And the rest of the story….

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL33310.pdf

W never appointed a socialist, therein lies the rub. Course we haven’t had a socialist in office since FDR either.

“The decision is not whether or not we will ration care — the decision is whether we will ration with our eyes open.”
Donald Berwick

That statement being repeated daily would have killed the new healthcare system and destroyed any chance for a Democrat to get elected in November or any November.

Moderate said:
“The decision is not whether or not we will ration care — the decision is whether we will ration with our eyes open.”Donald Berwick That statement being repeated daily would have killed the new healthcare system and destroyed any chance for a Democrat to get elected in November or any November.

BINGO!

Is anyone surprised by his answer?

He has no answer….he knows he was caught dead on….and he doesn’t care that his own party does it often…..

When they do it….it is ok
When others do it…IT IS WRONG!

Brilliant logic by the right-wing

Another right wing hypocrite, liar and scumbag. I can smell you from here, Kyl.

You should cover the real newsworthy story here — not that this is a recess appointment, but that Obama is putting an expert in rationing in charge of our healthcare. Welcome to the world of Obamacare!

Donald Berwick is just the latest Socialist to join the BHO’s admin.

DrFunke said:
Is anyone surprised by his answer? He has no answer….he knows he was caught dead on….and he doesn’t care that his own party does it often….. When they do it….it is okWhen others do it…IT IS WRONG! Brilliant logic by the right-wing

You are missing the point. Every prez makes recess appts. The rub here is he is appointing a guy who is gonna put in place the formula necessary to end your life when you get “expensive” you twit. He’s going to determine the length of peoples (yours included) lives. He dmits it. He believes in it. It’s what he does.

And you’re good with that?????

DrFunke said:
Is anyone surprised by his answer?

He has no answer….he knows he was caught dead on….and he doesn’t care that his own party does it often…..

When they do it….it is ok
When others do it…IT IS WRONG!

blockquote>

Yeah, kinda like when Barry said that rendition was wrong, that Gitmo was wrong, that FISA was wrong, that electronic surveillance in the USA was wrong, etc.

And let’s not forget the reason Obama did the recess appt. The R’s wanted hearings on him, but BO didn’t want the American people to know he was putting a Socialist in charge.

Obama ran as the “anti-Bush”. Therefore he / you can NOT use the “Bush did it too” excuse. And remember that whole “transparency” thing.

DEATH PANELS are BACK, PEOPLE!!!!!!!!!!111

GOD I missed that talking point!!!1

Glynnis MacNicol said:
“Well I’m not going to argue about what President Bush did,” said Kyl looking a tad surprised that Wallace had even raised the issue.

How did Kyl look “a tad surprised” Glynnis?

I just watched the clip full screen (and I have a HUGE screen here) twice, & Kyl didn’t even flinch, or raise an eyebrow?!

Maybe you oughta watch that clip again. Maybe a couple of times.

But this time try to take off your Leftist blinders, just for a pleasant change.

Fantasy-Newsjunky said:
Another Left wing hypocrite, liar and scumbag.

That’s right! Our president is exactly that!

Looks like the “Death Panel” is going to be a single Lying Leftist Lunatic, that the president knew could never be confirmed by the senate, so he snuck him in through the back door!

Donald Berwick almost manages to make a nut like Van Jones look principled, & sane!

BR said:
Obama ran as the “anti-Bush”. Therefore he / you can NOT use the “Bush did it too” excuse.

Bingo!

Yeah Tex, you’re right, we all know it was Clinton, yeah, thats the ticket!

Guess what?! Senator Kyl isn’t the only one who doesn’t care what Bush did or did not do. Newsflash for all those stuck in that dreaded time warp!! Obama is the president. Obama is responsible for the wars, the economy, the whole ball of wax. Rent a tractor to take your heads out long enough to get with the program.

As a senior, I know what it is I am heading to with Obamacare: euthanasia. And, not just from some terminal illness either, it will be because I will too old to live since I can’t work and therefore, can’t “contribute”. Hope they give me a choice of what to take to end it all! Or, like in China today, they’ll stick me on a twin bed, wrap me in a blanket and leave me along with the six other old folk in the 10×12 foot room. Oh joy!!

So when Bush did it, it was wrong. When Obama does it, it’s ok because Bush did it too. I’m waiting for Gibbs to come out with, ‘he did it first’. Very presidential.

This is typical for the child that we have running this country. We wouldn’t be dealing with this crap if we had elected a LEADER like Richardson. That’s right! I said it! Richardson!

Zakk said:
if we had elected a LEADER like Richardson. That’s right! I said it! Richardson!

Have you ever met him? Do you know anything about him besides his ~Press~?

I’d call him a snake, but that wouldn’t be fair to snakes.

WOW! Really! No, I don’t know much about him other than what I’ve read. There wasn’t much press due to him only being in the race for a very short time. I wanted to know more about him, he seemed like he had a good head on his shoulders… maybe not?

To be honest, I would have taken any person Rep/Dem who had been a governor. I hate the idea of senators being president. They have never been responsible for a budget, or really anything they do. They have no executive experience, and so you end up with what we have now.

