a list since I am busy arguing with every other liberal on this board. I'll tell you if I agree.

let's try this again.

in this post you said:
Vindibudd [TotalFark] Quote 2010-03-24 11:12:10 PM

Just pointing out that people need to be outraged when both sides do it. Otherwise, be happy with the hypocrite label.

Then you listed several things that you believe illustrate why the Democrats are bad.

My question to you is simple - if you believe that 'both sides are bad' then you MUST list what the Republicans have done wrong. If you do not/cannot list what the Republicans have done wrong, then your first statement is a lie.

put up or shut up time dude.
 
2010-03-24 11:27:22 PM  
GAT_00: justbob2000: When is the GOP going to figure out that stomping your feet and throwing a tantrum because you did not get your way makes them look like spoiled 3rd graders?

Well, there remains absolutely nothing in the main media outlets calling them on it, so I'm thinking they're going to keep it up for a while.


That's the real problem. Look at the main page on any news site and it's completely ignoring the magnitude of the Republican party and their libertarian friends' actions. MSNBC's main story is about fat Chinese people. CNN has a story about pot. The media never calls out Republicans and conservatives on their retarded antics.
 
2010-03-24 11:28:14 PM  
Occam's Chainsaw: Vindibudd: implying Weaver's a liberal

*haha-ohwow.jpg*

There's a reason that drain cleaner labels say DO NOT DRINK, and I get the feeling it has something to do with this guy.


Nah, he's only the first Libertarian I have ever seen that likes big government. Does that work for you?
 
2010-03-24 11:29:09 PM  
Vindibudd: Oh, let me point out (everyone that is choosing to engage me here) that I can spend another 20 minutes on this thread as of 11:20 pm est. Just so you think I am not just running away randomly.

so you're just gonna run away then? again, I mean.
 
2010-03-24 11:29:47 PM  
Vindibudd: Yes, go figure that. The Democrats hold that territory? When did that happen? When they filibustered judicial nominations for the FIRST TIME IN HISTORY? Is that the high ground? And when Republicans thought about but ultimately did not go reconciliation? That kind of territory?

[Citation needed.] Are you talking about the filibuster of Lyndon Johnson's appointment of Abe Fortas to be Chief Justice in 1968? If you have some earlier example, please trot it out.
 
2010-03-24 11:29:59 PM  
7of7: The media never calls out Republicans and conservatives on their retarded antics.

There's a reason for this. Access. You don't play along with the GOP, they shut you out. Bushco's attitude toward the WH journalist pool is a perfect example. Not that I'd encourage the Dems to race the GOP to the bottom, but you don't see that same behavior out of them.
 
2010-03-24 11:30:04 PM  
Occam's Chainsaw: Vindibudd: implying Weaver's a liberal

*haha-ohwow.jpg*

There's a reason that drain cleaner labels say DO NOT DRINK, and I get the feeling it has something to do with this guy.


be careful. Don't go quoting Buffy at him, or he'll put you on ignore.


/tree pretty fire bad.
 
2010-03-24 11:30:12 PM  
Vindibudd:
Nah, he's only the first Libertarian I have ever seen that likes big government. Does that work for you?


actually, i've consistently spoken out against larger government. But you have to be at the gym in 26 minutes so I understand if you didn't read any of those comments.
 
2010-03-24 11:33:29 PM  
Weaver95: Vindibudd: How about you come up with a list since I am busy arguing with every other liberal on this board. I'll tell you if I agree.

let's try this again.

in this post you said:
Vindibudd [TotalFark] Quote 2010-03-24 11:12:10 PM

Just pointing out that people need to be outraged when both sides do it. Otherwise, be happy with the hypocrite label.

Then you listed several things that you believe illustrate why the Democrats are bad.

My question to you is simple - if you believe that 'both sides are bad' then you MUST list what the Republicans have done wrong. If you do not/cannot list what the Republicans have done wrong, then your first statement is a lie.

put up or shut up time dude.


Well you mentioned the whole You Lie thing, and I mentioned the Boxer thing, and you are cheerleading this whole Republicans are idiots for obstructing things and I pointed out that Democrats did the same thing when it came to judges.

So like I said, I am dealing with at least 3 other people besides yourself. I know you love me, but I can't just commit only to you man, I have to see other people too. Oh, here's a bone, I think Michael Savage is a jerk and O'Reilly isn't that much better. I also don't think it was appropriate for Dick Cheney to drop an f-bomb on the Senate floor or for Newt to call Hillary a biatch to his mother.

Is that enough for you? I hate to leave after this hot hot encounter but I have others in my little black book.
 
2010-03-24 11:34:36 PM  
Weaver95: Vindibudd:
Nah, he's only the first Libertarian I have ever seen that likes big government. Does that work for you?

actually, i've consistently spoken out against larger government. But you have to be at the gym in 26 minutes so I understand if you didn't read any of those comments.


So you're against this healthcare bill? Glad to know it.
 
2010-03-24 11:35:25 PM  
Weaver95: Vindibudd: How about you come up with a list since I am busy arguing with every other liberal on this board. I'll tell you if I agree.

let's try this again.

in this post you said:
Vindibudd [TotalFark] Quote 2010-03-24 11:12:10 PM

Just pointing out that people need to be outraged when both sides do it. Otherwise, be happy with the hypocrite label.

Then you listed several things that you believe illustrate why the Democrats are bad.

My question to you is simple - if you believe that 'both sides are bad' then you MUST list what the Republicans have done wrong. If you do not/cannot list what the Republicans have done wrong, then your first statement is a lie.

put up or shut up time dude.


If anything, we need to be harder on our own, than the Democrats or others, to keep them honest. That's the problem with partisan cheerleading. It doesn't keep anyone honest, and it only means that idiots and panderers get into office.

We've allowed a fair share of idiots not just into the Big Tent, but to actually represent us. And it's time for us to call them onto the carpet, and get the agenda focused back on the country, as opposed to only select neighborhoods, select populations, and only select faiths.
 
2010-03-24 11:36:02 PM  
Vindibudd:
Is that enough for you? I hate to leave after this hot hot encounter but I have others in my little black book.


so you DID lie - you really don't believe that 'both sides are bad', you just hate the Democrats.

actually, I think we all knew that was the case but since you so helpfully painted yourself into the corner I thought I'd hammer home the point for those folks up in the nosebleed section.
 
2010-03-24 11:37:35 PM  
hubiestubert: We've allowed a fair share of idiots not just into the Big Tent, but to actually represent us. And it's time for us to call them onto the carpet, and get the agenda focused back on the country, as opposed to only select neighborhoods, select populations, and only select faiths.

The corporatists that hold the purse strings won't let you. And they'll bring the whole country down in flames before they'll relinquish power. They already held a gun to the economy and won. There's no coming back from that.
 
2010-03-24 11:37:43 PM  
Weaver95: Vindibudd:
Is that enough for you? I hate to leave after this hot hot encounter but I have others in my little black book.

so you DID lie - you really don't believe that 'both sides are bad', you just hate the Democrats.

actually, I think we all knew that was the case but since you so helpfully painted yourself into the corner I thought I'd hammer home the point for those folks up in the nosebleed section.



