# One of our Congress critters was part of the boycott and I applaud him!



## Ralphy1 (Mar 4, 2015)

Yes, I am proud of Senator Whitehouse who was one of the fifty Dems who refused to take part in this political stunt.  I hope that one of your reps made you proud yesterday, too...


----------



## QuickSilver (Mar 4, 2015)

Nope....  Mine all went..   I wish they hadn't..


----------



## Ralphy1 (Mar 4, 2015)

Well, we only had one out of four that showed some courage...


----------



## rkunsaw (Mar 4, 2015)

Ours all attended and I'm glad they did.


----------



## Ralphy1 (Mar 4, 2015)

Nothing like enjoying seeing another attempt to humiliate the president and make the US look hapless.


----------



## rkunsaw (Mar 4, 2015)

http://swtimes.com/news/politics/arkansas-congressional-delegates-praise-netanyahu-speech


----------



## QuickSilver (Mar 4, 2015)

Ralphy1 said:


> Nothing like enjoying seeing another attempt to humiliate the president and make the US look hapless.




Absolutely...  It was a pandering to a foreign leader in deference over our President and a humiliating disgusting display pure partisanship.  I am truly ASHAMED of our Congress..   How dare they..    Netanyahu lectured us as if we were children and just don't understand what is going on.  The Republicans should all be hanging their heads in SHAME.  The only thing that was accomplished was to increase the already nearly insurmountable divide that exists.   They are the most divisive factor our country has EVER seen...   However, I truly believe that the American people have seen through this charade... They must have.  President Obama's favorability climbed 5 points YESTERDAY.   

http://www.politicususa.com/2015/03...-obama-approval-jumps-5-points-netanyahu.html



> Since Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu arrived in the U.S., President Obama’s approval rating has increased by 5 points in the Gallup poll.
> From February 26-28, President Obama’s approval rating was 44% in the Gallup Daily Tracking Poll. The president’s disapproval rating was 51%. Once Netanyahu’s arrived in the United States, President Obama’s approval rating jumped to 49%, and his disapproval rating fell to 47%.
> There were signs that the Republican handling of the Netanyahu invitation was not playing well with many Americans. An NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll released yesterday found that by a margin of 48%-30%, registered voters said that John Boehner should have talked to President Obama before inviting Netanyahu.



 Hopefully, this is going to bite the GOP in the arse in 2016.   What's next Boehner...  You have already genuflected to Putin and praised him as a great leader.. NOW you bring a Foreign leader to the floor of Congress and allow him to give a "State of HIS union" address..   and show him more respect than you did OUR President.  Who are you going to adore next?  Jihadi John??


----------



## Josiah (Mar 4, 2015)

Could someone post a link showing a list of those who boycotted the speech?


----------



## BobF (Mar 4, 2015)

I see no differences in the Rasmussen reports.    Maybe tomorrow their might be a difference.

The Jewish people have been living with those killer type Arabs from Iran's leadership for many years now.   They have a good reason to be here and telling of their experiences.   The larger majority of the Congress did the proper thing and listened to the message.

At end of first paragraph - click on (see trends).

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/daily_presidential_tracking_poll


----------



## Ralphy1 (Mar 4, 2015)

This was a slap in the face of the president.  How would Reagan have liked having an end run made around him?


----------



## QuickSilver (Mar 4, 2015)

BobF said:


> I see no differences in the Rasmussen reports.    Maybe tomorrow their might be a difference.
> 
> The Jewish people have been living with those killer type Arabs from Iran's leadership for many years now.   They have a good reason to be here and telling of their experiences.   The larger majority of the Congress did the proper thing and listened to the message.
> 
> ...



Rasmussen is a notoriously Right leaning poll and skewed.    I pay it no attention.

http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/rasmussens-2012-polling-has-had-a-republican-bias-all-year/

http://mediamatters.org/research/2010/11/05/rasmussen-a-pollster-made-for-fox-news/172940

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs.../rasmussen-the-gops-cure-for-the-common-poll/


----------



## QuickSilver (Mar 4, 2015)

Josiah09 said:


> Could someone post a link showing a list of those who boycotted the speech?



http://unitedwithisrael.org/eight-senators-and-49-congressmen-will-boycott-netanyahu-speech/


----------



## Jackie22 (Mar 4, 2015)

QuickSilver said:


> Absolutely...  It was a pandering to a foreign leader in deference over our President and a humiliating disgusting display pure partisanship.  I am truly ASHAMED of our Congress..   How dare they..    Netanyahu lectured us as if we were children and just don't understand what is going on.  The Republicans should all be hanging their heads in SHAME.  The only thing that was accomplished was to increase the already nearly insurmountable divide that exists.   They are the most divisive factor our country has EVER seen...   However, I truly believe that the American people have seen through this charade... They must have.  President Obama's favorability climbed 5 points YESTERDAY.
> 
> http://www.politicususa.com/2015/03...-obama-approval-jumps-5-points-netanyahu.html
> 
> ...




Right on, QS, what gets me is the fact that the US gives Israel billions every year, and Netanyahu had the audacity to insult President Obama's intelligence, I hope he is voted out.


----------



## QuickSilver (Mar 4, 2015)

Jackie22 said:


> Right on, QS, what gets me is the fact that the US gives Israel billions every year, and Netanyahu had the audacity to insult President Obama's intelligence, I hope he is voted out.




and it's not like Bibi hasn't been wrong before..   He was here advocating for the attack of Iraq... because of all those "Weapons of Mass Destruction"..  and was proven wrong.    We fell for his BS then...  now the GOP wants to go down the SAME path except different country.   Netanyahu wants us to fight his wars.. Let HIM spill this young peoples' blood...  Leave our kids alone.   We've lost enough young lives with his last LIE and fearmongering


----------



## Jackie22 (Mar 4, 2015)

........thats not all the GOP want to do....



Republicans to push for Iran bill 
By Burgess Everett 
3/3/15 4:17 PM EST 


*Senate Republicans want to show Benjamin Netanyahu that their support of his big speech to Congress wasn’t just talk: They plan to try to pass legislation to make it harder for the U.S. to strike a nuclear deal with Iran. 

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) is pushing a proposal that would allow Congress to approve or reject any agreement that the U.S. and other world powers reach with Iran to wind down its nuclear program in exchange for the loosening of some sanctions. The GOP leader’s decision to move forward on that legislation came just a few hours after Netanyahu warned Congress that President Barack Obama’s administration and other world powers were pursuing a “very bad deal” with Iran. 

“We think the timing is important. We think it will help the administration from entering into a bad deal. But if they do, it will provide an opportunity for Congress to weigh in,” McConnell said Tuesday. 

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/03/gop-pushes-iran-bill-115717.html?hp=r4_4*


----------



## Ralphy1 (Mar 4, 2015)

Yes, they just keep piling on...


----------



## QuickSilver (Mar 4, 2015)

Not surprising... The end desire is for WAR...   Nothing less will make the GOP happy.


----------



## QuickSilver (Mar 4, 2015)

Sad....   For whatever good it does, I have just called Senator Mark Kirk and urged a NO vote..   He is republican... He is up in 2016 in Illinois a BLUE state.. He needs to be very careful.

I highly encourage everyone here with a Republican Senator to call his/her DC office and urge a NO vote against the Burgess Bill..   It is literally cutting peaceful negotiations off at the knees, and IMO just short of treason against our President.


----------



## rt3 (Mar 4, 2015)

Boy did you watch Bernie Sanders rip up Boehner on CNN? It was pop corn time to hear the position of the Democratic Socialists of America even if their name is an oxymoron.


----------



## AZ Jim (Mar 4, 2015)

Here is a fact check on hi speech!  It was just another effort by the Anti-American Republicans to undermine our President!!!

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories...03-03-15-13-16


----------



## QuickSilver (Mar 4, 2015)

It's about friggin' time Progressives stood up and be counted.  The GOP has run roughshod all over the airwaves for far too long.  The American people need to hear the truth for a change.   Hre's what Bernie said.

_



			More than a decade of wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have cost us thousands of lives and trillions in treasure and made a difficult situation even worse. Those experiences should reinforce our resolve to make every diplomatic effort to avoid another rush to war.
		
Click to expand...

_


> _It goes without saying that Iran must not be allowed to develop a nuclear weapon. It goes without saying that the United States will stand by our long-standing friendship and support for the nation of Israel. Unfortunately, Prime Minister Netanyahu did not offer any serious alternatives to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon.
> ​At this point, harsher sanctions won’t stop Iran’s nuclear program. Neither would a dangerous resort to military action. The sanctions currently in place have brought Iran to the bargaining table and current negotiations resulted in Iran freezing its nuclear program. And for the past year, Iran has been subject to heightened international inspections. All of those things have made us safer.
> __I commend President Obama for his continued cooperation with the United Kingdom, France, China, Germany and Russia to reach a final agreement to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon._
> Sen. Sanders (I-VT) saw right through Netanyahu’s language of seeking a better deal. Netanyahu was trying to push for a better deal. Netanyahu compared Iran to ISIS and North Korea. That is not a comparison that gets made if a leader believes in diplomacy.
> ​Besides boosting his reelection chances back home, Netanyahu was trying to provoke military action against Iran. The Democrats who skipped the speech did not miss anything. Netanyahu’s remarks could have been delivered by Dick Cheney, George W. Bush, or any number of a variety of Republican neocons. There was nothing in his speech that the American people didn’t hear thousands of times during the Bush administration.