I knew going in to the 08 campaign, McCain had no chance – and I didn’t want him to be my candidate anyway. So I was looking for the person that I thought would be the best ‘leader’, instead I got Obama. I think Obama is a shining example of why you should elect people who have been in some position of executive power, either a governor or a business person. Either way, someone who knows what it means to balance a budget and be held accountable for their bad decisions.

So we shouldn’t expect to hear anything from the DWINDLING LEFT if the next GOP President makes a recess appointment, say, of a neo-nazi to head the DOJ?
——————————————————————-
…and Glynnis, “he said, she said?” All I’ve heard is Obama and his minions Blaming Bush, and taking NO RESPONSIBILITY for their failed & discredited policies!
In fact, Dodd & Frank took no responsibility for the fundamental role Fannie & Freddie played in the financial downfall, either!

Shirking responsibility must primarily be a Democratic Trait!!!

timzank said:
W never appointed a socialist, therein lies the rub. Course we haven’t had a socialist in office since FDR either.

Washington was the first socialist. The First Bank, owned and controlled by the federal government, was his. He rejected Jefferson’s reservation about government ownership and went with Alexander Hamilton’s more liberal, government owned bank. Of course we already had a socialist military per the Constitution.

You guys do make me chuckle with your death panel fear mongering and throwing the word socialist around SMH. I bet some of you do not even know its true meaning. There are not going to be any death panels (TYVM Sarah Palin). Read up on the guy and his background before you throw around some soundbites you heard or got from a friend or talking head on another site…

Hypocrisy, Thy Name is Kyl. Or, virtually any Reprublican. What a bunch of goofballs.

Besides healthcare, another perfect socialist application would be the drilling of oil on U.S. territory. The only way the federal treasury gets the maximum benefit from its oil reserves is to cut out the middle man. The oil companies make unprecedented profits these days why should the federal government not use its fine civil engineers, together with people who wish to serve from the private sector, to drill its own oil? That way, what is drilled can go directly into the national reserves. The true suckers of federal assets is not the unemployed, but the companies that pay bottom dollar to the federal government for oil leases.

DrFunke says:
July 11, 2010 at 7:10 pm

Brilliant logic by the right-wing

The Real Royal King says:
July 11, 2010 at 10:47 pm

Hypocrisy, Thy Name is Kyl. Or, virtually any Reprublican. What a bunch of goofballs.

Ugh.

Obama on recess appointment John Bolton to the UN:

“To some degree, he’s damaged goods,” said Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. “I think that means we’ll have less credibility and, ironically, be less equipped to reform the United Nations in the way that it needs to be reformed.”

I guess Obama believes it bad when Republicans do it… but okay when HE does it. Is that still “brilliant logic” but now by the left-wing? Are they also “goofballs?”

BR says:
July 11, 2010 at 7:47 pm

Obama ran as the “anti-Bush”. Therefore he / you can NOT use the “Bush did it too” excuse. And remember that whole “transparency” thing

Your statement makes too much sense to be understood by the partisan haters.

Sure, they’ll argue that folks like David Vitter are extra terrible people because they were elected on a “family values” platform… but defend “politics as usual” coming out of Obama, despite his platform of “change” and doing things differently.

Oh well. I think you made a great point.

Zakk said:
I wanted to know more about him, he seemed like he had a good head on his shoulders… maybe not?

He’s clever. But, again, snakes have far better morals & standards.

Zakk said:
To be honest, I would have taken any person Rep/Dem who had been a governor. I hate the idea of senators being president. They have never been responsible for a budget, or really anything they do. They have no executive experience, and so you end up with what we have now.

Agreed. But, the early open primary races gave the Dems O-Blowhard, & the GOP McLame. Such is life…

Zakk said:
I knew going in to the 08 campaign, McCain had no chance – and I didn’t want him to be my candidate anyway.

Yup.

Zakk said:
I knew going in to the 08 campaign, McCain had no chance – and I didn’t want him to be my candidate anyway. So I was looking for the person that I thought would be the best ‘leader’, instead I got Obama.

Sadly, sometimes life gives us substance, & other times all we get is vapor. Clearly, 2008 was our “vapor” year.

Zakk said:
I think Obama is a shining example of why you should elect people who have been in some position of executive power, either a governor or a business person.

Exactly. Most any rational mid-sized city Mayor would have been head & shoulders over either of the ’08 candidates.

Zakk said:
Either way, someone who knows what it means to balance a budget and be held accountable for their bad decisions.

Well said!

Fortunately, we can slow O-Bummer’s follies in just a few months, by electing his opposition to take control of congress, just as we had after Bill Clinton was 1st elected president, & tried some of the same nonsense O-Bumble’s doing now.

Then hopefully, in 2012 we’ll have a better choice.

How about a matter of degree?
A driver going 60mph in a 30mph zone, and a mass-muderer are both criminals!

…..as are a conservative recess appointment to the (worthless) UN, and a health advocate implicitly advocating (rationing) ‘death panels’ for the terminally-ill &elderly!!!

The (un)Real Doyly King said:
Hypocrisy, Thy Name is

O-Bummer.