Let me make it bolder for you since apparently you missed it the first time around: Oh, here's a bone, I think Michael Savage is a jerk and O'Reilly isn't that much better. I also don't think it was appropriate for Dick Cheney to drop an f-bomb on the Senate floor or for Newt to call Hillary a biatch to his mother.
 
2010-03-24 11:38:01 PM  
Vindibudd:
So you're against this healthcare bill? Glad to know it.


I've never said I was on board with it. Health care reform IS needed though. I don't know if we needed this specific legislation, but legislation like it was inevitable. And as it happens it's a done deal.
 
2010-03-24 11:40:50 PM  
Vindibudd:
Let me make it bolder for you since apparently you missed it the first time around: Oh, here's a bone, I think Michael Savage is a jerk and O'Reilly isn't that much better. I also don't think it was appropriate for Dick Cheney to drop an f-bomb on the Senate floor or for Newt to call Hillary a biatch to his mother.


again you move the goalposts. you specifically mentioned legislative initiatives you felt the democrats and gotten wrong. you listed many ideological points held by the democrats you also felt are incorrect.

So what ideological points do you think the Republicans got wrong? I said *ideological* points mind you, not PR screwups. additionally, a short list of botched Republican legislative initiatives would be helpful.

Be specific please.
 
2010-03-24 11:41:49 PM  
Thanks for the memories, look for me in some other thread, typically pissing off people that are hard left, and some who are closet left but want to play BOTH SIDES ARE BAD.

/vote Libertarian
 
2010-03-24 11:42:52 PM  
Vindibudd: Thanks for the memories, look for me in some other thread, typically pissing off people that are hard left, and some who are closet left but want to play BOTH SIDES ARE BAD.

/vote Libertarian


Every time I ask you for specifics, you run away. I wonder why that is...?
 
2010-03-24 11:43:19 PM  
Vindibudd: HansensDisease: Vindibudd: ram this healthcare bill down our throats

You know how I can tell you're a Foxbot?

You know how I can tell you know nothing about me?


You pretty much as what you parrot, Sparky.
 
2010-03-24 11:47:13 PM  
I was taught that if you can't say something good about someone, then say nothing.

Well, Vindibudd is gone.

That about sums it up.

Anyone else got a Democratic-led judicial filibuster before 1968? Just wondering about that "FIRST TIME IN HISTORY" thing.
 
2010-03-24 11:47:54 PM  
Weaver95: Vindibudd:
Let me make it bolder for you since apparently you missed it the first time around: Oh, here's a bone, I think Michael Savage is a jerk and O'Reilly isn't that much better. I also don't think it was appropriate for Dick Cheney to drop an f-bomb on the Senate floor or for Newt to call Hillary a biatch to his mother.

again you move the goalposts. you specifically mentioned legislative initiatives you felt the democrats and gotten wrong. you listed many ideological points held by the democrats you also felt are incorrect.

So what ideological points do you think the Republicans got wrong? I said *ideological* points mind you, not PR screwups. additionally, a short list of botched Republican legislative initiatives would be helpful.

Be specific please.



Oops, you got me at 11:40 so I will respond to this one.

I am not moving the goalposts and you need another metaphor, you have used that like what 9 times in the past two days?

I am saying that A. The Democrats are just as guilty of obstruction and even more so.

B. You brought up You Lie as inappropriate behavior and then wanted me to reciprocate. I did with Cheney F-bomb and Newt/Hillary.

I don't know what the hell else you want. I don't think being obstructionist is all that bad honestly, I just think you can't biatch about it if you have done it in the past. End of story. See you in another thread where you will invariably bash Republicans because you can't sell the weed.
 
2010-03-24 11:49:35 PM  
oldebayer: I was taught that if you can't say something good about someone, then say nothing.

Well, Vindibudd is gone.

That about sums it up.

Anyone else got a Democratic-led judicial filibuster before 1968? Just wondering about that "FIRST TIME IN HISTORY" thing.


You also got me before 11:40.

I shall clarify, Democrats filibustered EVERY SINGLE JUDICIAL NOMINEE OF W. THAT was what had never been done before in history, the practice of filibustering every single judge. Sorry for the confusion.
 
2010-03-24 11:52:14 PM  
Vindibudd:
I am saying that A. The Democrats are just as guilty of obstruction and even more so.


You haven't proved that point at all. In fact, you have offered NOTHING to prove the Democrats are as obstructionist as the Republicans. Not only have you failed to make your first point, you also failed to make your second point - namely that 'both sides are bad'. you haven't said what legislative/ideological points held by the Republicans it is you disagree with.

I can only assume that you agree with everything done by the Republicans. which means that you don't believe 'both sides are bad', you only believe the Democrats are 'bad'. ergo, you lied to us.
 
2010-03-24 11:59:50 PM  
Vindibudd: I shall clarify, Democrats filibustered EVERY SINGLE JUDICIAL NOMINEE OF W.

Not sure if serious.
 
2010-03-25 12:10:01 AM  
Vindibudd: I love it how stalling and being obstructionist is such an admirable trait when Democrats do it (new window), but holy god, how dare the Republicans ever do anything similar.

OK, let's compare. Right now the Republicans are blocking 86 nominees for various positions. In comparison, at this point in Bush's presidency the Democrats were blocking 3.

Vindibudd: ike when Boxer was lecturing a General for calling her ma'am? (new window)

Shocking that someone would want to be called by their official title. That it's being used as a fundraising tool by Carly "I drove my company into the ground" Fiorina is hardly surprising, but irrelevant.

Vindibudd: When they filibustered judicial nominations for the FIRST TIME IN HISTORY?

Bork deserved filibustering, if that's what you're referring to.

Vindibudd: I shall clarify, Democrats filibustered EVERY SINGLE JUDICIAL NOMINEE OF W. THAT was what had never been done before in history, the practice of filibustering every single judge. Sorry for the confusion.

Oh, well that clarifies things and makes your comment completely false. So thanks for that.
 
2010-03-25 12:13:30 AM  
Hender: Bork deserved filibustering, if that's what you're referring to.

Bork wasn't filibustered. He just lost on a 42-58 vote.
 
2010-03-25 12:15:16 AM  
DamnYankees: Hender: Bork deserved filibustering, if that's what you're referring to.

Bork wasn't filibustered. He just lost on a 42-58 vote.


He got Borked.
 
2010-03-25 12:15:24 AM  
justbob2000: When is the GOP going to figure out that stomping your feet and throwing a tantrum because you did not get your way makes them look like spoiled 3rd graders?

it doesn't matter what others think, in as much as, the gop get what they want.

....wait..did i say that correctly?
 
2010-03-25 12:18:26 AM  
so basically this incident is so bad that even the token shill for all things Republican couldn't defend it and ran screaming from the thread.

yeah. this bodes well for Republican chances of a sweep in the midterm congressional elections.
 