----------



## AZ Jim (Mar 4, 2015)

rt3 said:


> Boy did you watch Bernie Sanders rip up Boehner on CNN? It was pop corn time to hear the position of the Democratic Socialists of America even if their name is an oxymoron.



Was his speech better than those of the Republican Fascists?


----------



## BobF (Mar 4, 2015)

QuickSilver said:


> Rasmussen is a notoriously Right leaning poll and skewed.    I pay it no attention.
> 
> http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/rasmussens-2012-polling-has-had-a-republican-bias-all-year/
> 
> ...




Rassmussen - Apparently trusted by many as he seems to get a lot of support and following.

Outside the beltway - http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/rasmussens-2012-polling-has-had-a-republican-bias-all-year/
*Overview*

 We’re an online journal of politics and foreign affairs analysis. For  the most part, our views are Classical _*Liberal*_: a strong belief in free  trade, limited government, and respect for human rights. We aim to have  informed, polite conversation about the issues which we find  interesting.

.................
Media Maters - http://mediamatters.org/about
*Media Matters for America is a 
Web-based,  not-for-profit, 501(c)(3) progressive research and information center  dedicated to comprehensively monitoring, analyzing, and correcting  conservative misinformation 
in the U.S. media.*

...............
Washington Post - http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs.../rasmussen-the-gops-cure-for-the-common-poll/

The author of that article no longer works in Washington Post as he has been to New York Times for a while now.     All the links are 2 years old.

I prefer to read others but to me Rasmussen list is clearer and plenty accurate.   When Obama is doing better it shows, when Obama is not doing better it shows.   How is that all the fault of the presentations?   Your choices all are left leaning so how could the centered or right folks trust them, just as you don't trust any right leaning information sources.


----------



## rt3 (Mar 4, 2015)

Just lookin for your true colors Jim.


----------



## rt3 (Mar 4, 2015)

Progressive LMAO.


----------



## BobF (Mar 4, 2015)

This thread is filled with noise and little truth from far too many folks.


----------



## rt3 (Mar 4, 2015)

It's a rainbow thread


----------



## QuickSilver (Mar 4, 2015)

So.... Republican friends...  WHY DO you support Netanyahu and support military action?   Do you want to go to war?  I'm curious why you are against giving diplomacy a chance to work before using force?   Is there a reason you like war so much?  Do you like the explosions and mangled bodies?  Do you think it's a video game..especially since YOU will not be affected?


----------



## rt3 (Mar 4, 2015)

Not a republican here, maybe one will show up shortly.


----------



## QuickSilver (Mar 4, 2015)

rt3 said:


> Not a republican here, maybe one will show up shortly.



Well you obviously have approved of what Netanyahu had to say and support him over our President...You obviously don't agree with Bernie Sanders..AND since Netanyahu didn't provide any concrete alternative to dealing with Iran other than force.... I just thought that maybe you would like to give your rational for your positions... and not just spew hateful comments..


----------



## rt3 (Mar 4, 2015)

Nets got other things going on, this is a gambit. Anybody takes what they see on tv at face value or the Internet makes me speechless, almost.


----------



## QuickSilver (Mar 4, 2015)

Alrighty then......  :topsy_turvy:


----------



## SeaBreeze (Mar 4, 2015)

No boycotts here.  The speech to me is self-serving and simple.  He wants us to go to war with Iran, and his only concern is his political career and Israel, if he can use us to do his dirty work, and spill our blood on his behalf, his mission _for now _will be accomplished.

  Israel has a strong army, if he wants to be a war hawk he can knock himself out fighting Iran, keep us out of it.  He has no real concern for the United States of America, because he would like to see another senseless war involving the US and Iran, just like the one in Iraq and Afghanistan.  The hell with all of our troops who are killed and mentally/physically crippled in the process, there's plenty of young men and women to go around for an Iran invasion and plenty more down the line.

I don't know who's more disgusted with him and his antics, those in America or those in Israel.


----------



## rt3 (Mar 4, 2015)

Define sense full. IMF can handle Iran alone. It mostly depends if they use a few presents they were given during the Egyptian crisis. Part of Nets play is a posture to financial concerns in the northeast.


----------



## QuickSilver (Mar 4, 2015)

SeaBreeze said:


> No boycotts here.  The speech to me is self-serving and simple.  He wants us to go to war with Iran, and his only concern is his political career and Israel, if he can use us to do his dirty work, and spill our blood on his behalf, his mission _for now _will be accomplished.
> 
> Israel has a strong army, if he wants to be a war hawk he can knock himself out fighting Iran, keep us out of it.  He has no real concern for the United States of America, because he would like to see another senseless war involving the US and Iran, just like the one in Iraq and Afghanistan.  The hell with all of our troops who are killed and mentally/physically crippled in the process, there's plenty of young men and women to go around for an Iran invasion and plenty more down the line.
> 
> I don't know who's more disgusted with him and his antics, those in America or those in Israel.



I agree... but even more despicable is Boehner and the Republicans..  THEIR main concern is hurting the President and anything he tries to do.  If more Americans die.. I'm sure they couldn't care less.  It won't be their kids or grandkids..  so why should they care?


----------



## rt3 (Mar 4, 2015)

While there are people who may be disgusted don't presume it is everyone. Look to those who most benefit.


----------



## rt3 (Mar 4, 2015)

Pushing party politics on either side will never get you the big picture.


----------



## SeaBreeze (Mar 4, 2015)

A right-wing talk show host was drooling over Bibi, he actually said that we need a leader like that here in the US, lol.  I thought to myself, there's plenty of flights to Israel, buh bye!


----------



## QuickSilver (Mar 4, 2015)

SeaBreeze said:


> A right-wing talk show host was drooling over Bibi, he actually said that we need a leader like that here in the US, lol.  I thought to myself, there's plenty of flights to Israel, buh bye!



Yeah well... they were gushing over Putin too....  That would stop the minute one of them were gunned down in the shadow of the Capital building.. huh?


----------



## rt3 (Mar 4, 2015)

That's the best rational ever!


----------



## QuickSilver (Mar 4, 2015)

The point is... Republicans would side with Satan himself if he showed up and was against Obama..  It's so blatant.. and frankly, it makes them look stupid.


----------



## SeaBreeze (Mar 4, 2015)

rt3 said:


> While there are people who may be disgusted don't presume it is everyone. Look to those who most benefit.



I never assume that everyone is disgusted or anything else, not everyone thinks the same, even in America.  I do look at those who benefit most.  I don't look for you to agree with me, and I don't care at all to change your (or anyone else's opinions).  Politics always has two sides, no biggie.


http://fas.org/sgp/crs/mideast/RL33222.pdf


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/03/sheldon-adelson-2012-election_n_2223589.html


----------



## rt3 (Mar 4, 2015)

Whose person's satan -  qyour assuming that the demons that wake you at 2-4 in the morning are the same as everyone else's. Those darn Repulicans they are devil incarnate.  ,pleeeeeezzzzzzze


----------



## BobF (Mar 4, 2015)

QuickSilver said:


> Not surprising... The end desire is for WAR...   Nothing less will make the GOP happy.



How silly this statement is.    We don't want to start a war at all.   We want to be prepared for those middle east folks that are already threatening us with war and have attacked the US  properties in the middle east for many years now.   Nobody should feel safe just sitting around and allowing folks like Iran and all their military groups continue to wage war on free peoples like the Jewish and Europeans and British and US.  

The GOP does not want to make war as you say.   They do want to be ready for war as the enemy keeps saying they will do such to us.

We don't want to make the mistake England made prior to WWII.   They had that peaceful person that could see no evil in Germany's actions, till it was way too late.


----------



## rt3 (Mar 4, 2015)

SeaBreeze said:


> I never assume that everyone is disgusted or anything else, not everyone thinks the same, even in America.  I do look at those who benefit most.  I don't look for you to agree with me, and I don't care at all to change your (or anyone else's opinions).  Politics always has two sides, no biggie.
> 
> 
> http://fas.org/sgp/crs/mideast/RL33222.pdf
> ...



You made the statement of not knowing who was disgusted more, which is a quantitiatve assumption, more or less. Politics is a lot more than two sides thank goodness.


----------



## QuickSilver (Mar 4, 2015)

BobF said:


> How silly this statement is.    We don't want to start a war at all.   We want to be prepared for those middle east folks that are already threatening us with war and have attacked the US  properties in the middle east for many years now.   Nobody should feel safe just sitting around and allowing folks like Iran and all their military groups continue to wage war on free peoples like the Jewish and Europeans and British and US.
> 
> The GOP does not want to make war as you say.   They do want to be ready for war as the enemy keeps saying they will do such to us.
> 
> ...



So...  If that's the case, what did Netanyahu have to say yesterday that was of any value to that end?   To being "ready".  What alternatives besides WAR did he champion for?   What other "bargain"  did he outline?   NONE..  It was a pep rally for the Hawks in the congress and to inspire the sanctions that would surely derail any talks in progress for a peaceful co-existence.   AND how does it hurt to try a diplomatic solution for a change?   Does that make the US any less ready for them if they renig or walk out of the talks?


