Sunday, April 8, 2012
For a Smart Guy He Does Say Some Rather Dumb Things
Obama, April 2: Ultimately, I'm confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress............................................................................................Wow, huh? I mean, this sucker is a doozy. Unprecedented? For Christ sakes, any frigging college sophomore knows that the Supreme Court has struck down numerous pieces of legislation throughout our history. Hell, if anything is unprecedented here, it's the fact that we have a President politicking DURING an actual proceeding..............................................................................................And as my other colleagues have also pointed out, 219-212, with 34 members of the President's own party voting NO, it's really hard to be magnanimous to the President regarding his other assertion, too; i.e., that the law was passed by a "strong majority of a Democratically elected Congress". Thankfully here, the President has walked it back a little (still not admitting that he was wrong), but can you even begin to imagine if a Republican had uttered a statement quite this imbecilic? Yeah, huh? Prepare yourselves for the spin................................................................................................P.S. Please, this is in no way an endorsement of the way that Republicans have behaved, either. They have obstructed and demonized a bill which, while, yes, was very shitty in many regards, was essentially THEIR BILL from 1993. Instead of trying to torpedo it, they could have just as easily tried to work across the aisle and improve the sucker. They didn't, though. Too busy trying to defeat Obama FOUR YEARS OUT!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
21 comments:
Are you saying he's "arrogant" too (Like your buddy "Rational")?
Right, a strong majority. 219 - 212. With 51% of the people not supportive of his signature ACA (aka: ObamaCare) piece of legislation.
By the imposter in chief's definition I guess that would be a strong majority as well. Right wd?
LMFAO!
Obama is very optimistic. The Supreme Court has a a five to four conservative majority. I am praying to Kennedy today.
I actually didn't mean to post this yet.
There, now I'm done.
John, I want the law to be upheld, too. BUT, they also absolutely, positively have to fix it. They have to a) make the fine significantly stiffer (and enforce it) to ensure compliance and b) get rid of all of these bullshit waivers (some of which stink to high heaven of political favoritism). As it stands now, the sucker constitutes a ticking time-bomb.
How is Obama an "imposter"? GWb, was, in my opinion, the imposter, as he was never legitimately elected. His operatives stole FL in 2000 and OH in 2004. Obama was elected in spite of Republican attempts to steal the election again in 2008.
If you're saying he's an "imposter" because he ran as a progressive but is governing as a Moderate, I agree (not with the imposter BS, but with his deception during the campaign)... then again, Bill Clinton did the same thing.
The legislation passed 60–39 in the Senate, which I believe qualifies as a strong majority.
Your citing of a percentage of people who aren't supportive is highly deceptive. It includes people (11 to 14 percent of all Americans, according to this source) oppose the health reform law because they think its approach is NOT LIBERAL ENOUGH.
I'm one of those who believes it isn't Liberal enough. That said, I think we should keep it. The Supreme Court has no business striking down a law passed by our elected representatives. This "unconstitutional" baloney is flat-out BS.
Scalia didn't even know that the so-called "Cornhusker Kickback" was repealed. The corportists on the court are just parroting Right-wing talking points.
Mr. Obama isn't on the court, wd.
"GWb, was, in my opinion, the imposter, as he was never legitimately elected. His operatives stole FL in 2000 and OH in 2004. Obama was elected in spite of Republican attempts to steal the election again in 2008."
It's obvious that his definition of stealing an election is someone who successfully runs against a Democrat, and attempted stealing is someone who runs against the Democrat and loses the election.
"The corportists on the court are just parroting Right-wing talking points."
The only corporatists are the ones who will support Obamacare and its despised "individual mandate" which forces people to give thousands of dollars a year to insurance companies whether or not it is in their interest.
These posts where dmarks explains what I REALLY mean... I find them to be extremely arrogant. I said what I meant and your interpretation isn't it. In fact, what you state is usually 100 percent the opposite of what I meant.