2010-03-25 12:25:24 AM  
Weaver95: so basically this incident is so bad that even the token shill for all things Republican couldn't defend it and ran screaming from the thread.

yeah. this bodes well for Republican chances of a sweep in the midterm congressional elections.


I know you know this, but I'll remind you anyway: people are on the whole are pretty dumb. I don't mean IQ, or book smarts or even street smarts, but around election time as a society we get stupid. People tend to have the memory of a goldfish. You, me, that guy across the street, we all get dumb. We get played.

The shiat that you and I can point out to show how incredibly stupid the Republicans were being back in January, February, March, and probably April will be lost on Marge and Earle in Newark if they weren't paying attention to begin with. Unless someone wakes up with a dead girl or a live boy, things ain't gonna change too much.
 
2010-03-25 12:27:24 AM  
Weaver95: so basically this incident is so bad that even the token shill for all things Republican couldn't defend it and ran screaming from the thread.

yeah. this bodes well for Republican chances of a sweep in the midterm congressional elections.


Like I've said, the party needs to take a few damn minutes to take stock, and stop with the knee jerk talking points. Actually think about things, and regroup...

Putting your foot on the outrage machine didn't stop anything. It's not going to stop anything after the fact either.

You know what people call doing the same damn thing, over and over again, and expecting different results?
 
2010-03-25 12:28:33 AM  
hubiestubert: You know what people call doing the same damn thing, over and over again, and expecting different results?

Anglophile governance? The GOP platform?
 
2010-03-25 12:30:16 AM  
Hender: Unless someone wakes up with a dead girl or a live boy, things ain't gonna change too much.

so there's only one thing left to do then?
 
2010-03-25 12:40:00 AM  
hubiestubert: You know what people call doing the same damn thing, over and over again, and expecting different results?

Socialism?
 
2010-03-25 12:49:15 AM  
beve: hubiestubert: You know what people call doing the same damn thing, over and over again, and expecting different results?

Socialism?


lh5.ggpht.com
 
2010-03-25 01:11:28 AM  
Weaver95: so basically this incident is so bad that even the token shill for all things Republican couldn't defend it and ran screaming from the thread.

yeah. this bodes well for Republican chances of a sweep in the midterm congressional elections.


Meh, the derailed a defense bill a few months back during the health care debates. This isn't even the first time they've done this shiat. And just look at the complete lack of outrage. Well, except from us of course.

This will not make CNN, MSNBC, ABC or of course Fox. This will not be used in the campaign. This will be forgotten and there will be absolutely no consequences from this.

Of course, if a Dem did it we wouldn't stop hearing about it for 3 months from CNN, MSNBC and ABC, and 6 months from Fox.
 
2010-03-25 01:12:21 AM  
beve: hubiestubert: You know what people call doing the same damn thing, over and over again, and expecting different results?

Socialism?


It's amazing how much Cuba looks like Sweden.
 
2010-03-25 01:26:37 AM  
The Tar Heels' NIT wonderseason is punishment for electing these types of fools.

Why must you make Ol' Roy cry, North Carolina?

/Duke sucks.
 
2010-03-25 01:26:39 AM  
He's a little sh*t, don't even be trying to defend him.
 
2010-03-25 01:32:52 AM  
Vindibudd: Oops, you got me at 11:40 so I will respond to this one.


What's the deal with 11:40? Did you have to be at the gym at 12:06?
 
2010-03-25 01:35:43 AM  
Sounds like he's late for Leno.
 
2010-03-25 01:36:20 AM  
Honestly, sounds like a stupid rule (it ain't "obscure" for no reason). Ditch it and let 'em try to cry for sympathy about it.
 
2010-03-25 01:37:45 AM  
Well, I guess Republicans AREN'T strong on national defense.
 
2010-03-25 01:38:52 AM  
UNC_Samurai: Fellow North Carolinians; we could have had Erskine Bowles instead of this louse in 2004, but noooooo. We had to have two of the laziest senators in a century with him and that harpy Dole.

Well I didn't vote for him.
 
2010-03-25 01:40:20 AM  
So basically the dude pulled an "Excuse me, I'm really happy for you and I'm [not] gonna let you finish, but this health care bill is the WORST health care bill in the world and...
 
2010-03-25 01:42:48 AM  
whidbey: So basically the dude pulled an "Excuse me, I'm really happy for you and I'm [not] gonna let you finish, but this health care bill is the WORST health care bill in the world and...

It was more like "I'm really happy for you and Ima let you finish but ooga booga herpa derpa hey."
 
2010-03-25 01:44:23 AM  
Keep this up! The best thing for America is a few decades of do nothing Congresses!
 
2010-03-25 01:46:31 AM  
Vindibudd: Look, here's the real problem. Democrats after years of biatching about reconciliation and partisanship gave Republicans the finger and used both to ram this healthcare bill down our (the peoples') throats.

FOR THE LAST TIME, Democrats are the majority in both houses of Congress and hold the presidency. There is no ramming involved when you have the numbers on your side.

Jesus Christ, how hard is it to understand simple math.
 
2010-03-25 01:47:01 AM  
Pincy:
Jesus Christ, how hard is it to understand simple math.


I don't think math is one of Vindibudd's strong points.
 
2010-03-25 01:53:25 AM  
automotivemileposts.com
RIP Raymond Burr



/OK, now I feel stupid
//Thankfully I'm drunk and off tomorrow
 
2010-03-25 02:11:21 AM  
Does anyone have any good resources or links of outside opinion of our healthcare debacle? What do other countries think of all that is currently going on?
 
2010-03-25 02:15:10 AM  
img716.imageshack.us

"Do you know what it's like to laugh like that?"

"Yes. Yes, I do."
 
2010-03-25 02:24:10 AM  
Is it just me or does it seem like the US is headed for civil war?
 
2010-03-25 02:27:50 AM  
mister13: Is it just me or does it seem like the US is headed for civil war?

I'm thinking less "civil war" and more "easily quashed, limited armed revolt".

There may be bands of yahoos who decide to rise up but they'll have little external cohesiveness or internal organization.

Chances are nothing will come of it though. Right wingers always lose what little composure they have when a Democrat is in the White House. To date, the Clinton years featured more right wing violence.
 
2010-03-25 02:28:19 AM  
mister13: Is it just me or does it seem like the US is headed for civil war?

Not gonna happen. Not even close to that.
 
2010-03-25 02:29:12 AM  
mister13: Is it just me or does it seem like the US is headed for civil war?

Don't let Fox News fool you. The angry violent teabaggers are a small minority. They just have a huge cable news and radio network giving them free advertising, so it makes them appear to be much larger in number than they actually are. But that's the role of Fox News, to distort reality.
 
2010-03-25 02:29:38 AM  
mister13: Is it just me or does it seem like the US is headed for civil war?

Not really. Media outlets thrive on most heated rhetoric, and they publish the most sensational.