What ever happened to “the most open & honest administration in history”?

Oh yeah. I remember now.

That lie fizzled fast, during the campaign phase of O-Bumble’s rise to the presidency.

Battlestar Galactica-valkyrie101 said:
Besides healthcare, another perfect socialist application would be the drilling of oil on U.S. territory.

That’s exactly what the Soviet Union did.

And, aside from the effort being rife with crime & corruption, it turned out to be one of the biggest environmental disasters, in all of modern history.

In comparison, their oil field lands are so polluted, it makes this Gulf of Mexico disaster looked more like a cup of spilled milk.

Bureaucrats can’t handle those kinds of operations, that require steely nerves & the ability to perform instant action when needed.

So do you really want to go down anything like that same road? Get real. Admiral Turd Allan has already proven with his ongoing failing Gulf spill response, that govt just can’t handle complex stuff like this.

Battlestar Galactica-valkyrie101 said:
The oil companies make unprecedented profits these days

But on the other hand, they also take all the risks. Do you have any idea what it costs just to drill a dry hole? I do. It’s not pretty business.

Battlestar Galactica-valkyrie101 said:
why should the federal government not use its fine civil engineers

Oh, you mean those same people that designed, built, & operated the New Orleans flood containment operations? Get real.

Battlestar Galactica-valkyrie101 said:
together with people who wish to serve from the private sector, to drill its own oil?

It’s not the “governments oil”. On private land it’s the landowners oil. On public land & seas it’s the Peoples oil, which the govt already makes billions & billions from, in hefty royalty payments, made to govt, by the oil companies.

Battlestar Galactica-valkyrie101 said:
That way, what is drilled can go directly into the national reserves.

I’ve got a better idea. Instead of all of us getting the shaft by trying your weird ideas, you should just move yourself to Iran, Saudi Arabia, or Venezuela. They’ve all already got all that heavy handed Marxist full govt control stuff, working for them in spades. Hell, I’ll even chip in a little to help you with a one way ticket. But you gotta promise to never come back.

Battlestar Galactica-valkyrie101 said:
The true suckers of federal assets is not the unemployed, but the companies that pay bottom dollar to the federal government for oil leases.

You really do have no idea how much the MMS, the BLM, the EPA, the NPS, & a zillion other federal entities already collect in royalty payments & other fees, do you? It’s an incredible amount.

But, now that we have 3 or 4 times more govt workers than we really do need, & they collectively make about 40% more than private sector workers do, there’s never going to be enough money. Not even if we stripped every last drop of oil, & all the trees off our national forest’.

Here’s the bottom line. Unlike private industry, the govt has the power to use force. In fact, it’s has a monopoly of on force. As it gets bigger it uses more of it’s force. And at some point, it will be too big to stop.

That’s what’s occurred in every socialist/communist/Marxist/fascist regime, that’s ever come to power.

Then, the people rise up. There’s violence. People die. But, eventually govt is curtailed, & if the people aren’t very very cautious, the entire cycle begins all over again.

That’s how it’s always been. That’s how it will always be.

That’s because unlike nearly everything else, human nature doesn’t change. Just the circumstances do.

President Obama’s controversial recess appointment of Donald Berwick to head the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services marked the 18th recess appointment he’s made since taking office—more than President George W. Bush at this point in his presidency.

There’s a big distinction, however. Obama had 60 senators caucusing with Democrats for nearly seven months of his White House tenure. He’s had 58 or 59 at other times.

Contrast that with Bush, who took office in 2001 with the Senate split 50-50 and Vice President Dick Cheney casting the tie-breaking vote. That lasted less than six months. When former Sen. Jim Jeffords of Vermont stopped caucusing with Republicans, Democrats took control of the Senate. Bush made 15 recess appointments through July 7, 2002.

Obama, who once called recess appointees “damaged goods,” hasn’t shied away from using his presidential power to fill vacancies for important federal posts.

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=37991

It’s August 2005 and Bush just made James Bolton the UN Ambassador during a Congressional recess:

“To some degree, he’s damaged goods,” said Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. “I think that means we’ll have less credibility and, ironically, be less equipped to reform the United Nations in the way that it needs to be reformed.”

It’s April 2007 and Bush just made a recess appointment that made Sam Fox the Ambassador to Belgium. Fox was being blocked by Social Democrats because he gave $50,000 to support commercials against presidential candidate John Kerry. Senator Obama had this to say:

It’s disappointing that President Bush would defy the will of Congress by appointing Sam Fox Ambassador to Belgium. I opposed Mr. Fox’s nomination because I had serious concerns about his candor, judgment, and qualifications for this important post. Appointing nominees that are opposed by a majority in Congress simply because they are political cronies is old style politics at its worst. Our nation’s ambassadors should possess strong credibility and character so that they may effectively represent U.S. interests overseas, and I don’t think President Bush applied that test with this recess appointment.

http://alphapatriot.com/flashback-obama-on-bush-recess-appointments/

In 2005, Pelosi Said That Recess Appointments “Subvert The Confirmation Process” And “Will Harm The United States’ Reputation In The Eyes Of The International Community”: “The President’s decision to circumvent the Senate and use a recess appointment naming John Bolton as ambassador to the United Nations is a mistake….For President Bush to use a recess appointment for such a controversial nominee – not because there was a compelling case that Mr. Bolton was the best person for the job, but merely because the President had the power to do it – subverts the confirmation process in ways that will further harm the United States’ reputation in the eyes of the international community. The American people deserve better.”