----------



## Jackie22 (Mar 4, 2015)

A diplomatic solution always wins in my book, but as SeaBreeze said, he wants us to fight a war to satisfy his hate and the Republicans cheer on anything that is anti Obama, no matter the consequences to the country.


----------



## Glinda (Mar 4, 2015)

QuickSilver said:


> Absolutely...  It was a pandering to a foreign leader in deference over our President and a humiliating disgusting display pure partisanship.  I am truly ASHAMED of our Congress..   How dare they..    Netanyahu lectured us as if we were children and just don't understand what is going on.  The Republicans should all be hanging their heads in SHAME.  The only thing that was accomplished was to increase the already nearly insurmountable divide that exists.   They are the most divisive factor our country has EVER seen...   However, I truly believe that the American people have seen through this charade... They must have.  President Obama's favorability climbed 5 points YESTERDAY.
> 
> 
> http://www.politicususa.com/2015/03...-obama-approval-jumps-5-points-netanyahu.html
> ...




I am disappointed that mine attended.  I hope these republicans are all disposed of in 2016.  Old School Republicans like Dwight Eisenhower would be ashamed of them. Considering the way they operate now, I don't even consider them a valid political party any more.  Just a bunch of greedy, sleazy thugs with no honor, no integrity and yes, no shame.


----------



## QuickSilver (Mar 4, 2015)

Jackie22 said:


> A diplomatic solution always wins in my book, but as SeaBreeze said, he wants us to fight a war to satisfy his hate and the Republicans cheer on anything that is anti Obama, no matter the consequences to the country.



That's it then... HATE is what fueled yesterdays fiasco..  just different focus points.


----------



## rt3 (Mar 4, 2015)

Let's not jump to fiascos.


----------



## BobF (Mar 4, 2015)

QuickSilver said:


> So...  If that's the case, what did Netanyahu have to say yesterday that was of any value to that end?   To being "ready".  What alternatives besides WAR did he champion for?   What other "bargain"  did he outline?   NONE..  It was a pep rally for the Hawks in the congress and to inspire the sanctions that would surely derail any talks in progress for a peaceful co-existence.   AND how does it hurt to try a diplomatic solution for a change?   Does that make the US any less ready for them if they renig or walk out of the talks?



As I understood it, he was wanting the US to stand tall and let Iran know that the US would stand for no nonsense if Iran fails to give up their nuclear goals and allow peace to prosper again.   Iran is the problem, not the US.   Obama has his chance to  make his agreements but be ready to watch Iran as they have already given the US some 40 years of aggravation and lies.   They even had held our embassy and all its people for several years.   The entire UN is aggravated by Iran and their nasty ways.   It is much bigger that just the way a few of you folks are trying to make it be as nothing more than what the Republicans want.   Very much bigger.


----------



## QuickSilver (Mar 4, 2015)

BobF said:


> As I understood it, he was wanting the US to stand tall and let Iran know that the US would stand for no nonsense if Iran fails to give up their nuclear goals and allow peace to prosper again.   Iran is the problem, not the US.   Obama has his chance to  make his agreements but be ready to watch Iran as they have already given the US some 40 years of aggravation and lies.   They even had held our embassy and all its people for several years.   The entire UN is aggravated by Iran and their nasty ways.   It is much bigger that just the way a few of you folks are trying to make it be as nothing more than what the Republicans want.   Very much bigger.



OK..... stand tall... How?   By demanding that Iran capitulate to every single demand made by Netanyahu?   Do you really believe that's how negotiations work?  Well..  I guess so... that is the Republican way of negotiating..  Someone else accepts ALL the demands made and nothing is given in return... Remember my "can I burn your house down?" example?


----------



## Denise1952 (Mar 4, 2015)

Well, I read the link on the speech, and if it is correct, I'd like to ask those that are against what is suggested in the speech (keep Iran & nuclear weapons separated) what would the dems have happen instead?  That last sentence hit me hardest because dems seem to worry about things like SS, environment, foodstamps, health insurance when what would any of that matter, or even last if some nuts get ahold of nuclear weapons?  We'll all be toast anyway??  Priorities, isn't this about priorities?


----------



## AZ Jim (Mar 4, 2015)

rt3 said:


> Not a republican here, maybe one will show up shortly.



You and several others sure as hell act like, talk like, think like the repubs do so if not in name then in spirit and action you are republicans though I understand your reluctance to wear the badge publicly.


----------



## QuickSilver (Mar 4, 2015)

nwlady said:


> Well, I read the link on the speech, and if it is correct, I'd like to ask those that are against what is suggested in the speech (keep Iran & nuclear weapons separated) what would the dems have happen instead?  That last sentence hit me hardest because dems seem to worry about things like SS, environment, foodstamps, health insurance when what would any of that matter, or even last if some nuts get ahold of nuclear weapons?  We'll all be toast anyway??  Priorities, isn't this about priorities?



So tell us...  HOW did Netanyahu propose that was to be accomplished?   Really..  What options and tactics did he outline?  Did he offer a concrete plan?  Did he outline the deal he would like to see?    I'm interested in what you heard that the rest of us didn't.  His speech was all rhetoric and no substance.  It was just about exactly the same speech he gave before the Iraq invasion... and we all know how well THAT turned out.   lol!!

http://www.haaretz.com/blogs/diplom...re-and-contrast-netanyahu-s-speeches-1.468213



> “There is no question whatsoever that Saddam is seeking and is working and is advancing towards the development of nuclear weapons – no question whatsoever,” Netanyahu, then a private citizen, told the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform on September 12, 2002. “And there is no question that once he acquires it, history shifts immediately.”



There's no question about it.  We have heard bibi sing this song a few times before.


----------



## Denise1952 (Mar 4, 2015)

QuickSilver said:


> So tell us...  HOW did Netanyahu propose that was to be accomplished?   Really..  What options and tactics did he outline?  Did he offer a concrete plan?  Did he outline the deal he would like to see?    I'm interested in what you heard that the rest of us didn't.  His speech was all rhetoric and no substance.  It was just about exactly the same speech he gave before the Iraq invasion... and we all know how well THAT turned out.   lol!!



Answering a question with a question is not an answer, I'm asking folks like you.  Is the reason you don't answer is because you don't have one?  That's ok, I'm asking if anyone does? Anyone?


----------



## QuickSilver (Mar 4, 2015)

nwlady said:


> Answering a question with a question is not an answer, I'm asking folks like you.  Is the reason you don't answer is because you don't have one?  That's ok, I'm asking if anyone does? Anyone?



NO...  YOU are the one making the statement... I'm asking you to back up your opinion.   My answer is simple..  Netanyahu is interested in war only.  He has no other alternative suggestions.  He just wants us to go in and do his dirty work for him and get our kids killed.   I think we have been saying this throughout this thread.  Now it's your turn..  What other alternative did he offer in his speech????  Tell us.. please


----------



## Denise1952 (Mar 4, 2015)

QS, you have more excuses then carters got pills for avoiding a direct question.  Just move on, maybe I can get an answer out of someone, you don't have one.  Umm, last I heard, a statement is different then a question, geez.


----------



## QuickSilver (Mar 4, 2015)

nwlady said:


> QS, you have more excuses then carters got pills for avoiding a direct question.  Just move on, maybe I can get an answer out of someone, you don't have one.  Umm, last I heard, a statement is different then a question, geez.



Geez louise lady.... what question are you asking me that I haven't answered over and over..  ??   I answered it.. NOW it's your turn..


Here's your question



> Well, I read the link on the speech, and if it is correct, I'd like to ask those that are against what is suggested in the speech (keep Iran & nuclear weapons separated) what would the dems have happen instead?  That last sentence hit me hardest because dems seem to worry about things like SS, environment, foodstamps, health insurance when what would any of that matter, or even last if some nuts get ahold of nuclear weapons?  We'll all be toast anyway??  Priorities, isn't this about priorities?



My answer:  Continue to allow the President to pursue a peaceful negotiation without interference.   

. What does SS, environment, foodstamps, health insurance have to do with this thread?  Do you want some cream sauce with your Red Herring??


OK... Your turn..  What did Netanyahu offer in the way of resolution?   I mean besides war and fearmongering..


----------



## Denise1952 (Mar 4, 2015)

QuickSilver said:


> Geez louise lady.... what question are you asking me that I haven't answered over and over..  ??   I answered it.. NOW it's your turn..





> That last sentence hit me hardest because dems seem to worry  about things like SS, environment, foodstamps.  Well, I read the link on the speech, and if it is correct, I'd like to  ask those that are against what is suggested in the speech (keep Iran  & nuclear weapons separated) what would the dems have happen  instead? Foodstamps, health insurance when  what would any of that matter, or even last if some nuts get ahold of  nuclear weapons?  We'll all be toast anyway??  Priorities, isn't this  about priorities?



Sorry, there are 3 questions.  Saying "all he wants is war" sort of falls short of answering my questions.  This is it though, if you can't answer, I'm not going to play your childish game of "you answer me first, no you,no you".  I do invite anyone that has an idea of another way to go with this situation on "to arm Iran, or not to arm".  Thanks, Denise


----------



## rt3 (Mar 4, 2015)

AZ Jim said:


> You and several others sure as hell act like, talk like, think like the repubs do so if not in name then in spirit and action you are republicans though I understand your reluctance to wear the badge publicly.


many shades of conservative, just as there are of socialism


----------



## Jackie22 (Mar 4, 2015)

NO leader of a foreign country should be allowed to stand before our Congress and usurp our President or his policies, I don't care which party he belongs to.