If you believe the hype, you'd think that LA was going to be consumed by one giant herpes sore. And that the entirety of the American South was nothing but way stations for the KKK, Aryan Nation, and former Black Panthers.

Because the hype sells papers, and click throughs. We're headed for civil war the same way that the Quebecoise are ready to secede RIGHT NOW!
 
2010-03-25 02:29:52 AM  
culebra: I'm thinking less "civil war" and more "easily quashed, limited armed revolt".

I'm thinking less "easily quashed, limited armed revolt" and more "angry misspelled signs held by old poor white people on Social Security".

all this is, is the last gasp of the baby boomers.
 
2010-03-25 02:30:59 AM  
Typical GOP tactic. Watch, in October, you will see ads about how Democrats would not even have simple committees with our Generals.

This whole crying about health care is ridiculous. The health insurance industry has been egging this on for ever. Raising rates, cutting coverage for people who paid there bill was bound to get the attention of someone. That attention came, and the bill we got was the response to that business tactic. And honestly, the bill is completely wrong.

Some of the idea in the bill are great, but forcing every American to buy insurance from a private company was a gift to all private insurances. Now they will have another 30 million customers to make a profit off of, but now they can raise there rates even higher knowing that Uncle Sam is going to foot the bill for those that cant afford it. Win win if you are the CEO of a big insurance company if you ask me.

Honestly, the GOP was right. The bill should have been scrapped and started over. Democrats should have just scrapped the bill and went with Single Payer. I don't think government should ever have the right to tell a business you are making to much profit, but i 100% believe that profits should never come at the cost of 1 life. I will tell you, Insurance companies made tons of profit by denying coverage which costs people there very right to life. Profits should never be allowed when it comes to insurance for you, your family, or anyone.
 
2010-03-25 02:33:34 AM  
log_jammin: all this is, is the last gasp of the baby boomers.

THIS on a cracker. They're clinging to power with both hands, and they're willing to burn down the country to maintain it. They have the vast majority of the resources and nothing but time.
 
2010-03-25 02:37:04 AM  
Vindibudd: Weaver95: Vindibudd: How about you come up with a list since I am busy arguing with every other liberal on this board. I'll tell you if I agree.

let's try this again.

in this post you said:
Vindibudd [TotalFark] Quote 2010-03-24 11:12:10 PM

Just pointing out that people need to be outraged when both sides do it. Otherwise, be happy with the hypocrite label.

Then you listed several things that you believe illustrate why the Democrats are bad.

My question to you is simple - if you believe that 'both sides are bad' then you MUST list what the Republicans have done wrong. If you do not/cannot list what the Republicans have done wrong, then your first statement is a lie.

put up or shut up time dude.

Well you mentioned the whole You Lie thing, and I mentioned the Boxer thing, and you are cheerleading this whole Republicans are idiots for obstructing things and I pointed out that Democrats did the same thing when it came to judges.


Actually, your article says that "they plan" to do it. Not that they did it.

That's beside the fact that you're simply engaging in...
i3.photobucket.com
 
2010-03-25 02:38:13 AM  
Occam's Chainsaw: log_jammin: all this is, is the last gasp of the baby boomers.

THIS on a cracker. They're clinging to power with both hands, and they're willing to burn down the country to maintain it. They have the vast majority of the resources and nothing but time.


What is with the baby boomer hate? Do people really despise their parents so much?
 
2010-03-25 02:40:17 AM  
This guy does not look like a baby boomer. Yet this seems to be what this country is coming too.
www.theawl.com
 
2010-03-25 02:40:52 AM  
Sabyen91: What is with the baby boomer hate? Do people really despise their parents so much?

I don't hate anyone because of their age. But I hate the group as a whole. They turned this country around and got us going backwards. They woke us up while we were having the American dream.*

/corn dog award!
 
2010-03-25 02:43:14 AM  
Sabyen91: What is with the baby boomer hate? Do people really despise their parents so much?

They've been at the sociopolitical helm of the nation for at least the last 30 years. Our great failures lay at their feet. They've repeatedly sold their ideals when they became inconvenient. If we're lucky, we'll only spend the next 50 years unf*ckerating their legacy.

Individual Boomers can be wonderful people. As a group, they're what's wrong with America.
 
2010-03-25 02:43:28 AM  
Bigedmond: This guy does not look like a baby boomer. Yet this seems to be what this country is coming too.

Can somebody explain to me a purpose for having a holster carry a gun that low? It seems foolish to serve any purpose besides saying "LOOK AT MY GUN!"

/assuming it's made for a longer weapon?
 
2010-03-25 02:47:13 AM  
Its a drop holster. It is mostly used to when you are moving around with a rifle, IE an m4, you have more mobility. The military uses then because a belt holster can easy catch on the soldiers body armor, making the soldier less maneuverable.

For his purposes, yea it was strictly for show.
 
2010-03-25 02:47:24 AM  
RevMercutio: Can somebody explain to me a purpose for having a holster carry a gun that low? It seems foolish to serve any purpose besides saying "LOOK AT MY GUN!"

you answered your own question. The only people who wear those are people who were never in the military who want to play army.
 
2010-03-25 02:49:27 AM  
log_jammin: Sabyen91: What is with the baby boomer hate? Do people really despise their parents so much?

I don't hate anyone because of their age. But I hate the group as a whole. They turned this country around and got us going backwards. They woke us up while we were having the American dream.*

/corn dog award!


Occam's Chainsaw: Sabyen91: What is with the baby boomer hate? Do people really despise their parents so much?

They've been at the sociopolitical helm of the nation for at least the last 30 years. Our great failures lay at their feet. They've repeatedly sold their ideals when they became inconvenient. If we're lucky, we'll only spend the next 50 years unf*ckerating their legacy.

Individual Boomers can be wonderful people. As a group, they're what's wrong with America.


Well, maybe...they did elect farking Reagan.
 
2010-03-25 02:50:42 AM  
Pincy: mister13: Is it just me or does it seem like the US is headed for civil war?

Don't let Fox News fool you. The angry violent teabaggers are a small minority. They just have a huge cable news and radio network giving them free advertising, so it makes them appear to be much larger in number than they actually are. But that's the role of Fox News, to distort reality.


To be fair though it's not just Fox giving the Tea Party movement more than it's fair share of virtual column inches. The blogosphere - which is where true political junkies live and die - and the rest of cable news have turned breathless TP analysis into a cottage industry.

Yes, FNC gives the tea partiers their most avid positive spin, but the rest of the main MSM stream MSM media gives them the attention (albeit frequently negative) that makes them seem more popular than they are.

Either way. They'll tire soon. Plus the lack of a coherent strategy and central leadership will doom them to obscurity sooner than later.

Prove me wrong, kids. Prove me wrong.
 
2010-03-25 02:51:49 AM  
Bigedmond: Its a drop holster. It is mostly used to when you are moving around with a rifle, IE an m4, you have more mobility. The military uses then because a belt holster can easy catch on the soldiers body armor, making the soldier less maneuverable.

For his purposes, yea it was strictly for show.