In 2002, Biden Called Recess Appointment “A Very Bad Political Move” And “Not … A Smart Thing To Do.” “[T]here are a number of Democrats who have much, much more concern about Reich than I do, and I said … ‘But, Mr. President, this is not a wise thing to do …’ And I think it was a very bad political move on the president’s part, and I really regretted having happened. We’re going to have to now manage the fallout from this, and this was not a, respectfully speaking, smart thing to do, in my view.” (NBC’S Meet The Press, 01/13/02)

In 2005, Biden Said President Not Entitled To Appointment Of Any Nominee. “As I said, we don’t work for the president. And no president is entitled to the appointment of anyone he nominates. No president is entitled by the mere fact he has nominated someone. That’s why they wrote the Constitution the way they did: It says ‘advice and consent.’”

In 2007, Reid Called Recess Appointments “An End Run Around The Senate And The Constitution.” “I will keep the Senate in pro forma session to block the President from doing an end run around the Senate and the Constitution with his controversial nominations.” (Sen. Harry Reid, Congressional Record, S.15980, 12/19/07)

And Reid Thinks Recess Appointments “Are Mischievous.” “Also, understand this: We have had a difficult problem with the President now for some time. We don’t let him have recess appointments because they are mischievous, and unless we have an agreement before the recess, there will be no recess. We will meet every third day pro forma, as we have done during the last series of breaks.” (Sen. Reid, Congressional Record, S.7558, 7/28/08)

Senator Dick Durbin (D-IL) Says Recess Appointments “Ignore The Will Of The Senate.” “When you have an appointment that is this critical and this sensitive, and the president basically says he’s going to ignore the will of the senate and push someone through, it really is troubling.”

Durbin Says Recess Appointments “Unconstitutional” And “Confrontational.” “I agree with Senator Kennedy that Mr. Pryor’s recess appointment, which occurred during a brief recess of Congress, could easily be unconstitutional. It was certainly confrontational. Recess appointments lack the permanence and independence contemplated by the Framers of the Constitution.”

Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) Called Recess Appointments “Abuse [Of] The Power Of The Presidency.” “‘It’s sad but not surprising that this White House would abuse the power of the presidency to reward a donor over the objections of the Senate,’ Kerry said in a statement …”

Sen. Chris Dodd (D-CT) Questioned Legality Of Recess Appointments, Called Them “Abuse Of Executive Authority.” “Sen. Christopher J. Dodd (D-Conn.) said yesterday that he will ask the Government Accountability Office for a ruling on the legality of the unusual appointment, which he called ‘an abuse of executive authority …’”

Dodd Called Recess Appointments “Deceptive” And “Illegal”. “Dodd said Thursday that Fox’s appointment was ‘deceptive at best and illegal at worst,’ and he asked the Government Accountability Office to investigate.”

Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT) Said Recess Appointment “Shows Disrespect” To Senate. “Committee spokeswoman Leslie Phillips issued a statement on Lieberman’s behalf yesterday, saying that the ‘decision to recess appoint Susan Dudley shows disrespect’ for the Senate’s authority to advise and consent on nominations.”

Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI) Called Recess Appointments “Slap” To Institute Of The Senate. “Judge Pickering was never confirmed by the Senate, but in a further slap to this institution, the President put him on the court through a recess appointment.”

Feingold Feared Recess Appointments Place “Most Egregious And Political Leadership” In Major Executive Positions. “Is that what we want? It means most likely there will be recess appointments this winter for the 10 major leadership positions in the Department. And what does that mean? Simply stated: The administration could put in place the most egregious and political leadership, and we–the Senate–could do nothing about it. We would have reduced transparency and reduced congressional oversight.”

Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) Said Recess Appointments “Bend The Rules And Circumvents The Will Of Congress.” “[E]ven while the president preaches democracy around the world, he bends the rules and circumvents the will of Congress’ at home.”

Sen. Patty Murray (D-WA) Said Recess Appointments “Blindside” Senators. “People Are Concerned. With that in mind, Senate Democrats said they have little faith that Bush will play nice and refrain from making the controversial appointments. Democrats have been blindsided by Bush before, particularly in April when the president tapped three controversial nominees for executive branch slots…..’I think every time there’s a recess, people are concerned that the president might use that’ option, echoed Sen. Patty Murray (Wash.), the Democratic Conference secretary.”

http://washingtonindependent.com/76453/obamas-recess-threat

vnupe said:
“The decision is not whether or not we will ration care — the decision is whether we will ration with our eyes open.”
Donald Berwick

“The decision is not whether or not we will ration care — the decision is whether we will ration with our eyes open.”
Donald Berwick”.