NO party, Democrat or Republican, should be in cahoots with a leader of a foreign country to appear before congress and usurp our President.


----------



## Denise1952 (Mar 4, 2015)

QuickSilver said:


> So...  If that's the case, what did Netanyahu have to say yesterday that was of any value to that end?   To being "ready".  What alternatives besides WAR did he champion for?   What other "bargain"  did he outline?   NONE..  It was a pep rally for the Hawks in the congress and to inspire the sanctions that would surely derail any talks in progress for a peaceful co-existence.   AND how does it hurt to try a diplomatic solution for a change?   Does that make the US any less ready for them if they renig or walk out of the talks?


  Hmm, all I got was that he wanted a "deal on the table" that was better than giving them, what's it called, sanctions on nuclear weapons?  Don't whoever's in control of that decision just say "no" to Iran?  Will Iran still war, probably, but at least they wouldn't have nuclear weapons.


----------



## AZ Jim (Mar 4, 2015)

I sure hope no one gets their feelings hurt here discussing this hot topic.  I hate whining.


----------



## QuickSilver (Mar 4, 2015)

nwlady said:


> Sorry, there are 3 questions.  Saying "all he wants is war" sort of falls short of answering my questions.  This is it though, if you can't answer, I'm not going to play your childish game of "you answer me first, no you,no you".  I do invite anyone that has an idea of another way to go with this situation on "to arm Iran, or not to arm".  Thanks, Denise



suit yourself...  I know you can't answer me... that's ok..  It's a complicated topic for sure.  But I don't think anyone has been talking about "arming Iran"... It's about keeping them from developing a nuclear bomb..  That's a far cry from "arming them"... don't you agree.


----------



## Denise1952 (Mar 4, 2015)

Jackie22 said:


> NO leader of a foreign country should be allowed to stand before our Congress and usurp our President or his policies, I don't care which party he belongs to.
> 
> NO party, Democrat or Republican, should be in cahoots with a leader of a foreign country to appear before congress and usurp our President.


 Didn't Obama allow this guy to speak?  What the President says goes right?  If so, I'm sure he was prepared, just like I hope he was to take on a hot-seat like Pres. of the US.  I don't know why anyone would want that job


----------



## rt3 (Mar 4, 2015)

It must be a tiring one.


----------



## QuickSilver (Mar 4, 2015)

nwlady said:


> Didn't Obama allow this guy to speak?  What the President says goes right?  If so, I'm sure he was prepared, just like I hope he was to take on a hot-seat like Pres. of the US.  I don't know why anyone would want that job




The PResident wasn't consulted..  The Republicans did this behind his back...


----------



## rt3 (Mar 4, 2015)

AZ Jim said:


> I sure hope no one gets their feelings hurt here discussing this hot topic.  I hate whining.[/QUOTAE
> 
> Ya me too, kind of tiring.


----------



## rt3 (Mar 4, 2015)

QuickSilver said:


> The PResident wasn't consulted..  The Republicans did this behind his back...



Those darn guys. Not that he doesn't do things behind their back


----------



## Denise1952 (Mar 4, 2015)

QuickSilver said:


> The PResident wasn't consulted..  The Republicans did this behind his back...



This all went on without his knowledge??  How could he not know about it??


----------



## rt3 (Mar 4, 2015)

It went without his approval. Darn


----------



## QuickSilver (Mar 4, 2015)

nwlady said:


> This all went on without his knowledge??  How could he not know about it??



Because John Boehner and Netanyahu cooked it up without the president's knowledge.. right in the middle of his negotiations with Iran to keep them from developing a nuclear bomb.   It's pretty clear that war is what is wanted by Netanyahu and the GOP..  not peaceful negotiations.


----------



## Denise1952 (Mar 4, 2015)

Ok, I know I should keep up, but it's too depressing and scarey, but now, if that's what happened, can't the President bring charges against Boehner?  If not, why not?


----------



## rt3 (Mar 4, 2015)

Turn around is certainly fair play.


----------



## Denise1952 (Mar 4, 2015)

QuickSilver said:


> suit yourself...  I know you can't answer me... that's ok..  It's a complicated topic for sure.  But I don't think anyone has been talking about "arming Iran"... It's about keeping them from developing a nuclear bomb..  That's a far cry from "arming them"... don't you agree.



No, I absolutely don't agree, you ever cocked a nuke and pointed it? You'd be armed.


----------



## Denise1952 (Mar 4, 2015)

rt3 said:


> Turn around is certainly fair play.



I see truth in that as well.  I hate it when the government does things "supposedly" for our good, but we have not say in it.  Then it's done.  Government "for the people" yeah right, for "some" people.


----------



## QuickSilver (Mar 4, 2015)

nwlady said:


> No, I absolutely don't agree, you ever cocked a nuke and pointed it? You'd be armed.



Obviously this is pointless...  I somehow get the feeling that you have not been keeping on top of this issue..  Maybe you should read up on it before disagreeing.


----------



## BobF (Mar 4, 2015)

The speakers big concern was for the Iranians to back off and stop its nuclear bomb activities and its war like activities.   Nothing wrong with that request at all.   The US has been working on this activity for long before Obama came on.   Just hope he keeps on the message.


----------



## BobF (Mar 4, 2015)

Nuclear threat from Iran.

http://www.adl.org/israel-international/iran/c/the-iranian-nuclear-threat-why-it-matters.html

[h=2]The Iranian Nuclear Threat: Why it Matters[/h]      November 24, 2014
   [h=4]*WHY IS IRAN'S NUCLEAR WEAPONS PROGRAM A THREAT TO AMERICA AND AMERICAN INTERESTS?*[/h] Nuclear weapons in the hands of the Iranian regime will have severe  repercussions for American security and the security of our allies.


A nuclear-armed Iran would embolden Iran's aggressive foreign  policy, resulting in greater confrontations with the international  community. Iran already has a conventional weapons capability to hit  U.S. and allied troops stationed in the Middle East and parts of Europe.  If Tehran were allowed to develop nuclear weapons, this threat would  increase dramatically.
Iran is one of the world's leading state sponsors of terrorism  through its financial and operational support for groups such as  Hezbollah, Hamas, and others. Iran could potentially share its nuclear  technology and know-how with extremist groups hostile to the United  States and the West.


(And more)


----------



## AZ Jim (Mar 4, 2015)

OMG!  The flat out ignorance on this thread is depressing.  I fear for our country with people like these actually voting.  *headache.


----------



## BobF (Mar 4, 2015)

Some on has to get up early and cancel your vote.


----------



## QuickSilver (Mar 4, 2015)

AZ Jim said:


> OMG!  The flat out ignorance on this thread is depressing.  I fear for our country with people like these actually voting.  *headache.




Yeah....  It's a shame..  I believe it's everyone's civic duty to at least make an attempt to understand the issues before voting.  It's not that hard.. pay attention to what is going on everyday in Congress.. dig deeper into news articles..  check things out first, before posting them as Gospel.. only to look silly.      If you don't understand something CALL  Washington and ask your Congressman..  You won't get to speak to Him/her directly,but you will get to speak to one of his/her aides..   I called Dick Durban's office last week because I didn't understand some procedural processes being discussed and got an explanation. This is what they get elected for and what they have a staffed office for.  All their office numbers are available online.    It just takes a little time and effort but at least you  can then discuss something with intelligence and not talking points.


----------



## SeaBreeze (Mar 4, 2015)

More on who profits from that speech.  http://billmoyers.com/2015/03/04/netanyahu-speaks-money-talks/


Everything you need to know about Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s address to Congress Tuesday was the presence in the visitor’s gallery of one man – Sheldon Adelson.


The gambling tycoon is the Godfather of the Republican Right. The party’s presidential hopefuls line up to kiss his assets, scraping and bowing for his blessing, which when granted is bestowed with his signed checks.

 Data from both the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics and the Center for Public Integrity show that in the 2012 election cycle, Adelson and his wife Miriam contributed $150 million to the GOP and its friends, including $93 million to such plutocracy-friendly super PACs as Karl Rove’s American Crossroads, the Congressional Leadership Fund, the Republican Jewish Coalition Victory Fund, Winning Our Future (the pro-Newt Gingrich super PAC) and Restore Our Future (the pro-Mitt Romney super PAC).




Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu addressing the Congress on March 3, 2015.(Photo By Tom Williams/CQ Roll Call)

But Sheldon Adelson was not only sitting in the House gallery on Tuesday because of the strings he pulls here in the United States. He is also the Daddy Warbucks of Israel and Benjamin Netanyahu is yet another of his beneficiaries – not to mention an ideological soulmate.

Although campaign finance reform laws are much more strict in Israel than here in the United States, Adelson’s wealth has bought him what the historian and journalist Gershom Gorenberg calls “uniquely pernicious” influence.


Adelson owns the daily _Israel Hayom__, a leading newspaper, as well as Makor Roshon, the daily newspaper of Israel’s Zionist religious right and NRG, a news website. 