Well that, and it's a difficult straight pull, so if Officer Friendly did stop him, it would be easier to keep his hands well and away from actions that would put his hands near the weapon, while still showing that he's armed in such a way that it's obvious that he's not trying for a terribly concealed carry.

It was very much for show, and to not confuse officers with where his hands were going.
 
2010-03-25 02:53:58 AM  
Sabyen91: Well, maybe...they did elect farking Reagan.

Link (new window)
 
2010-03-25 02:56:19 AM  
Bigedmond: Its a drop holster. It is mostly used to when you are moving around with a rifle, IE an m4, you have more mobility. The military uses then because a belt holster can easy catch on the soldiers body armor, making the soldier less maneuverable.

For his purposes, yea it was strictly for show.


Ah, okay. Thanks. Having it be for a secondary weapon makes sense.
 
2010-03-25 03:02:11 AM  
log_jammin: Sabyen91: Well, maybe...they did elect farking Reagan.

Link (new window)


I really think that is crap. Maybe it is because the baby boomers I know didn't vote for Reagan or Bush I.
 
2010-03-25 03:08:15 AM  
What's with all the biatching about how the bill was 'rammed down our throat' and 'unprecedented legislative trickery'? As far as I can tell, all that's happened so far is the House passed a bill using a normal vote, then the Senate passed a modified version of that bill (with 60 votes), and then the House agreed to pass the Senate bill, which was just signed by the president. You know, exactly how the process of making laws is described to grade schoolers.

The various bills were discussed at length for over a year. There was no vote in the middle of the night after only a few days of debate. No one held the vote open for several hours so they could buy off persuade other congressmen to change their votes. And while no Republicans supported it in the end, they actually did offer quite a few amendments that were included in the final bill, so despite what they say, they were not shut out.

Now the reconciliation bit is mostly a workaround against the filibuster in the Senate, but that's a separate matter, and mostly just strips the blatant pork out of the original Senate bill. But most of the big changes to the system are in the original bill, so even if that doesn't go through, we still have health care reform.

I know the mandate rubs some people the wrong way, but it's really only there because single payer or the public option were off the table. If everyone was covered by default, it wouldn't be necessary.

And why are people so shocked that the bill reduces the deficit? I know it's a crazy idea, but the government can actually do things without getting more debt, they just have to actually fund the bill - through either spending cuts elsewhere or additional taxes - of which this bill does both. I know people love to biatch about taxes too, but the increases in this bill are fairly modest, I think it's just really over the top health plans, tanning beds, and a small bump to the payroll tax on people making more than $200k, I think we'll all survive...
 
2010-03-25 03:17:19 AM  
Sabyen91: Well, maybe...they did elect farking Reagan.

They're also responsible for the Bush II redux. And the War on Certain Drugs Sometimes. And the dot-com bubble. And the real estate bubble. Etc, etc.
 
2010-03-25 03:19:42 AM  
Sabyen91: Maybe it is because the baby boomers I know didn't vote for Reagan or Bush I.

Even many of the democrat baby boomers I know are selfish pricks.

They truly earned the title "the me generation".
 
2010-03-25 03:21:15 AM  
Occam's Chainsaw: Sabyen91: Well, maybe...they did elect farking Reagan.

They're also responsible for the Bush II redux. And the War on Certain Drugs Sometimes. And the dot-com bubble. And the real estate bubble. Etc, etc.


log_jammin: Sabyen91: Maybe it is because the baby boomers I know didn't vote for Reagan or Bush I.

Even many of the democrat baby boomers I know are selfish pricks.

They truly earned the title "the me generation".


I suppose I can only disagree from personal experience and it is anecdotal. Maybe most of them really are selfish pricks.
 
2010-03-25 03:23:28 AM  
Burr, joining his GOP colleagues' outrage at the new health reform law, used an obscure Senate rule to prevent the Armed Services committee from meeting this afternoon

Ok this is just stupid as hell. Can anyone look at that sentence and say it's not stupid as hell?
 
2010-03-25 03:26:28 AM  
fnottr: What's with all the biatching about how the bill was 'rammed down our throat' and 'unprecedented legislative trickery'? As far as I can tell, all that's happened so far is the House passed a bill using a normal vote, then the Senate passed a modified version of that bill (with 60 votes), and then the House agreed to pass the Senate bill, which was just signed by the president. You know, exactly how the process of making laws is described to grade schoolers.

Yeah, but the democratics circumvented the GOP's 41 vote supermajority. Reconciliation isn't used often. Basically the Dems were afraid of a joint session of congress because they're cowards. No, it's not a big deal, yes this issue has been on the table and in the news forever.
 
2010-03-25 03:27:09 AM  
Sabyen91: I suppose I can only disagree from personal experience and it is anecdotal. Maybe most of them really are selfish pricks.

Like I said, any given Boomer can be awesome, a wonderful, giving, rational person who genuinely cares about his fellow man. As a group, they suck hard.
 
2010-03-25 03:27:49 AM  
moothemagiccow: fnottr: What's with all the biatching about how the bill was 'rammed down our throat' and 'unprecedented legislative trickery'? As far as I can tell, all that's happened so far is the House passed a bill using a normal vote, then the Senate passed a modified version of that bill (with 60 votes), and then the House agreed to pass the Senate bill, which was just signed by the president. You know, exactly how the process of making laws is described to grade schoolers.

Yeah, but the democratics circumvented the GOP's 41 vote supermajority. Reconciliation isn't used often. Basically the Dems were afraid of a joint session of congress because they're cowards. No, it's not a big deal, yes this issue has been on the table and in the news forever.


They just like the "rammed down our throat" part.
 
2010-03-25 03:30:40 AM  
The GOP: The party that takes national security so seriously, only a chance to be petty about something can distract them from their eternal vigilance.
 
2010-03-25 03:32:01 AM  
Occam's Chainsaw: Sabyen91: I suppose I can only disagree from personal experience and it is anecdotal. Maybe most of them really are selfish pricks.

Like I said, any given Boomer can be awesome, a wonderful, giving, rational person who genuinely cares about his fellow man. As a group, they suck hard.


You are probably right. They have had a lot of selfish politicos.
 
2010-03-25 04:02:26 AM  
fnottr: What's with all the biatching about how the bill was 'rammed down our throat'

Penis.

/find out more at your airport's restroom
 
2010-03-25 04:05:47 AM  
Occam's Chainsaw: They've been at the sociopolitical helm of the nation for at least the last 30 years. Our great failures lay at their feet. They've repeatedly sold their ideals when they became inconvenient. If we're lucky, we'll only spend the next 50 years unf*ckerating their legacy.

Individual Boomers can be wonderful people. As a group, they're what's wrong with America.


What I wonder is how that happened. Was the "Greatest Generation" just so utterly exhausted from fighting WWII that they couldn't be bothered to raise decent kids? Where did the boomer selfishness come from? It's not readily apparent in either their parents or their children?
 