What part of that statement is difficult for you to fathom? Rationing care will cause some people to die earlier than others, period. You can’t “spin” that.

Tex,

All I know is this: Oil companies make massive, extremely massive profits. And they do that while paying moster salaries, tens or hundreds of millions in some cases, to the white collar men that run the show. They sell oil that is drilled on public American land to private people and the U.S. at market rate. Yes, they do pay royalties, and taxes but nevertheless make billions of profits. If America was a business, we would be seeking to cut costs and increase profits by cutting out middle men that increase expense. The notion that the govenment is any more inefficient than big business is simply, a myth.

valkyrie101 said:
Besides healthcare, another perfect socialist application would be the drilling of oil on U.S. territory.

Because it works so well for Venezuela…

Why don’t we just cut to the chase and put the government in charge of feeding and housing everyone? Nobody gets stuff done like Unca Sugar, amirite?

This is the same crowd that denounced the use of the filibuster to prevent votes in the Senate and now uses it every chance they get. The same crowd that decries the coarsening of debate even as they scream Marxist, Socialist and Communist at every thing the President does, The same crowd that denounced deficits then ran up record amounts and now still denounces them but advocates more tax cuts for the rich. The same crowd that talks about supporting the troops yet has no problem when they discover they were sent to a war for false reasons. Obama would not have to resort to recess appointments if Republicans believed in majority rule and allowed a vote in the Senate.

Republicans can best be compared to terrorists in that they disrupt and destroy, spread fear and hate and then plan to ride the resulting storm back to power. Lies and hypocrisy are part of their tools. They have no real solutions for Americas problems so even if they win they will soon find themselves in exactly the same position they were at the end of the Bush administration when their policies once again fail to help any but the very richest. Only next time it will be too late for America to ever recover.

Republican hard ballers forget that what goes around comes around and when and if they come to power Democrats can and should play the same game of divide and obstruct, lie and distort. We have been taught well. Remember that Republicans!

Vietnameravet says:
July 12, 2010 at 9:59 am

Blah blah blah… anyone who disagrees with me is a terrorist… blah blah blah… I’ll ignore the fact that Democrats (the people I’m hyping) have done the exact same thing… blah blah blah.

Same old partisan hate, different day.

This whole threat is a bunch of “whining conspiracy B.S.” as usual. Now Pay-lin will be back with her De@th panels lie.

Everything the Pres. does people are “up in arms and whining”. It’s not his first recess appointment. And every other Pres. made recess appointments. Someone said he appointed a Socialist because he couldn’t get the appoint approved. The Pres. can’t get Rethugs from playing games and Boehner out of a “Bar long” enough to get anyone approved.
You Dummies don’t even know what a Socialist is beyond what Fox, Limbaugh, stoopid greedy $ister $arah, and Glenduh Beck tell you.
The head of the national Socialist Party said: The Pres. is NOT a Socialist. And why hasn’t any Socialist countries embraced the Pres. as one of theirs. Even Ron Paul, the Tea Party darling, said the Pres is NOT a Socialist.
What a bunch of whining Dumbo’s on this thread. Repeating crap they can’t prove.

yweston says:
July 12, 2010 at 11:07 am

Repeating crap they can’t prove.

Says YWeston, who just made a few paragraphs out of copy/pasted angry leftwing talking points.

I’ll just pick one to argue… wasn’t Obama the champion of “transparency?” Didn’t he say he’d do things different?

So, are you willing to admit that was just a lie to sucker in those who WANTED to be suckered on the left, and those in the middle (who are leaving him in increasing numbers)?

ImNotBlue said:
Vietnameravet says:July 12, 2010 at 9:59 am Blah blah blah… anyone who disagrees with me is a terrorist… blah blah blah… I’ll ignore the fact that Democrats (the people I’m hyping) have done the exact same thing… blah blah blah. Same old partisan hate, different day.

Yep, a day in the life of blue. Always partisan, but can only see partisanship in others.

valkyrie101 says:
July 12, 2010 at 12:37 pm

My statement was partisan? Please explain.

Or are you still just smarting for me proving you wrong all those times?

ImNotBlue said:
valkyrie101 says:July 12, 2010 at 12:37 pm My statement was partisan? Please explain. Or are you still just smarting for me proving you wrong all those times?

I was responding to what you said to vietvet, which was like you looking in a mirror. In fact, you take that partisanship so far that you even created an on-line name that advertises it, so no one will even have an expectation of objectivity.

Hypocrisy, thy name is REPUBLICONS.

valkyrie101 says:
July 12, 2010 at 1:00 pm

I was responding to what you said to vietvet, which was like you looking in a mirror.

Really? What have I said that was similar (although opposite in opinion) to what VietVet said? Come on, prove it.

In fact, you take that partisanship so far that you even created an on-line name that advertises it, so no one will even have an expectation of objectivity.

Really? Is that what my name refers to? Are. You. Sure?

And honestly, just tell me real quick… this is yet another way to deflect from the fact that I and others have pointed out that the left has been just as hypocritical over this issue, right? You’re hoping that topic goes away, which is why you haven’t addressed it… right?