He gives Israel Hayom away for free in order to promote his hardline views – the headline in the paper the day after Obama’s re-election was “The US Voted [for] Socialism.”

_
_More important, he uses the paper to bang the drum incessantly for Netanyahu and his right-wing Likud Party, under the reign of which Israel has edged closer and closer to theocracy. 

As Hebrew University economist Momi Dahan put it: “De facto, the existence of a newspaper like Israel Hayom egregiously violates the law, because [Adelson] actually is providing a candidate with nearly unlimited resources.”_
_Sheldon, meet Rupert.

_
_In fact, as Israel’s March 17 election approaches, Adelson has increased the press run of  Israel Hayom's weekend edition by 70 percent.

 The paper says it’s to increase circulation and advertising, but rival newspaper Ha’aretz reports, “Political sources are convinced the extra copies are less part of a business plan and more one to help Netanyahu’s re-election bid.” 

Just like the timing of Netanyahu’s “State of the Union” address to Congress this week was merely a coincidence, right? “I deeply regret that some perceive my being here as political,” Netanyahu told Congress. “That was never my intention.” Of course.

_
_In Gershom Gorenberg’s words, the prime minister “enjoys the advantage of having a major newspaper in his camp that portrays the world as seen from his office: a world in which Israel is surrounded by enemies, including the president of the United States; in which peace negotiations are aimed at destroying Israel; in which Israel’s left is aligned with all the hostile forces, and even rightists who oppose Netanyahu want to carry out a coup through the instrument of elections.”

_
_So Netanyahu gets the best of both of Adelson’s worlds – his powerful propaganda machine in Israel and his campaign cash here in the United States.

 Combined, they allow Netanyahu to usurp American foreign policy as he manipulates an obliging US Congress enamored of Adelson’s millions, pushing it further to the right on Israel and the Middle East.

_
_There you have it: Not only is this casino mogul the unofficial head of the Republican Party in America (“he with the gold rules”), he is the uncrowned King of Israel — David with a printing press and checkbook instead of a slingshot and a stone. 

All of this came to the fore in Netanyahu’s speech on Tuesday: the US cannot determine its own policy in the Middle East and the majority in Congress are under the thumb of a foreign power.

_
_Like a King Midas colossus, Sheldon Adelson bestrides the cause of war and peace in the most volatile region of the world. And this is the man who — at Yeshiva University in New York in 2013 — denounced President Obama’s diplomatic efforts with Iran and proposed instead that the United States drop an atomic bomb in the Iranian desert and then declare: “See! The next one is in the middle of Tehran. So, we mean business. You want to be wiped out? Go ahead and take a tough position and continue with your nuclear development.”

_


----------



## AZ Jim (Mar 4, 2015)

QS!! A shame indeed and when you hear them out you find they don't know shi*from Shinola about what they are babbling about, a couple of prime examples in this thread.


----------



## QuickSilver (Mar 4, 2015)

SeaBreeze said:


> More on who profits from that speech.  http://billmoyers.com/2015/03/04/netanyahu-speaks-money-talks/
> 
> 
> Everything you need to know about Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s address to Congress Tuesday was the presence in the visitor’s gallery of one man – Sheldon Adelson.
> ...



Ah yes... Shelly Adelson... one of the Right's favorite Billionaire and contributor.. and also Rabidly pro-Israel.


----------



## QuickSilver (Mar 4, 2015)

So this about sums up the overview


----------



## QuickSilver (Mar 4, 2015)




----------



## AZ Jim (Mar 4, 2015)

I think what bothers me so much is the obvious lack of knowledge regarding the issue and willingness to jump in with opinion not understanding what is even being discussed as is the case here..


----------



## BobF (Mar 5, 2015)

Where do you folks dig up such trash as you do.    So completely off the truth and you still swear by it.


----------



## QuickSilver (Mar 5, 2015)

BobF said:


> Where do you folks dig up such trash as you do.    So completely off the truth and you still swear by it.




Ok... so then prove us wrong.. What in either of my pics is false?


----------



## BobF (Mar 5, 2015)

How am I to prove your cartoons are wrong.    They fit your opinions and that does not fit my opinions.   So here we are, both having opinions that do not agree with each other so where is the proof of one over the other.   None at all.   I could ask you to prove your opinions are better than mine, but what is the use as there are no proofs that opinions of one are superior to opinions of others.


----------



## QuickSilver (Mar 5, 2015)

BobF said:


> How am I to prove your cartoons are wrong.    They fit your opinions and that does not fit my opinions.   So here we are, both having opinions that do not agree with each other so where is the proof of one over the other.   None at all.   I could ask you to prove your opinions are better than mine, but what is the use as there are no proofs that opinions of one are superior to opinions of others.



So then refute them line by line then... with proven facts... so you can prove my opinions are wrong..


----------



## BobF (Mar 5, 2015)

Refute them line by line with some things that I think support my opinions and you will just bring up other things you think are data supporting your opinions and we have proven nothing.    Why bother.   One opinion I have of your posts is that they are all hysterical lies and not worth posting.   So there.   My opinion once again.


----------



## AZ Jim (Mar 5, 2015)

What?  You mean he should back up his assertions?  Not sure he knows how to do that, QS.


----------



## BobF (Mar 5, 2015)

Well, for sure, the two parties are no longer trying to cooperate as they did until a few years back.   Now, in general, too many sit back and insist the others are all wrong.   My opinion vs others opinion.   No way to prove either one at all.

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/06/12/7-things-to-know-about-polarization-in-america/

June 12, 2014
*7 things to know about polarization in America*

  By Carroll Doherty

Political polarization is the defining feature of early 21[SUP]st[/SUP]  century American politics, both among the public and elected officials.  As part of a year-long study of polarization, the Pew Research Center  has conducted the largest political survey  in its history – a poll of more than 10,000 adults between January and  March of this year. It finds that Republicans and Democrats are further  apart ideologically than at any point in recent history. Growing numbers  of Republicans and Democrats express highly negative views of the  opposing party. And to a considerable degree, polarization is reflected  in the personal lives and lifestyles of those on both the right and  left.
 Here are 7 key findings on polarization in America today:

(much more}


----------



## Glinda (Mar 5, 2015)

BobF said:


> Refute them line by line with some things that I think support my opinions and you will just bring up other things you think are data supporting your opinions and we have proven nothing.    Why bother.   One opinion I have of your posts is that they are all hysterical lies and not worth posting.   So there.   My opinion once again.



"So there."  Really?  Isn't that something little kids say when they argue?  It goes along with  name-calling and sticking your tongue out.


----------



## BobF (Mar 5, 2015)

Glinda said:


> "So there."  Really?  Isn't that something little kids say when they argue?  It goes along with  name-calling and sticking your tongue out.



Not true Glinda, read my last note about US political thinking survey.   Hate the other party is now becoming our way of operating.


----------



## QuickSilver (Mar 5, 2015)

Look at the two, as you call them, "cartoons" and what exactly is on them that is NOT factual?


----------



## QuickSilver (Mar 5, 2015)

BobF said:


> Not true Glinda, read my last note about US political thinking survey.   Hate the other party is now becoming our way of operating.



Could it be because the new Republican way of compromise is their way or the highway?  Or rather  their way... or shut down the whole freakin' government?


----------



## Sunny (Mar 5, 2015)

One interesting aspect of this conflict is the way the GOP has managed to make it an ugly American political conflict. American Jews are traditionally liberal, and overwhelmingly support Obama. The GOP is trying to turn Israel, which is pretty right-wing under Netanyahu, into a wedge issue to gain Jewish votes. That's what this is really about.

However, it isn't working too well. Most Jewish Americans still hold to their liberal Democratic standpoint on things. Israel is supported also, but not to the extent of making people change their political orientation. Most of the American Jewish support for Netanyahu comes from the small conservative fringe; the great majority is frustrated and unhappy with the Hobson's choice they are being offered.

Netanyahu is right in trying to protect his people, who clearly are in danger from Iran. And the expression, "Never again" has to mean something. But he is wrong by the way he is injecting this issue into American politics and apparently teaming up with the GOP for his own, and their, mutual political gain.


----------



## QuickSilver (Mar 5, 2015)

I believe that an American Jewish group took out a full page ad in the NY Times telling Netanyahu he did not speak for all American Jews.


----------



## BobF (Mar 5, 2015)

Some more biased twists of what really happened.   Did any of you go read my post about the splitting of the US in recent years because both liberals and conservatives have gone into hate modes rather than the way it was a few years back with most folks sharing the middle but now too many folks on both side stepping out of the middle are and posting hate for the others.   Mostly in the last 10 or so years too.

Go to that link and watch the film at the beginning.   Then go down and read the post and the various charts.   Lots to explain this current mess we have going in the US these days.


----------



## QuickSilver (Mar 5, 2015)

Yet Bob... which party has been the most responsible for the hate mode?   The Democratic party did not change or faction off into separate camps.. Sure there are Progressives and there are Blue Dogs.. but they don't fight.. nor does either camp try to control the Democratic platform... On the other hand, the Republicans now have the Teaparty and the Religious Right.. that seem to spew hatred.. especially for minorities, immigrants, women, gays, or any other group that is not what they consider "real American"  These factors are slowing removing all moderation or moderate voices from their ranks and purity tests are common.  How can you not think that Republicans are not solely responsible for the problem?