2010-03-25 04:09:47 AM  
if they actually think that they can win elections by acting like farking 2 year olds, they will be sorely mistaken. they are giving democratic candidates so much fuel for campaigning, its regodamnediculous.
 
2010-03-25 04:31:39 AM  
What I wonder is how that happened. Was the "Greatest Generation" just so utterly exhausted from fighting WWII that they couldn't be bothered to raise decent kids? Where did the boomer selfishness come from? It's not readily apparent in either their parents or their children?

Boomers didn't have it nearly as tough as their parents. Many of them never really knew hardship, just a consumerist 'he-who-dies-with-the-most-toys-wins' mentality. It gave them a sense of entitlement that many of them never really shook. And Vietnam and Watergate jaded them, taught them to distrust pretty much everything and everybody, and look out for Number One.
 
2010-03-25 05:01:41 AM  
Don't fool yourselves, kids. The dickweeds are thick with many, many different sizes, shapes and ages. Generalizations singling out boomers are little more than that: generalizations.

Back on topic, does this clown give any justification for this action whatsoever? Being entirely unrelated to health care, is there even a hint that this action (or more appropriately, I suppose, "inaction") serves any purpose other than to paint himself and his cohorts as being a bunch of petulant little shiats?
 
2010-03-25 05:11:43 AM  
UNC_Samurai: Fellow North Carolinians; we could have had Erskine Bowles instead of this louse in 2004, but noooooo. We had to have two of the laziest senators in a century with him and that harpy Dole.

It occurred to me recently that this guy was lucky enough to get voted in on a good year for Republicans, that his timing was lucky enough to miss 2006 and 2008, and that 2010 may be good for Republicans again.

/Dammitsomuch
 
2010-03-25 05:19:31 AM  
i786.photobucket.com
 
2010-03-25 05:37:36 AM  
Sabyen91: I suppose I can only disagree from personal experience and it is anecdotal. Maybe most of them really are selfish pricks.

Both of my parents are Bommers (born '47) and both voted for twice for Reagan, Bush and Bush.

/anecdotal evidence is... anecdotal
 
2010-03-25 06:19:08 AM  
Republicans: Don't use the nuclear option
Democrats: Technically, it isn't the "nuclear option" ... it's reconciliation.
Republicans: We are refering to how we will slow the senate down and nothing will get done.
Democrats: LMAO, how much slower can the Senate move!

Oops.
 
2010-03-25 06:19:54 AM  
The Republican party, aslo known as the do nothing party. The whole Contract with America seems to of done nothing.
So what is up with that?
 
2010-03-25 06:20:36 AM  
GAT_00: justbob2000: When is the GOP going to figure out that stomping your feet and throwing a tantrum because you did not get your way makes them look like spoiled 3rd graders?

Well, there remains absolutely nothing in the main media outlets calling them on it, so I'm thinking they're going to keep it up for a while.


MSNBC's been riding them all day over the holdups in the senate. I'm sure BBC America would have too but I don't get that channel anymore so I'm not able to watch.

Of course you're not going to be seeing any of this on the news channels owned by the companies that bought his way into his senate seat though. Just gonna have to watch somewhere there's still journalistic integrity.
 
2010-03-25 06:26:45 AM  
Vindibudd: I love it how stalling and being obstructionist is such an admirable trait when Democrats do it (new window), but holy god, how dare the Republicans ever do anything similar.

I committee voting down a judge because they don't want him for no other reason that they don't want him, they'd already voted him down once before, is completely different from what the republicans are doing in the senate. They lost on healthcare and now they're taking it out on homeless vets and the troops. Classy.
 
2010-03-25 06:31:23 AM  
We won't have him to kick around after November. Even his party doesn't like him
 
2010-03-25 06:33:11 AM  
etv_2k: The whole Contract with America seems to of done nothing.

It did give us a 500 dollar a child tax credit the Right loves to complain about.


They're quit literally a self sustaining outrage machine.
 
2010-03-25 06:35:42 AM  
Weaver95: so basically this incident is so bad that even the token shill for all things Republican couldn't defend it and ran screaming from the thread.

yeah. this bodes well for Republican chances of a sweep in the midterm congressional elections.


Applause are in order for you showing that he was full of shiat and the perfect example of the liars that use the 'Both sides are bad!' defense only to justify republicans doing it. Good job.

Of course, he'll probably return to the thread right before it dies, post anything and then claim that he won.
 
2010-03-25 06:45:29 AM  
Vindibudd: I love it how stalling and being obstructionist is such an admirable trait when Democrats do it (new window), but holy god, how dare the Republicans ever do anything similar.

The GOP runs on how much they love the troop but fark every time they can
 
2010-03-25 06:50:32 AM  
immrlizard: We won't have him to kick around after November. Even his party doesn't like him

As a NC voter: your lips to God's ear, friend.
 
2010-03-25 06:57:08 AM  
NeverDrunk23: Of course, he'll probably return to the thread right before it dies, post anything and then claim that he won.

Won't happen.

/I'll be checking the thread when I wake up.
 
2010-03-25 06:58:49 AM  
the new face of the republican party: pro rape, anti troops, hates veterans.
this will bode well.
 
2010-03-25 07:01:58 AM  
Vindibudd: I love it how stalling and being obstructionist is such an admirable trait when Democrats do it (new window), but holy god, how dare the Republicans ever do anything similar.

Curious on two factors... was the delay tactic implemented? (you just cite an article that cites an "internal memo")
Second, that is one... care to cite more before acting as if the Democrats were as obstructionist as the Republicans have been.

Additionally, up until now all the moves have been directly related to the HCR... this act (and the 2 oclock vanishing act) are pure petulance and don't impact the HCR in any fashion.
 
2010-03-25 07:11:35 AM  
Markoff_Cheney
the new face of the republican party: pro rape, anti troops, hates veterans.
this will bode well.


No surprise, they curse ACORN and one of their founding platforms was to help Vietnam Vets. Though ACORN did seem to lose their way, they did do a lot of good.
 
2010-03-25 07:16:22 AM  
GOP: more like spoiled, petulant children every day.

hphotos-snc1.fbcdn.net
 
2010-03-25 07:16:41 AM  
This is one classy individual.

"On Friday night, I called my wife and I said, 'Brooke, I am not coming home this weekend. I will call you on Monday. Tonight, I want you to go to the ATM machine, and I want you to draw out everything it will let you take. And I want you to tomorrow, and I want you to go Sunday.' I was convinced on Friday night that if you put a plastic card in an ATM machine the last thing you were going to get was cash." Burr added, "I think it is safe to say the economy has not rebounded. If anything, we have gone deeper into what economists call 'recession.' I would tell you it's not a recession. I would define this as a depression."

I'll do what I can, Sen. Burr, to get you back to the private sector.
 
2010-03-25 07:19:23 AM  
Man, I wish I had a dollar for every time someone thought Weaver and Hubie were liberals because they criticized the GOP's antics
 
2010-03-25 07:23:11 AM  
Pincy: mister13: Is it just me or does it seem like the US is headed for civil war?