Founders_were_Liberal says:
July 12, 2010 at 1:12 pm

Hypocrisy, thy name is REPUBLICONS.

Address the comments from the leftwing regarding Bush’s recess appointments. Show me how Democrats aren’t the same type of hypocritical. Ready, set, go.

Not to worry. Understanding that you are a partisan is the first step in realizing that we are all partisans, one way or the other. I am happy to be an advocate for the progressive view (i.e change). Here are some of those on our team: Athletics, art, music, science, movies, technology, porn, liberal moral values, FOX, Glenn Beck, O’Reilly, the Simpsons, Jefferson, Washinigton, Franklin…, Maddow, KO, Janet Jackson, the super bowl, people concerned about the environment, hispanics, blacks, younger people, and the afforementioned gays. Did I mention the little blue natives? I would invite you over to this land of milk and honey, and free thinking, but you would not come.

ImNotBlue said:
And honestly, just tell me real quick… this is yet another way to deflect from the fact that I and others have pointed out that the left has been just as hypocritical over this issue, right? You’re hoping that topic goes away, which is why you haven’t addressed it… right?

How many times do I have to give you that mediamatters.com reference? Your story is not worthy. Come back with a burglary, or kneepads, something more than menacing black men standing around making sure that the black voters are not intimidated.

valkyrie101 says:
July 12, 2010 at 1:52 pm

Not to worry. Understanding that you are a partisan is the first step in realizing that we are all partisans, one way or the other.

There is a difference between being opinionated, and being a partisan hack. I am opinionated… that’s obvious. And I’ll defend what I believe is right, and criticize that which I think is wrong. However, that doesn’t make me a partisan or a hack… and there’s the difference between you and I. You won’t criticize anyone but the political opposition… and 100% of the time, take the side of the liberal left. You will cross boundaries (decency, ethics, truth, etc.) to help “support” your “guys” and attack those who disagree. I won’t do that… and that’s why the comparison you’re trying to make between you and me fails.

I am happy to be an advocate for the progressive view (i.e change).

But at what cost? Are you willing to lie, distort, be hypocritical, all in attempt to “advocate” for that point of view? Why you would do that, is beyond me.

Here are some of those on our team: Athletics, art, music, science, movies, technology, porn, liberal moral values, FOX, Glenn Beck, O’Reilly, the Simpsons, Jefferson, Washinigton, Franklin…, Maddow, KO, Janet Jackson, the super bowl, people concerned about the environment, hispanics, blacks, younger people, and the afforementioned gays. Did I mention the little blue natives? I would invite you over to this land of milk and honey, and free thinking, but you would not come.

There is a difference between having opinions, and being a hack. That’s the problem.

valkyrie101 says:
July 12, 2010 at 2:04 pm

How many times do I have to give you that mediamatters.com reference?

I don’t know… maybe until they tell the truth.

Your story is not worthy. Come back with a burglary, or kneepads, something more than menacing black men standing around making sure that the black voters are not intimidated.

What part of shouting racist statements at people passing by helped voters not get intimidated? Please answer me that.

But more importantly, that’s not what I was talking about. I was talking about the topic on THIS thread… where the left is accusing Kyl of being a hypocrite and attacking Republicans… while ignoring the words of Democrats who criticized Bush and Republicans for THEIR recess appointments.

Get it?

Oh, and one more thing… your explanation of the NBPs just trying to help Blacks from being “intimidated” is a perfect example of your partisan hackery. You know full well that doesn’t make sense, and ignore relevant facts (the shouting, specifically). But to advance the “progressive opinion,” you’ll ignore that, distort the truth, and essentially lie to fool people into believing your recounting of events.

Shameful.

yweston said:
“The decision is not whether or not we will ration care — the decision is whether we will ration with our eyes open.”
Donald Berwick”.

“The decision is not whether or not we will ration care — the decision is whether we will ration with our eyes open.”
Donald Berwick”.

How do you interpret that quote?

ImNotBlue said:
Oh, and one more thing… your explanation of the NBPs just trying to help Blacks from being “intimidated” is a perfect example of your partisan hackery. You know full well that doesn’t make sense, and ignore relevant facts (the shouting, specifically). But to advance the “progressive opinion,” you’ll ignore that, distort the truth, and essentially lie to fool people into believing your recounting of events. Shameful.

How does what I said not jive with the facts? Why were they there, to intimidate white voters? Nope. If they looked like Mormons would that scare you less?

ImNotBlue said:
Your story is not worthy. Come back with a burglary, or kneepads, something more than menacing black men standing around making sure that the black voters are not intimidated.
What part of shouting racist statements at people passing by helped voters not get intimidated? Please answer me that.
But more importantly, that’s not what I was talking about. I was talking about the topic on THIS thread… where the left is accusing Kyl of being a hypocrite and attacking Republicans… while ignoring the words of Democrats who criticized Bush and Republicans for THEIR recess appointments.
Get it?

Dude, your making a mountain out of a mole hill. In the length of time we have been discussing this there has probably been a hundred violent crimes the DOJ is working on. This is like the Vince Foster case or Obama’s birth certificate.

