Bring It On

you want to know about the destruction of the country and the sellout to cronies...
know this...

give billions of tax payer dollars to insurance companies drive up rates and force people to pay money to a third party... or just have the govt pay (single payer).

Which one do you think a govt serving the people would pick?
You want to know about democrat voter stupidity ask Gruber.



Remember the tea party was dead set against Obamacare and now 29 of the senators who voted for it are gone. (from what I read)

Which has nothing to do with the article, but thank you so much for participating.
 
hey troll... we are talking about who is doing damage to the country.
it is very much on point to talk about who is doing the real damage and why.

Which has nothing to do with the article, but thank you so much for participating.
 
hey troll... we are talking about who is doing damage to the country.
it is very much on point to talk about who is doing the real damage and why.

It may be on point in another thread, but it's off-topic in this one.

Your apparent difficulties with understanding the printed word may help to explain your remarks regarding climate.
 
Obama, like some treacherous Jacobean villain, has had the nerve to make decisions while the Congress was out on a well-earned vacation for six weeks from doing nothing for over six years.

Robert Brustein
 
John Boehner says Barack Obama is damaging the presidency itself.

John Boehner.

The same John Boehner who has done more to divide and damage the institution of the United States government than any Speaker since the Civil War, that John Boehner, says Obama is trashing the presidency and stinking up the White House.

I’ll remind you that this is the same John Boehner, acting for his party, who has repeatedly embraced a strategy of gridlock and obstruction in order to counter the president at every turn. Every turn. Every single one. For two years John Boehner’s party, the party of hysteria and paranoia and insane conspiracy theories run wild, has done nothing, absolutely goddamnednothing, but hurl the most vile of insults and accusations at the president and has deliberately, proudly, refused to work with Obama in any fashion whatsoever.

Over the last five years, congressional Republicans led by John Boehner and his ilk have treated Vladimir Putin with more respect than the President of the United States.

And this guy says Obama is damaging the presidency?

Oh, the irony. more . . .
we like gridlock and obstruction. The last time we didn't have it we got Obamacare.
 
They've Got Nothing:

n-110730146609-large300.jpg

Especially balls.
 
Ted Cruz Wants To Fight Obama Over Immigration, But He Forgot About One Thing


WASHINGTON -- Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) is calling for congressional Republicans to fight back against President Barack Obama's executive action on immigration, saying they should refuse to confirm the president's nominees until he reverses course.

"If the president announces executive amnesty, the new Senate majority leader who takes over in January should announce that the 114th Congress will not confirm a single nominee -- executive or judicial -- outside of vital national security positions, so long as the illegal amnesty persists," Cruz wrote in a recent Politico Magazine op-ed.

There is obviously some political risk in Republicans pursuing such a strategy, given the presidential election in two years and a Senate landscape that looks more favorable for Democrats to regain control in that election.


But during an interview with Cruz on "Fox News Sunday," host Chris Wallace pointed out another potential downside to blocking Obama's nominations: Attorney General Eric Holder, a constant source of irritation for Republicans, would get to stay in his job longer. Holder announced in late September that he planned to retire, and earlier this month, Obama nominated Loretta Lynch, the U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of New York, to take his place. Holder has stated that he will remain in his position until his successor's nomination is confirmed by Congress.

"Are you saying that the Senate should refuse to confirm Loretta Lynch, the president's new nominee for attorney general, and thereby leave Eric Holder, who you don't like very much, in that position even longer?" asked Wallace.

Cruz largely avoided Wallace's question, simply saying that Republicans "should use the constitutional checks and balances we have to rein in the executive."

Wallace, however, persisted, and asked the question again. This time, Cruz still did not state directly that the Senate should block Lynch, but implied as much by saying that only positions of "vital national security" should get to the floor for a vote.

"In my view, the majority leader should decline to bring to the floor of the Senate any nomination other than vital national security positions," the senator said. "Now, that is a serious and major step."

In a prime-time address Thursday night, Obama announced that because Congress had failed to pass immigration reform, he would use his executive authority to bring deportation relief to 4 million or more undocumented immigrants.

The president's executive action will protect undocumented parents whose children are U.S. citizens or legal permanent residents, as well as immigrants who came to America as children and others with long-standing ties to the country, from being deported.

Obama defended his actions in an interview with George Stephanopoulos, host of ABC's "This Week," that aired Sunday morning. “The history is that I have issued fewer executive actions than most of my predecessors, by a long shot," he said. "The difference is the response of Congress, and specifically the response of some of the Republicans."

"But if you ask historians, take a look at the track records of the modern presidency, I’ve actually been very restrained, and I’ve been very restrained with respect to immigration," Obama added. "I bent over backwards and will continue to do everything I can to get Congress to work because that’s my preference.”
 
Cruz largely avoided Wallace's question, simply saying that Republicans "should use the constitutional checks and balances we have to rein in the executive."

Like trying to nail Jello to the wall. But then there's a lot of that amongst the GOP.
 
Back
Top