Don't let Fox News fool you. The angry violent teabaggers are a small minority. They just have a huge cable news and radio network giving them free advertising, so it makes them appear to be much larger in number than they actually are. But that's the role of Fox News, to distort reality.


I suspect a nixonian "silent majority" will show their disgust with the foxbaggers in November.
 
2010-03-25 07:30:03 AM  
cabbyman: Keep this up! The best thing for America is a few decades of do nothing Congresses!

That's like saying the best way to drive a cab is to not turn the steering wheel.
 
2010-03-25 07:40:32 AM  
Sabyen91: log_jammin: Sabyen91: Well, maybe...they did elect farking Reagan.

Link (new window)

I really think that is crap. Maybe it is because the baby boomers I know didn't vote for Reagan or Bush I.


It is crap and shows all the metal aptitude of blaming Germany's problems in the 1930s on the JOOOOOOOOS.

Hey, log_jammin and Occam's Chainsaw,

Try using some paint remover. I hear it does wonders for getting that drool from that wide brush off. After all, you wouldn't want to walk around marked with idiocy, would you?


DrBenway: Don't fool yourselves, kids. The dickweeds are thick with many, many different sizes, shapes and ages. Generalizations singling out boomers are little more than that: generalizations.

Thank you.

Jesus, you'd like to think that the very least we could do is make an attempt to not act like the people we are having a great time ridiculing.
 
2010-03-25 07:46:15 AM  
Random Reality Check: After all, you wouldn't want to walk around marked with idiocy, would you?

That hurt man...that really hurt....
 
2010-03-25 07:46:40 AM  
Republicanism is in its last throes.
 
2010-03-25 08:20:19 AM  
oldebayer: Vindibudd: Yes, go figure that. The Democrats hold that territory? When did that happen? When they filibustered judicial nominations for the FIRST TIME IN HISTORY? Is that the high ground? And when Republicans thought about but ultimately did not go reconciliation? That kind of territory?

[Citation needed.] Are you talking about the filibuster of Lyndon Johnson's appointment of Abe Fortas to be Chief Justice in 1968? If you have some earlier example, please trot it out.


Isn't it OBVIOUS that moving someone from associate justice to chief justice isn't a judicial matter? Even if you can find a case of a filibuster of a judicial nominee before Bush, that doesn't disprove his claim that there has never been a filibuster of a judicial nominee anymore than pointing out that some of Bush's nominees weren't filibustered doesn't detract from his point that all of Bush's nominees were filibustered.
 
2010-03-25 09:02:27 AM  
Grungehamster: Isn't it OBVIOUS that moving someone from associate justice to chief justice isn't a judicial matter?

Isn't it OBVIOUS that it is?

Grungehamster: Even if you can find a case of a filibuster of a judicial nominee before Bush, that doesn't disprove his claim that there has never been a filibuster of a judicial nominee anymore than pointing out that some of Bush's nominees weren't filibustered doesn't detract from his point that all of Bush's nominees were filibustered.

That may not detract from it, but the facts do:

http://mediamatters.org/research/200505180004
The Top 10 filibuster falsehoods
Falsehood #10: Democrats have opposed "all" or "most" of Bush's judicial nominees

"Nuclear option" proponents have drastically exaggerated Democratic efforts to block Bush's judicial nominees, suggesting that they have opposed all of his nominees or all of his conservative nominees.

In fact, the Senate has to date approved 208 judicial nominees, with Senate Democrats filibustering 10. The vast majority of Bush's nominees have received strong bipartisan support. For example, in April district court nominee Paul Crotty was confirmed by a vote of 95-0. Even among Bush's first-term appellate nominees, the Senate confirmed more than 70 percent.
 
2010-03-25 09:03:35 AM  
Oh MAN - the GOP gots a plan for 2012...

thepatriotaxe.com
 
2010-03-25 09:09:50 AM  
HansensDisease: Don't blame me. I didn't vote for the idiot.

Me neither; I'd take a 3 legged dog for Senator over Burr.
 
2010-03-25 09:20:30 AM  
Vindibudd: Weaver95: Vindibudd:
Yes, go figure that. The Democrats hold that territory? When did that happen? When they filibustered judicial nominations for the FIRST TIME IN HISTORY? Is that the high ground? And when Republicans thought about but ultimately did not go reconciliation? That kind of territory?

so, ok. lets assume for a moment that you really are upset that 'both sides' are 'bad'. you've given us a lot of material covering the sins of the democratic party. What do you think the Republicans have done wrong?


How about you come up with a list since I am busy arguing with every other liberal on this board. I'll tell you if I agree.



But YOU made the claim that "both sides" were bad. You must have had something in mind if you were going to try and use that statement to convince anyone. Otherwise you were just talking out of your ass with nothing to back yourself up. In THAT case, the polite thing to do (having been caught) is to apologize and defer contributions until you've extended the barest of courtesies by actually spending some TIME on your "thought" before offering it.

It's the way responsible adults behave.
 
2010-03-25 09:24:27 AM  
Aarontology: Man, I wish I had a dollar for every time someone thought Weaver and Hubie were liberals because they criticized the GOP's antics

When the tent gets so small that even they don't fit, the party's in trouble.
 
2010-03-25 09:26:13 AM  
My baby boomer parents are loving people, and have their Masters degrees.

I also thought they were a bit better with money then they turned out to be. Back in my first year of college, I was the usual moron with his first credit card, and racked up a few $K in debt. I ended up paying it off with my summer job, but it left me with little spending money for the next semester.

My father gave me a long lecture on the responsible use of debt.

Because of that discussion, I was under the impression that my parents were behaving in a responsible manner. They had bought there current house in 1984, so I had been under the impression that they were close to paying it off.

Whoops. I learned last year that they had taken so many home equity loans to pay for various vacations and other things, that they were nearly underwater... AFTER 26 YEARS. My father was a commission only broker at the time, and was making crap money. My mother was a retired teacher and only had her pension.

They were not sure if they could make their mortgage payments.

Fortunately, due to that old lecture I had received, I had minimal debt, and lots of savings to help them with their problem. A couple days after I wrote them a check, I was on the phone with my mother. She invited me over for dinner, mentioning that she was making some roast beef because she "had decided to splurge".
.
.
.
I think that was the first time I really yelled at my mother.



Farkin' baby boomers.

/coolstorybro
 
2010-03-25 09:27:21 AM  
Too bad the Dems couldn't get their act together and vote as a solid block before they lost the seats. They've earned these obstructive tactics. Oh, and thanks for wasting the time of those generals and senators, and of course the money of the taxpayers by making them reschedule the meeting, etc.

/sigh, business as usual in the Federal Government
 
2010-03-25 09:28:47 AM  
Vindibudd

Democrats after years of biatching about reconciliation and partisanship gave Republicans the finger and used both to ram this healthcare bill down our (the peoples') throats. So turnabout is fair play.

The above is certainly not delusional & selective partisan-blinded memory. The Republicans showed a clear desire to participate in the HCR process after all...