The general drift here is that Obama and Berwick are raving socialists and that healthcare is going to be rationed, and life shortened, etc. It’s already rationed you twits. We have a very undemocratic, wasteful healthcare system which is not serving the vast majority of Americans, including people who think they have good health insurance. I lived in England for many years and all I can say is that you Obama haters should take a trip to Europe or even Canada and ask the people there whether they would rather have our great system of private insurance or theirs. These polls have already been done, and with all the faults in government sponsored and regulated systems, the vast majority of people in all these countries wouldn’t trade in a million years with us. In fact, they think we’re quite crazy. People in these countries have much better medical outcomes, better longevity, less infant mortality, etc. Has it ever dawned on you patriots, that some things like health care can’t be run in a totally privatized manner. This is the crux of the problem. If you have the profit motive as the main force behind medicine you get crappy medicine. It amazes me that so many of my countrymen and women buy into such low-grade propaganda and support such idiots.

valkyrie101 said:
But more importantly, that’s not what I was talking about. I was talking about the topic on THIS thread… where the left is accusing Kyl of being a hypocrite and attacking Republicans… while ignoring the words of Democrats who criticized Bush and Republicans for THEIR recess appointments.
Get it?

Oh, was Kyle one of them? I think this one is pretty clear, there is ample precedent, historically, for Obama to do recess appointments, especially since your party, more than any other time in history, have blocked consideration of Obama’s appointments. But some things just have to get done. So I guess that is why so many Presidents favor it.

ganymede said:
The general drift here is that Obama and Berwick are raving socialists and that healthcare is going to be rationed, and life shortened, etc. It’s already rationed you twits. We have a very undemocratic, wasteful healthcare system which is not serving the vast majority of Americans, including people who think they have good health insurance. I lived in England for many years and all I can say is that you Obama haters should take a trip to Europe or even Canada and ask the people there whether they would rather have our great system of private insurance or theirs. These polls have already been done, and with all the faults in government sponsored and regulated systems, the vast majority of people in all these countries wouldn’t trade in a million years with us. In fact, they think we’re quite crazy. People in these countries have much better medical outcomes, better longevity, less infant mortality, etc. Has it ever dawned on you patriots, that some things like health care can’t be run in a totally privatized manner. This is the crux of the problem. If you have the profit motive as the main force behind medicine you get crappy medicine. It amazes me that so many of my countrymen and women buy into such low-grade propaganda and support such idiots.

Do you work for or represent the healthcare industry? That is one fishy sounding post.

timzank said:
“The decision is not whether or not we will ration care — the decision is whether we will ration with our eyes open.”Donald Berwick”. How do you interpret that quote?

If they could keep people alive for five hundred years for 100K a year, would you suggest that Medicare pay for that? If not, you favor rationing too.

If you don’t like the recess appointment Sen. Kyle, hold an actual vote in the senate. You know, the thing that used to happen before this ridiculous 40% non majority can stop everything.

valkyrie101 says:
July 12, 2010 at 2:21 pm

How does what I said not jive with the facts? Why were they there, to intimidate white voters? Nope. If they looked like Mormons would that scare you less?

So their shouted racist statements don’t bother you?

Let’s just start there. Why were the things they shouted okay? How did that help “protect” people?

valkyrie101 says:
July 12, 2010 at 2:27 pm

Dude, your making a mountain out of a mole hill. In the length of time we have been discussing this there has probably been a hundred violent crimes the DOJ is working on. This is like the Vince Foster case or Obama’s birth certificate.

Yeah, and? So they’re working on other things, so we shouldn’t talk about this one? Huh?

valkyrie101 says:
July 12, 2010 at 2:35 pm

Oh, was Kyle one of them?

Well, he is the subject of this thread…

I think this one is pretty clear, there is ample precedent, historically, for Obama to do recess appointments,

Yes, there is. Yet, don’t you find it a little strange that Obama is doing this for such a controversial pick, after having complained about Bush’s doing it? Seems odd.

…especially since your party, more than any other time in history, have blocked consideration of Obama’s appointments.

The White House, The Senate, The House of Representatives. All run by the Democrats. And yet, they still can’t get through all the nominees.

Hey, why did Max Baucus say the appointment was a bad idea?

But some things just have to get done. So I guess that is why so many Presidents favor it.

I guess it’s better than having to compromise. And it keeps certain people from being exposed.

ImNotBlue said:
How does what I said not jive with the facts? Why were they there, to intimidate white voters? Nope. If they looked like Mormons would that scare you less?
So their shouted racist statements don’t bother you?
Let’s just start there. Why were the things they shouted okay? How did that help “protect” people?

I guess I look at notions of liberty differently than you. People have the right to express themselves. You want to lock everybody up. I see no violence, some bad language, a little venting, but nothing that serious. And indeed, they were not there to intimidate white voters, but white people who may have been intending to hassle black voters. And indeed, the fact that they do not look like Mormons is the main objection to their presence. Up the street there might be a Mormon duo passing out pamphlets encouraging people to oppose gay rights on a ballot initiative. Yes, look how sweet we look, step closer, let me give you this family values pamphlet, wolves in sheep’s clothing. At least the panthers show up dressed to intimidate. But again, not white voters, but whites who may have intended to hassle the black voters. That was their intent. Because of the ambiguity of this, and the lack of violence, this matter was correctly dropped by justice.