----------



## AZ Jim (Mar 5, 2015)

Which party welcomed the then new President Obama to office by declaring they would do everything possible to see that he was a one term President and continuing that policy to this day?  Which party BobF?  Just R or D will do...tell us please...


----------



## BobF (Mar 5, 2015)

Just another twisted post, not at all real as you claim.   Yes the Republican party had been affected by the Tea Party folks and the one time religious group that at one time was all Democrat.   Remember the southern Christian group that the Democrats somehow pushed out so they came to the Republican party back a few years now.   I believe that was when the Republicans gained the southern vote after never doing well in the south before.   Was that the time these hateful actions began, when the Democrats were nasty to a entire section of the US and drove off a large group of loyal voters?  

Lets knock off these twisted ideas and get to the facts that you often tell me to post.

I did not come to this forum to fight any person for my rights to believe as I do, mostly centered and voting for both sides depending on the subject.


----------



## QuickSilver (Mar 5, 2015)

AZ Jim said:


> Which party welcomed the then new President Obama to office by declaring they would do everything possible to see that he was a one term President and continuing that policy to this day?  Which party BobF?  Just R or D will do...tell us please...



Not to mention the secret meeting on the very night President Obama was inaugurated of a group of Republicans planning to obstruct and block everything our new President tried to do..   D or R  Bob...


----------



## QuickSilver (Mar 5, 2015)

BobF said:


> Just another twisted post, not at all real as you claim.   Yes the Republican party had been affected by the Tea Party folks and the one time religious group that at one time was all Democrat.   Remember the southern Christian group that the Democrats somehow pushed out so they came to the Republican party back a few years now.   I believe that was when the Republicans gained the southern vote after never doing well in the south before.   Was that the time these hateful actions began, when the Democrats were nasty to a entire section of the US and drove off a large group of loyal voters?
> 
> Lets knock off these twisted ideas and get to the facts that you often tell me to post.
> 
> I did not come to this forum to fight any person for my rights to believe as I do, mostly centered and voting for both sides depending on the subject.



No one is saying you can't believe as you do... we are just pointing out why you shouldn't.  You are unable to come up with one solid instance where or why we are wrong... only that we are..  We have shown you over and over what the truth is.. you refuse to accept it.


----------



## AZ Jim (Mar 5, 2015)

Let's not talk 40 years ago lets answer my question about 6 years ago and the ongoing obstructionism of the republicans?  Remember when Mitch McConnell made that statement?  He and you by supporting him are failing our country.


----------



## BobF (Mar 5, 2015)

AZ Jim said:


> Which party welcomed the then new President Obama to office by declaring they would do everything possible to see that he was a one term President and continuing that policy to this day?  Which party BobF?  Just R or D will do...tell us please...



Not so quick as at first the Republicans did try to work with Obama.    After a few months they did find that the Obama government was actually trying to ignore the Republican group and do things without proper debate in Congress.   The Obama care effort was all done behind close doors and not as a joint effort to fix the problem.   It had to be Obama care as he decided and not some effort out of a joint Congress.   Still may lose Obama care if the Supreme Court decides so. 

Much of the Obama term has been solely on what he wants and the Congress has generally had a long vacation, or in house fight, and all we have to show for these years so far that we can not get away from is the over 10 trillion of increased debt with no known reason for all this expense in the public view.    

But maybe in fifty or more years we will be able to pay it off, of become just another European country deep in debt, unemployed as the companies have been killed off, and begging for money or food from a wealthy nation which we will never be again, so beg from whom?

Really can't get the lefties to admit to such a sad situation created by Obama.

I would say Obama created this inter governmental problem.    My answer to your question is a big *D*.


----------



## BobF (Mar 5, 2015)

QuickSilver said:


> No one is saying you can't believe as you do... we are just pointing out why you shouldn't.  You are unable to come up with one solid instance where or why we are wrong... only that we are..  We have shown you over and over what the truth is.. you refuse to accept it.



Try pointing out that your comments are true and factual and not just more of your babble headed 'me too'.    You seem to have appointed yourself to be the one to listen too and never challenged.   So what?    There are plenty of things that are true depending on a personal feeling.    But still not be true to others.   Big examples of that situation are in the religions.    Politics would be a big second for many truths to exist at the same time.


----------



## QuickSilver (Mar 5, 2015)

BobF said:


> Not so quick as at first the Republicans did try to work with Obama.    After a few months they did find that the Obama government was actually trying to ignore the Republican group and do things without proper debate in Congress.   The Obama care effort was all done behind close doors and not as a joint effort to fix the problem.   It had to be Obama care as he decided and not some effort out of a joint Congress.   Still may lose Obama care if the Supreme Court decides so.
> 
> Much of the Obama term has been solely on what he wants and the Congress has generally had a long vacation, or in house fight, and all we have to show for these years so far that we can not get away from is the over 10 trillion of increased debt with no known reason for all this expense in the public view.
> 
> ...



WHEN did Republicans try to work with the President?   Not ever... they expected HIM to compromise when they refused.. OR they shut down the whole works.  How many times has the Teaparty factor brought us to the brink... over the debt limit... the destruction of the full faith and credit of our country with the downgrade of our credit standing... and the latest with the funding of our Homeland Security.   Many have said that the word Compromise in not in their vocabulary.  Boehner refused to even use the word in an interview..  NO.... This is SOLELY the fault of your party..  You need to open your eyes and admit it.  You are so blinded by the propaganda fed to you by FOX and other right wing talks show hosts and publications you cannot even see the forest for the trees.


----------



## AZ Jim (Mar 5, 2015)

Let's not jump ahead months.  McConnell made his little speech upon the election of the President.  Is it then any wonder why the democrats would give up on gaining any cooperation from repubs?  Clearly the fault lies squarely upon the *R* party.


----------



## BobF (Mar 5, 2015)

QuickSilver said:


> WHEN did Republicans try to work with the President?   Not ever... they expected HIM to compromise when they refused.. OR they shut down the whole works.  How many times has the Teaparty factor brought us to the brink... over the debt limit... the destruction of the full faith and credit of our country with the downgrade of our credit standing... and the latest with the funding of our Homeland Security.   Many have said that the word Compromise in not in their vocabulary.  Boehner refused to even use the word in an interview..  NO.... This is SOLELY the fault of your party..  You need to open your eyes and admit it.  You are so blinded by the propaganda fed to you by FOX and other right wing talks show hosts and publications you cannot even see the forest for the trees.



Some things you folks are failing to recognize are the many times the Republicans did sit down with Obama present and trying to get Obama to understand that they would like to be part of the solutions.   Obama never changed one bit.   Kept his efforts being done outside the Congress for most all things he has done.   Obama care all done behind closed doors.   Not even the Democrats knew what was in it.   Now we are finding out and it is pretty much a very costly mistake that needs to be openly challenged and corrected.

Obama's unwillingness to compromise deserved a shut down, but Obama is such a not caring person about compromise that he will never change till forced by the Supreme Court or until he is gone and we have a more flexible President involved. 

The Tea Party is not the only one worried about the debt limit.   Everyone should be and should get the current government to stop overspending all the time.   Over 13 trillion increased debt since the far left folks took over.   How smart is that?   This gross debt to the US is not the fault of the Republican party.    The conservative of both parties have been concerned about this major problem, only the far left thinkers of, again, both parties are to blame.

For your education, FOX NEWS is not a right wing station as you keep saying.   They have announcers and guest from all parties involved.   A least one far left announcers has left their regular job but still come back as persons to be interviewed by other managers.  This is done to keep issues alive and from both perspectives.

I do see the forest as it is made up of trees.   It is you and your single minded way of doing things that is keep you from knowing better.   I have said before more than once, that I am not far right and I do vote from the left on occasion.   I vote the issues and not the party.   I have also said that I would like to see the parties ended.    Maybe we could have ballots that do not recognize the party so we would have voters needing to know their candidates in order to elect.   That would end this idea of just looking for 'party' before marking the name.


----------



## AZ Jim (Mar 5, 2015)

*BobF says "For your education, FOX NEWS is not a right wing station as you keep saying." 


*My answer is...hahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!!!


----------



## BobF (Mar 5, 2015)

Why not try it for a few times, and at different times of the day, to see that what I say is true.   FOX NEWS has different programs, some very strict for one side or the other and some do make sure both sides are heard.   FOX NEWS is not one sided only.

I emphasize FOX NEWS as Fox has many other stations as well.   Some like sports and others have children programs.   I am speaking of FOX NEWS only.   Using the word FOX is this or that does not tell anything.


----------



## Denise1952 (Mar 5, 2015)

AZ Jim said:


> I think what bothers me so much is the obvious lack of knowledge regarding the issue and willingness to jump in with opinion not understanding what is even being discussed as is the case here..



If I were you "knowledgeable" ones I'd be honored someone would ask what is happening.  Heaven forbid anyone ask a question.  I'm guided more by common sense since I'm not up on all the latest news.  Many of my questions are either ignored or made fun of, or now it's "how can she have an opinion".  Well, I can, as long as it aligns with what you say is right, all else is wrong.  

