Nah, beating around the bush like a passive aggressive cunt is much more honorable.[/quote]
Eh, at least I can carry on an adult conversation…
[quote]In your own words, what do you think the term “advise and consent” actually means?
Do you see much consenting going on while these guys are “doing their jobs as they see need to be done”?
Do you think they would be “doing their job” of non-consent if Romney were occupying 1600 Pennsylvania Ave?[/quote]
Look, it boils down to being fundamentally opposed to the choices of the administration. Whether or not they are going to childish lengths to oppose the actions of the current administration is a matter of perception.
Would the Republican’s be this opposed to Romney appointees? I have no idea, I suppose the answer would depend on the details, as it always does. Hypotheticals are largely pointless.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
dat ad hom… So glad I clicked on this thread, lol.
Anywho, I don’t see how using the tools available to the minority party to resist those things they are opposed to is “not doing their jobs.” I mean a reasonable person would conclude it is, in fact, very much doing their jobs as they see need to be done.
I don’t know. I don’t have a habit of instantly insulting and holding myself above people I disagree with, so maybe I’m wrong. [/quote]
Nah, beating around the bush like a passive aggressive cunt is much more honorable.
In your own words, what do you think the term “advise and consent” actually means?
Do you see much consenting going on while these guys are “doing their jobs as they see need to be done”?
Do you think they would be “doing their job” of non-consent if Romney were occupying 1600 Pennsylvania Ave?
Would they still hold the opinion that the court is full enough and no longer needs any more judges appointed to it? [/quote]
A better question is why any president nominates a judge with a strong bias to either side. A more political neutral judge would have no reason to get blocked by the senate. It is their job to decide cases based on the material presented to them, not vote based on their political party’s stance on whatever issue comes up.[/quote]
Bless your little heart…your tv must have been broken for the past two years, and they stopped delivering papers to your town. So you think the reason for the obstruction is because of ideology of the nominees? That’s adorable. Question: What do you think I meant when I said “would they still hold the opinion that the court is full enough and no longer needs any more judges appointed to it?”…Did you not realize this is one of the arguments for their filibusters? You need to go do some research then come back…
Treasury Sells rest of GM stock; ends bailout with $10.5 Billion loss…
WASHINGTON – The federal government on Monday sold its remaining shares of General Motors Co. stock, ending the controversial $49.5-billion bailout of the automaker with an approximately $10.5-billion loss for taxpayers.
[quote]VTBalla34 wrote:
US economy added 203k jobs in November and unemployment hit a 5 year low:
Didn’t see this mentioned anywhere else on PWI…I’m sure you guys were just busy.[/quote]
That’s great news. [/quote]
Yes, but what what has happened with the labor participation ? The article makes no mention if there was a change in that. [/quote]
Up for Nov, still down a bit for the year.
FTR: I don’t really blame government for the unemployment numbers. They play a role, and their role is often due from unintended consequences, but at the same time there are a lot of factors that play into the stat that are rightfully out of their control.
Bush43 shouldn’t be applauded for his rates, nor Obama bashed for the rates during his time, beyond simple passing, without specific mention of policy that has proven to directly effect it.
Obama’s expected 10-minute speech at Nelson Mandela’s memorial will cost taxpayers at least $500,000 per minute
…Obama and his predecessor have flown on your dime to South Africa to attend the funeral of the former communist Nelson Mandela.
“President Barack Obama brought former President George W. Bush with him to Africa on Monday to attend a memorial for Nelson Mandela in a high-profile show of American respect for the man who vanquished white-minority rule in South Africa,” Reuters reports.
Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter went along for the ride, but on separate flights.
“Obama kept his usual quarters in the front of the plane, while the medical unit cabin was transformed into the Bushes’ quarters for the flight. Hillary Clinton stayed in the senior staff cabin.”
Henri Le Riche estimates “Obama’s expected 10-minute speech at Nelson Mandela’s memorial will cost taxpayers at least $500,000 per minute.”
Obama goes out of his way to shake hands with communist leader Raul Castro:
And where oh where does this government handouts come from? I know, Mana from Heaven, I mean Mana from Washington D.C.
Also what happens when Washington D.C. can no longer float bonds to pay for this stuff? Will the Mana keep flowing from the ass of Obama, or McConnell, or any other politician.
Get your head out of your ass. You are a Progressive and believe the gravy train will never end. Same thing happened in the Soviet Union. How is that working for ya?
And where oh where does this government handouts come from? I know, Mana from Heaven, I mean Mana from Washington D.C.
Also what happens when Washington D.C. can no longer float bonds to pay for this stuff? Will the Mana keep flowing from the ass of Obama, or McConnell, or any other politician.
Get your head out of your ass. You are a Progressive and believe the gravy train will never end. Same thing happened in the Soviet Union. How is that working for ya?[/quote]
LOL What in the fuck are you talking about? Weren’t you just defending the idiot yesterday claiming that is is good, and a matter of principle, to reclaim what is yours from the government? Isn’t that what everyone in Kansas is doing, taking and taking because it’s available and hey, the government took it from me in the first place? lol
Kidding aside, what do you think this means dmaddox:
I’m sure even a man of your obvious limited intellect can parse that down into comprehendible terms. But just in case you can’t: If goesins are > goesouts then this = good. Those federal spending levels are already determined–the money is already coming out–it’s just going to another state instead. Way to look out for the constituents! LOL
Maybe your lack of understanding comes from forgetting that the states foregoing the Medicare expansion will continue to be responsible for 43% of the total costs, compared to the 10% that states who expand it will incur?
With all due respect of course.
On a semi-related note, it’s really fucking funny that the red states are the biggest drain on the welfare system. Why aren’t their state leaders standing up on the grounds of fiscal conservatism there??? Why not decline that money as well? What could it be differentiating other welfare from Medicare? hrmmm…
[quote]VTBalla34 wrote:
US economy added 203k jobs in November and unemployment hit a 5 year low:
Didn’t see this mentioned anywhere else on PWI…I’m sure you guys were just busy.[/quote]
Seasonally adjusted U6 is still over 13%.
Pardon me while I don’t throw a party for yet unrevised U3 numbers.
But hey, 5 years later and U3 is a point lower than U6 was before the melt down.
41% of new jobs were created by the Government. Yeah what a great number.
[/quote]
That article doesn’t make a lot of sense, and since it didn’t bother to cite any of its sources I couldn’t really dig deep into what seems to be a lot of bullshit.
But the federal employment numbers actually DECREASED (by 7,000) in November. That must have been a LOT of hiring at the state and local levels.
I suspect that since it didn’t bother to cite any sources it was just a bunch of partisan hack bullshit thrown out to get its most gullible based fired up. Mission accomplished lol