ImNotBlue said:
…especially since your party, more than any other time in history, have blocked consideration of Obama’s appointments.
The White House, The Senate, The House of Representatives. All run by the Democrats. And yet, they still can’t get through all the nominees.

Yep, there are new rules now, you need 60 votes, not a majority.

ImNotBlue said:
But some things just have to get done. So I guess that is why so many Presidents favor it.
I guess it’s better than having to compromise. And it keeps certain people from being exposed.

Compromise. Perhaps they could chop the appointee in half? The Republican minority has pulled out all the stops to oppose anything they can that Obama tries to do, using the 60 vote requirement, which the Democrats do not have, as leverage. And they have frivolously stacked up the approval process of dozens of Obama appointments. If Obama wanted the services of this appointee, and he knowing that the Republicans would stack his approval up indefinitely, then using the recess device was a good idea. And of course, he has that power by precedent.

I said: “Oh, was Kyle one of them?” You said: “Well, he is the subject of this thread”. The correct answer was, no, Kyl was not one of the ones rebuking Bush for recess appointments. Nice try.

valkyrie101 says:
July 12, 2010 at 9:04 pm valkyrie101

I guess I look at notions of liberty differently than you. People have the right to express themselves.

I suppose I could bring up hate crimes legislation, and ask you how openly threatening people is part of “freedom of expression,” but somehow I feel you wouldn’t get it.

You want to lock everybody up. I see no violence, some bad language, a little venting, but nothing that serious.

Except for breaking the law… which I guess folks are now allowed to do.

And indeed, they were not there to intimidate white voters, but white people who may have been intending to hassle black voters.

THAT DOESN’T MAKE SENSE!

If they were there to “protect” they wouldn’t have shouted threatening things at White folks passing by! They would have stood silently, and looked out for dangerous characters.

However, I assume you’d be cool with those White people there hassling Black voters, right? After all, wouldn’t that also fall under your “freedom of expression” notion?

And indeed, the fact that they do not look like Mormons is the main objection to their presence.

A lie… and a bigoted statement. You’re two for two!

Up the street there might be a Mormon duo passing out pamphlets encouraging people to oppose gay rights on a ballot initiative.

What is really funny is that when you look at the Prop 8 bill in California, two groups were really against gay marriage (right’s is a false phrase… they have “rights,” just not one specific right… so at most it would be “gay right”)… the Mormons and the Blacks! I’m pretty sure if the NBPs were there to do anything about gay marriage, you wouldn’t appreciate the side they were representing. Look it up!

Yes, look how sweet we look, step closer, let me give you this family values pamphlet, wolves in sheep’s clothing.

Completely irrelevant to this conversation… not to mention bigoted and insulting.

At least the panthers show up dressed to intimidate.

But again, not white voters, but whites who may have intended to hassle the black voters.

Again, there’s nothing to justify this… you’ve simply made it up. Nice fiction… but nobody’s buying it, because as I said before, it doesn’t make sense.

But let me ask, would you be okay with the Klan showing up in white hoods, standing in front of polling locations, saying they were just there to make sure no NBPs intimidated White voters? I sure wouldn’t. And I doubt you would too.

That was their intent.

Because you made it up.

Because of the ambiguity of this, and the lack of violence, this matter was correctly dropped by justice.

No… the case was already won. If your theory was correct, they wouldn’t have brought the charges in the first place.

Nice pretend game you’re playing Val… but still incorrect.

valkyrie101 says:
July 12, 2010 at 9:09 pm

Yep, there are new rules now, you need 60 votes, not a majority.

And didn’t ya’ll have that? Remember when Specter switched parties… it gave the Democrats 60 seats? Oh… but then Ted Kennedy passed, and out of the blue (politically), Scott Brown from Mass. came along and ruined that. I guess, it was really THE PEOPLE who decided that they didn’t want the Democrats to have 60 seats. Darn those people and our democratic ways!

I just wasn’t aware that without controlling EVERYTHING, the party in charge couldn’t do anything transparent or openly. Interesting…

valkyrie101 says:
July 12, 2010 at 9:17 pm

Yeah, compromise… like not appointing a radical to anything. I know, shocking right?

But more importantly, this selective outrage is what I’m talking about. Apparently you think it’s bad when Republicans do this… but when Democrats did the same (as I showed before), it’s okay. It’s called politics.

valkyrie101 says:
July 12, 2010 at 9:22 pm

I think I misunderstood your pronouns. You should try to write more clearly.

Blue,
What is the old children’s expression: “Sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me.” Saying nasty things to people is not my cup of tea, but as a civil libertarian, I usually defend the free speech. That does not mean anyone has to accept that speech. And in fact, like Obama at Wright’s church, people often do not. And looking mean, another form of free speech, gets the same slack as pretending to be pious.

None of Bush’s appointments were in a position to make policy. Obama’s is. BIG difference.