Don't worry, I don't want to be part of this anymore, it's embarrassing to be associated with so much childish fighting, and downright stupidity, no solutions, just fighting.  And you claim NOT to want war.  There's an oxymoron for you!


----------



## QuickSilver (Mar 5, 2015)

AZ Jim said:


> *BobF says "For your education, FOX NEWS is not a right wing station as you keep saying."
> 
> 
> *My answer is...hahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!!!



:lofl:


----------



## BobF (Mar 5, 2015)

Well then, please do keep your attention on biased places like CNN, ABC, NBC, CBS, and several others in addition that we all listen too at times, in addition to just FOX NEWS.   That gives us a better balance on what is really the truth and not just more lefty nonsense.

This country is in great debt now since the lefties took control in Bush's last two years.   Once Obama is gone, hopefully, we will be able to stop more debt being created no matter who gets elected.   There has to be someone of good character in the lefty house, not all lefties are inconsiderate and selfish and unwilling to balance the books.


----------



## QuickSilver (Mar 5, 2015)

BobF said:


> Well then, please do keep your attention on biased places like CNN, ABC, NBC, CBS, and several others in addition that we all listen too at times, in addition to just FOX NEWS.   That gives us a better balance on what is really the truth and not just more lefty nonsense.
> 
> This country is in great debt now since the lefties took control in Bush's last two years.   Once Obama is gone, hopefully, we will be able to stop more debt being created no matter who gets elected.   There has to be someone of good character in the lefty house, not all lefties are inconsiderate and selfish and unwilling to balance the books.




Repeating a delusion over and over does not make it true...


----------



## BobF (Mar 5, 2015)

QuickSilver said:


> Repeating a delusion over and over does not make it true...



This countries great debt since the far left lefties took over 8 years ago is not a delusion, it is a fact.   But some seem unable to understand any reality at all.


----------



## QuickSilver (Mar 5, 2015)

BobF said:


> This countries great debt since the far left lefties took over 8 years ago is not a delusion, it is a fact.   But some seem unable to understand any reality at all.




I am sick to death hearing about this out of you... The "Great debt" you keep yammering about comes from having to bail out this country from the total destruction of the economy brought on by GW Bush...  In addition... it has gone to pay for the 2 unfunded wars... the unfunded tax cuts to the wealthy and a Part D Medicare program also unfunded by GW..  .  So Yes... The debt has increased...... trying to PAY for the things BUSH put on our national credit card.  So you know where you can put your  claims...   because ALL of it was caused by REPUBLICANS..


----------



## Jackie22 (Mar 5, 2015)

QuickSilver said:


> I am sick to death hearing about this out of you... The "Great debt" you keep yammering about comes from having to bail out this country from the total destruction of the economy brought on by GW Bush...  In addition... it has gone to pay for the 2 unfunded wars... the unfunded tax cuts to the wealthy and a Part D Medicare program also unfunded by GW..  .  So Yes... The debt has increased...... trying to PAY for the things BUSH put on our national credit card.  So you know where you can put your  claims...   because ALL of it was caused by REPUBLICANS..



QS, somewhere, pages and pages ago, SeaBreeze posted just about the same info, so...just expect to see more of the same..lol


----------



## QuickSilver (Mar 5, 2015)

Jackie22 said:


> QS, somewhere, pages and pages ago, SeaBreeze posted just about the same info, so...just expect to see more of the same..lol



I suppose Jackie....  It's like talking to a brick wall... and one gigantic time suck at this point.


----------



## Sunny (Mar 5, 2015)

Time for some comic relief.

http://theweek.com/speedreads/54236...ds-onnetanyahu-hilarious-illogical-conclusion


----------



## BobF (Mar 5, 2015)

Certainly not of the Government created debt files that I have posted before.   So I just do not undestand how some other printer can create these files and claim them to be true.   On the other files none of these debts appeared till after the lefties took over in Bush's last years.   Best find a better source if you wish to convince many of the folks in the US.

This is all written by a far left liberal group and is not officially the government numbers that I have been posting.   I will take the governments numbers over any outside groups.

http://www.usgovernmentdebt.us/


----------



## AZ Jim (Mar 5, 2015)

Congressional budget office is not a good source?  *whoda thunk it?*


----------



## BobF (Mar 5, 2015)

I am not sure what was meant by saying the government agency was not good a good source.

http://www.usgovernmentdebt.us/

For me this is the best place to look.   Those other charts presented were modified with some off the wall ideas and not one proof given.


----------



## BobF (Mar 6, 2015)

Congressional Budget Office does have a lot of data, including this typical chart.







The same chart that most authors use to describe our debts.    There are also many pages of conversation and data for all of us to use.

Those strange charts said they *used the data from the Congressional Budget Office*.    But did not say they added their own data to the borrowed data from the government.   Lots to read at this location, https://www.cbo.gov/ .

https://www.cbo.gov/publication/49892 

https://www.cbo.gov/publication/43907

In fact, the entire link is filled with some very interesting reading.   Much more trustworthy than some other sources that make up their own data for what ever reasons.


----------



## Jackie22 (Mar 6, 2015)

[h=1]Senate Democrats Force Mitch McConnell To Cancel Vote On Iran Bill[/h]http://www.politicususa.com/2015/03...ce-mitch-mcconnell-cancel-vote-iran-bill.html 

Senate Democrats Force Mitch McConnell To Cancel Vote On Iran Bill 
By: Jason Easley 
Thursday, March, 5th, 2015, 7:02 pm	


Senate Democrats forced Republican Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell to back off of a plan to turn a bill related to Iran into a partisan attack on President Obama. 

*After McConnell tried to use Netanyahu’s speech to doublecross Democrats who supported a bill that would call for the Senate to review any agreement made by President Obama with Iran regarding their nuclear program, nine Senate Democrats withdrew their support for the legislation.* 

The Democrats told McConnell: 

On a day defined by serious discourse about Iran’s illicit nuclear weapons program, at a moment when legislators are contemplating the most serious national security issue of our time, we are disappointed that you have proceeded outside of regular order which suggests that the goal of this maneuver is to score partisan political points, rather than pursue a substantive strategy to counter Iran’s nuclear ambitions. 

The deadline for a political framework agreement with Iran is March 24, and a final agreement is not expected to be reached until the end of June. There is no immediate or urgent need to circumvent the Committee process and we are disappointed that you’ve pursued this partisan course of action. 

We remain committed to working on this bill in a bipartisan manner. As such, and as a result of your actions, we will only vote for this bill after it has gone through the regular mark-up process in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and after the March 24th deadline for the political framework agreement. 


McConnell’s office announced that they were canceling their planned vote “It is clear that Senate Democrats will filibuster their own bill — a bill they rushed to introduce before the White House cut a deal with Iran. So, instead, the Senate will turn next to the anti-human-trafficking legislation while Democrats decide whether or not they believe they and Congress as a whole should be able to review and vote on any deal the President cuts with the leaders of Iran.” 

*Senate Democrats put a quick end to McConnell’s scheme to divide the president and his party. This is the second time less than two weeks that McConnell has been forced to cave on his plans. McConnell promised an aggressive agenda that would bend the president to his will, but what has happened is that Democrats has asserted firm control over the Senate’s agenda.* 

McConnell tried to pull a fast one on the Democrats who supported the bill, so the bipartisan support quickly vanished for the legislation. Sen. McConnell can do nothing without Democratic support. The Majority Leader is learning fast that there is a heavy price to be paid for his years of obstruction. 



......Democrats nipped this in the bud.


----------



## QuickSilver (Mar 6, 2015)

Jackie22 said:


> *Senate Democrats Force Mitch McConnell To Cancel Vote On Iran Bill*
> 
> http://www.politicususa.com/2015/03...ce-mitch-mcconnell-cancel-vote-iran-bill.html
> 
> ...



Good for them....  Of course it's because I called both my Senators and voiced my concern... lol!!   yeah.. right.  



> McConnell tried to pull a fast one on the Democrats who supported the bill, so the bipartisan support quickly vanished for the legislation. Sen. McConnell can do nothing without Democratic support. The Majority Leader is learning fast that there is a heavy price to be paid for his years of obstruction.



How's that big "victory" in November working out?


----------



## BobF (Mar 6, 2015)

*How's that big "victory" in November working out? * 

Way too soon to tell.   Time will tell if any good has happened with the Congressional change last November.   Much of what has been committed by the Obama government will need a new President in charge to allow it or enough Democrats, unsure but about 6, to change and support any bills the Congress wants done to over ride the Presidents refusal to accept.


----------



## QuickSilver (Mar 6, 2015)

BobF said:


> *How's that big "victory" in November working out? *
> 
> Way too soon to tell.   Time will tell if any good has happened with the Congressional change last November.   Much of what has been committed by the Obama government will need a new President in charge to allow it or enough Democrats, unsure but about 6, to change and support any bills the Congress wants done to over ride the Presidents refusal to accept.



This isn't Disneyland...  A wish won't make it so..


----------



## BobF (Mar 6, 2015)

QuickSilver said:


> This isn't Disneyland...  A wish won't make it so..



So true, and that is why I made my post.   There really are some realistic folks in the Democrat party that will make up their own minds and vote for what they feel is right.   Not all are brainwashed like some.


----------



## QuickSilver (Mar 6, 2015)

BobF said:


> So true, and that is why I made my post.   There really are some realistic folks in the Democrat party that will make up their own minds and vote for what they feel is right.   Not all are brainwashed like some.