...right?
 
2010-03-25 09:35:26 AM  
Last time Burr was up for election he received more donations from pharmaceutical companies than any other candidate.

Therefore this is an absolutely stunning turn of events.
 
2010-03-25 09:36:32 AM  
Bigedmond: Its a drop holster. It is mostly used to when you are moving around with a rifle, IE an m4, you have more mobility. The military uses then because a belt holster can easy catch on the soldiers body armor, making the soldier less maneuverable.

For his purposes, yea it was strictly for show.


Depending on what state he's in, and what the laws are, a drop holster can allow an untucked shirt or sweatshirt without any police goons arresting him for "concealing" it.

Open carry is supposed to be OPEN. Concealed carry is supposed to be CONCEALED. In-between states are often borderline illegal or outright illegal.

Also, a belt holster with a full sized pistol is uncomfortable, makes it hard to get in/out of a vehicle, carry stuff, etc.

He may be just obeying the law or out for comfort/convenience and not after any particular tacticool look. His eyes are freakishly close together though.
 
2010-03-25 09:39:52 AM  
Wasn't there another traitor named Burr?
 
2010-03-25 09:42:20 AM  
Baby Diego: Vindibudd

Democrats after years of biatching about reconciliation and partisanship gave Republicans the finger and used both to ram this healthcare bill down our (the peoples') throats. So turnabout is fair play.

The above is certainly not delusional & selective partisan-blinded memory. The Republicans showed a clear desire to participate in the HCR process after all...

...right?


They did have a clear desire to be involved with the process; that's why Mike Enzi joined the Senate "Gang of Six" so he could have a deciding influence on this legislation.

...now granted, he publicly stated that the only reason he wanted to be in on it was to delay it, weaken it, and potentially derail it, but that's still wanting to be involved in the PROCESS of making it, right?
 
2010-03-25 10:11:50 AM  
yakmans_dad: Wasn't there another traitor named Burr?

Yes. Richard Burr.
 
2010-03-25 10:13:23 AM  
thurstonxhowell: yakmans_dad: Wasn't there another traitor named Burr?

Yes. Richard Burr.


This made more sense when I read it as a traitor, not another traitor.
 
2010-03-25 10:19:55 AM  
Vindibudd: I shall clarify, Democrats filibustered EVERY SINGLE JUDICIAL NOMINEE OF W. THAT was what had never been done before in history, the practice of filibustering every single judge. Sorry for the confusion.

Now that you've been challenged, you're opting to just straight up lie?
 
2010-03-25 11:19:38 AM  
This is just full blown stupid. Somebody needs to break his knees with a fungo bat.
 
2010-03-25 01:55:55 PM  
mister13: Is it just me or does it seem like the US is headed for civil war?

People are going to be killed sooner or later over this shiat, but I doubt it will become a civil war. It's too non-regional. And that lame-arse guy I saw yesterday boasting about three million guns pointing at liberals had better do a quick check of stuff like body armor, communications, infra-red, armored vehicles, air support and a thousand other things before he takes up his musket and heads for the hills.
 
2010-03-25 02:17:21 PM  
Ex Parte Gilligan: Grungehamster: Even if you can find a case of a filibuster of a judicial nominee before Bush, that doesn't disprove his claim that there has never been a filibuster of a judicial nominee anymore than pointing out that some of Bush's nominees weren't filibustered doesn't detract from his point that all of Bush's nominees were filibustered.

That may not detract from it, but the facts do:

http://mediamatters.org/research/200505180004



I think Grungehamster's comment was dripping with sardony. I posted that same linkie, btw, in one of my responses to Vindibudd, who ignored it, lied to my face and then ran off.

Facts? They don't need no stinking facts!

An aside to the Baby-Boomer-Haters: I am a boomer, born in 1948, and my main contribution to the mess we are in now was to tutor a fairly substantial number of high school students -- nearly all of post-boomer generations, though I didn't bother labeling them -- to pass SATs or various classes in science and math. I also tutored a lot of college students. Did not vote for Reagan, Nixon or any flavor of Bush. Not responsible for Social Security, or Viet Nam, or television reality shows. Never wasted my vote on a loopy third party candidate, and have voted in all but one election for which I was an eligible voter (this was a school board run-off that happened just post-Katrina, when I was out of Florida looking for a house to buy in New Mexico.)

Hate us collectively, if you wish, hate me individually if you must, but hear me now and think about it later: one day you will be my age, and you just might hear some nasty things being said about you by people young enough to be hosed off your lawn. What goes around, comes around. Good luck with that.
 
2010-03-25 02:29:23 PM  
I know this might sound far fetched, but I'll go at it anyway.



We are in two wars right now. When a person derails the advancement of our military in the time of war purposfully, they need to be brought up on treason charges, and even possibly be charged with "aiding terrorists".
 
2010-03-25 08:12:59 PM  
oldebayer: Ex Parte Gilligan: Grungehamster: Even if you can find a case of a filibuster of a judicial nominee before Bush, that doesn't disprove his claim that there has never been a filibuster of a judicial nominee anymore than pointing out that some of Bush's nominees weren't filibustered doesn't detract from his point that all of Bush's nominees were filibustered.

That may not detract from it, but the facts do:

http://mediamatters.org/research/200505180004


I think Grungehamster's comment was dripping with sardony. I posted that same linkie, btw, in one of my responses to Vindibudd, who ignored it, lied to my face and then ran off.

Facts? They don't need no stinking facts!

An aside to the Baby-Boomer-Haters: I am a boomer, born in 1948, and my main contribution to the mess we are in now was to tutor a fairly substantial number of high school students -- nearly all of post-boomer generations, though I didn't bother labeling them -- to pass SATs or various classes in science and math. I also tutored a lot of college students. Did not vote for Reagan, Nixon or any flavor of Bush. Not responsible for Social Security, or Viet Nam, or television reality shows. Never wasted my vote on a loopy third party candidate, and have voted in all but one election for which I was an eligible voter (this was a school board run-off that happened just post-Katrina, when I was out of Florida looking for a house to buy in New Mexico.)

Hate us collectively, if you wish, hate me individually if you must, but hear me now and think about it later: one day you will be my age, and you just might hear some nasty things being said about you by people young enough to be hosed off your lawn. What goes around, comes around. Good luck with that.


I'm a 48 stater and the tail end of the boomers, born in 1956 and I agree wholeheartedly.

I think Fark should require that each post contain the year the person was born so we can figure out whether they're just young or stupid.
 
2010-03-25 08:33:31 PM  
Dick Burr.....Giggity.
 
2010-03-26 05:08:53 AM  
UNC_Samurai: Fellow North Carolinians; we could have had Erskine Bowles instead of this louse in 2004, but noooooo. We had to have two of the laziest senators in a century with him and that harpy Dole.

I didn't vote for this twat but I know people who did. And Dole...*sigh*. Then again people out here think Helms and Taylor were gifts from above.
 
Displayed 173 of 173 comments



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report