For the record, I was talking about actual election theft. George W. bush didn't win either presidential election. They were both stolen. The first time it was right out in the open. Everyone was witness to how the Righties on the court anointed bush even though he lost FL.
In fact, he did win both of them. Your claiming otherwise is just like "the sun rises in the West". You have no clue at all.
"Everyone was witness to how the Righties on the court anointed bush even though he lost FL."
Everyone? Actually it was no-one. Bush won every count, including the redundant one that the Court shot down. The court did not annoint Bush. It merely let the actual election result stand.
FL law demanded a recount. The SCOTUS stopped it. The recount would have shown Gore to have won. bush was anointed. Sorry if you don't like it dmarks, but those are the facts.
"FL law demanded a recount. The SCOTUS stopped it. The recount would have shown Gore to have won."
Actually, Florida law demanded a recount during a limited time after the election. That point of time had long since passed. This sort of law makes sense, due to the vote tampering that happened during the later recounts (all the chads being removed from the ballots).
As for your specific claim about what the SCOTUS stopped, lets check the facts:
"The media reported the results of the study [of the count that SCOTUS stopped) during the week after November 12, 2001. The results of the study showed that had the limited county by county recounts requested by the Gore team been completed, Bush would still have been the winner of the election"
You are re-writing history, plain and simple. In this you are exactly like those who claim Obama is not President due to the birther crap.
FactCheck.org: "According to a massive months-long study commissioned by eight news organizations in 2001 ... found that Gore probably would have won, by a range of 42 to 171 votes out of 6 million cast, had there been a broad recount of all disputed ballots statewide.
You're the one rewriting history dmarks. According to your OWN COMMENT bush only wins if we don't count everyone's vote.
And that isn't even counting the African American voters that were disenfranchised. Gore would have won by a HUGE margin if not for that fraud. The bush side won by CHEATING.
OnPolitics says, "The U.S. Commission on Civil Rights conducted [an] extensive investigation ... of irregularities occurring during the November 2000 presidential election in Florida. The investigation [found] most dramatic undercount in this election was the nonexistent ballots of the countless unknown eligible voters, who were WRONGFULLY purged from the voter registration rolls, turned away from the polls, and by various other means prevented from exercising the franchise".
Conclusion: Jeb Bush and Katherine Harris STOLE the election for GW.
bush "won" only if you ignore all that... the not counting every vote and the wrongfully disenfranchised voters. I don't give a crap what Gore asked for (despite you BOLDING it). That victory would have been just as dishonest.
Both are entirely false claims by "sore losers" about Presidents who won elections. Both are nursed by small sector of the population.
The only difference is the (D) or (R) after the President's name, or the fringe group involved. Both types of "idiots" are so much alike. I'm sure the next President will spawn yet another 10-20% or so who can't deal with the reality that their guy lost and make up yet another story.
Also, the non-eligible voters from the lists had nothing to do with the counting of the votes. It was also put into place by a Democratic governor.
"You're the one rewriting history dmarks. According to your OWN COMMENT bush only wins if we don't count everyone's vote."
Actually, I have looked at the methodology of the supposed counts that have Gore winning. They have him winning by doing the trick of counting ballots where people didn't vote for President at all as "Gore votes".
Bush did not win by cheating. That's a flat out lie. You are slandering him, but it fits in with your earlier comment demanding Bush's murder.
Yeah, Gore won. Just like Obama was born in Kenya.
DMarks, can you show us the specific trick or do we have to rely on faith that you have seen it?
The voteless ballots are often called "undervotes". The voters using these ballots didn't bother to vote for whatever reason. In Florida, these included "dimples" in which the would-be voters did not indicate a vote by punching out the chads.
WD said: "Conclusion: Jeb Bush and Katherine Harris STOLE the election for GW."
The voters of Florida "stole" the election for Bush by daring to vote in greater numbers for him. It might be damned inconvenient for you that Jeb 'n' Katherine honored the wishes of the voters in the election, but they were doing their job.
Post a Comment