You mean like the entire Republican caucus is?   NO... the GOP is going to reap the rewards for the past 6 years of obstruction.. and better yet.. with 24 republican senate seats up for grabs and only 10 Democratic ones in 2016... they are also going to lose the Senate.


----------



## AZ Jim (Mar 6, 2015)

BobF, Why are you so confident it is the Democrats who are brainwashed?  Is it possible that it is the repubs who are in fact brainwashed?  I assure it would take far less soap to wash the average repubs brain.


----------



## BobF (Mar 6, 2015)

How do you consider the last 6 years as Republican obstruction.   The Republicans were not obstructing as the Democrats would not even listen to the Republicans efforts to help run this country.   The Republicans were locked out of the Obama care meetings, any Republican House bills sent to the Senate for consideration were just ignored by Senator Reid and never got considered at all.   So how is this all called obstructing.   Likely some of your brainwashed thinking going on here.


----------



## QuickSilver (Mar 6, 2015)

BobF said:


> How do you consider the last 6 years as Republican obstruction.   The Republicans were not obstructing as the Democrats would not even listen to the Republicans efforts to help run this country.   The Republicans were locked out of the Obama care meetings, any Republican House bills sent to the Senate for consideration were just ignored by Senator Reid and never got considered at all.   So how is this all called obstructing.   Likely some of your brainwashed thinking going on here.




So what do you make of the fact that any bill that WAS brought up for a vote in the Senate was Filibustered and required 60 votes to pass?  Not obstruction?  or..


----------



## BobF (Mar 6, 2015)

AZ Jim said:


> BobF, Why are you so confident it is the Democrats who are brainwashed?  Is it possible that it is the repubs who are in fact brainwashed?  I assure it would take far less soap to wash the average repubs brain.



Jim, I just posted and example of some rather strange and untrue comments we see on this thread and others.   This world is bigger and more complex than just this clean world idea that so far has not started to work.   The US is doing pretty good as we live today but can not implement things not yet invented or working as hoped.   Many countries around this world are not doing well at all in clean living.

I just said some are brainwashed and hopefully there are plenty more willing to work with what we have.   Are there any Republicans that seem to be brainwashed?    I would say yes there are some.


----------



## BobF (Mar 6, 2015)

QuickSilver said:


> So what do you make of the fact that any bill that WAS brought up for a vote in the Senate was Filibustered and required 60 votes to pass?  Not obstruction?  or..



And how many bills over the last 6 years were brought up for a vote in the last 6 years.   Not many at all from the Republican side.   Are you speaking of a Democrat bill, which is changing the subject in the middle of my answer.


----------



## QuickSilver (Mar 6, 2015)

[URL="http://s158.photobucket.com/user/OnlyObvious/media/gop/Filibusters_GOP_Biggest_Accomplishment_zps92a4eedd.jpg.html"][IMG]http://i158.photobucket.com/albums/t106/OnlyObvious/gop/Filibusters_GOP_Biggest_Accomplishment_zps92a4eedd.jpg[/URL][/IMG]


----------



## BobF (Mar 6, 2015)

QuickSilver said:


> [URL="http://s158.photobucket.com/user/OnlyObvious/media/gop/Filibusters_GOP_Biggest_Accomplishment_zps92a4eedd.jpg.html"][IMG]http://i158.photobucket.com/albums/t106/OnlyObvious/gop/Filibusters_GOP_Biggest_Accomplishment_zps92a4eedd.jpg[/URL][/IMG]



Is this another of those untrustworthy far left liberal charts.   No definitions.   No data.   Nothing to be used in a honest discussion.   If many bills from the Republicans never got past Reid, the how have so many obstructions happened.

You are just proving how useless your posts are really being.


----------



## BobF (Mar 6, 2015)

QuickSilver said:


> [URL="http://s158.photobucket.com/user/OnlyObvious/media/gop/Filibusters_GOP_Biggest_Accomplishment_zps92a4eedd.jpg.html"][IMG]http://i158.photobucket.com/albums/t106/OnlyObvious/gop/Filibusters_GOP_Biggest_Accomplishment_zps92a4eedd.jpg[/URL][/IMG]



http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...filibustered-about-500-pieces-of-legislation/

Fact Checker
*Four Pinocchios for Obama’s claim that Republicans have ‘filibustered about 500 pieces of legislation’*


 By Glenn Kessler May 9, 2014    




 (REUTERS/Yuri Gripas) 
_“Here’s  what’s more disconcerting. Their [Republicans'] willingness to say no  to everything — the fact that since 2007, they have filibustered about  500 pieces of legislation that would help the middle class just gives  you a sense of how opposed they are to any progress — has actually led  to an increase in cynicism and discouragement among the people who were  counting on us to fight for them.”_

*– President Obama, remarks at a DCCC dinner, May 7, 2014*
 In  addressing a dinner of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee  in Los Angeles, President Obama made a rather striking claim — that  Senate Republicans have filibustered “500 pieces of legislation that  would help the middle class.”


Regular readers knows that The Fact Checker has objected to the way that Senate Democrats tally these figures, but the president’s claim makes little sense no matter how you do the numbers.
*The Facts*

 First,  some definitions: A filibuster generally refers to extended debate that  delays a vote on a pending matter, while cloture is a device to end  debate. Filibusters are used by opponents of a nominee or legislation,  while cloture is filed by supporters.
 Since 2007, there have been 527 cloture motions that have been filed, according to Senate statistics.  This is apparently where Obama got his figure. But this tells only part  of the story, as many of those cloture motions were simply dropped,  never actually voted on, or “vitiated” in the senatorial nomenclature.

 Obama is assuming every cloture motion can be counted as a filibuster. Political scientist Sarah Binder of the Brookings Institution, in 2002 co-wrote a paper that  concluded there was 94 percent correlation between cloture motions and  documented filibusters between 1917 and 1996. But the Congressional  Research Service, using newer data, warned in a 2013 report that “it would be erroneous, however, to treat this table as a list of filibusters on nominations.”

 Indeed,  when you go through the numbers, there have just been 133 successful  filibusters — meaning a final vote could not take place — since 2007.

 But,  even if you accept the way Senate Democrats like to frame the issue,  the president is still wrong. He referred to “legislation” — and most of  these cloture motions concerned judicial and executive branch  nominations. In the 113th Congress, for instance, 83 of the 136 cloture  motions so far have concerned nominations, not legislation.

 Binder  declined to comment on Obama’s claim but said: “I would certainly agree  with you that if I were counting cloture votes aimed at ‘legislation  that would help the middle class,’ I would not count cloture votes aimed  at confirmation votes.”

 Even then, while Obama referred  to “500 pieces of legislation,” the same bill can be subject to as many  as three cloture motions, further inflating the numbers. For instance,  there may be cloture to get on the bill, cloture on the substitute bill  (if lawmakers are simply using an unrelated bill as a vehicle for  passage), and cloture on the underlying bill. All of these votes might  take place on the same day, but it creates the illusion of the same bill  being “filibustered” three times. It certainly does not mean there were  three pieces of legislation. So far in the 113th Congress, 36 pieces of  legislation were subject to a cloture motion — and 12 were actually  filibustered. That’s a far cry from the 136 that Obama is counting in  order to tally up 500.

 Obama’s count also includes at  least a half-dozen instances when Republicans were blocked by Democrats  through use of the filibuster. In fact, in the biggest oddity, the  president reached back to 2007 in making his claim, so he includes two  years when he was still a senator. On eight occasions, he voted against  ending debate — the very thing he decried in his remarks. Here’s a list  of those votes:

2/12/08 – Roll Call Vote #19, S. 2248 (FISA Amendments Act of 2007)
 1/28/08 – Roll Call Vote # 3, S.Amdt. 3911 to S. 2248
 11/16/07 – Roll Call Vote # 410, S. 2340
 10/24/07 – Roll Call Vote #392, Nomination of Leslie Southwick To 5[SUP]th[/SUP] Circuit Court
 5/16/07 – Roll Call Vote #168, S.Admt. 1134 to H.R. 1495
 3/9/07 – Roll Call Vote # 68, S.Amdt. 312 to S.Amdt. 275 to S. 4
 2/1/07 – Roll Call Vote #43, Motion to Proceed To S.Con.Res. 2
 1/24/07 – Roll Call Vote #22, S.Amdt. 101 to S.Amdt. 100 to H.R. 2

​There  is one further wrinkle. The counting of cloture motions does not  include the many times senators agree to have a 60-vote threshold for  the passage of legislation — in other words, the equivalent of a  threatened filibuster. Just this week, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid  (D-Nev.) sought unanimous consent  for a 60-vote threshold for a Republican-backed bill to approve the  Keystone pipeline, as part of an agreement to set up a vote for an  energy efficiency bill that also would have required 60 votes for  passage. Republicans might argue that Reid’s demand for a 60-vote  threshold on Keystone is akin to a filibuster.

 Such  negotiated voting “suggests once again that cloture motion counts are an  imperfect measure of threatened or actual filibusters,” Binder said. “A  negotiated 60-vote threshold avoids the lengthy mechanics of the  cloture process, but still imposes a hurdle to simple majority rule.”


----------

