John Boehner Thinks Obama Wants to Shove the GOP to the ‘Dustbin of History’

[chance1]

http://www.usingenglish.com/reference/idioms/off+the+rails.html

pretty "demeaning"

but i guess mods get to delete and misinterpret demeaning

while doing it themselves

good to be you it appears

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/credibility

 

[chance1]

You are not entitled to post demeaning personal characterizations or thinly veiled personal insults.

​

Definition of HYPOCRISY

1
: a feigning to be what one is not or to believe what one does not; especially : the false assumption of an appearance of virtue or religion

 

[xbuzzerx]

pretty "demeaning"

but i guess mods get to delete and misinterpret demeaning

while doing it themselves

good to be you it appears

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/credibility

Do you sincerely believe these off-topic personal goads you do-- in this case you're doing it at the mods, but in any other topic you'd be doing exactly the same tactic, just at the rest of us... are on-topic?

The target has changed but the tactics are the same.

 

[opinterph]

pretty "demeaning"

but i guess mods get to delete and misinterpret demeaning

while doing it themselves

good to be you it appears

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/credibility

I have sent you a Private Message.

 

[bankside]

THe truly ironic thing here is that Obama has been governing (as much as Congress will let him) as an Eisenhower Republican. Perhaps instead of pretending he's trying to send the GOP to the dustbin of history, the claim should be that he's trying to restore it to its better days.

I don't think history owes the Republican party a continued existence. And if I may boldly try to be astute twice in one thread, I think US politics suffers from an over-attachment to the idea of checks and balances. Equal weight given to a good idea and a bad idea is not how checks and balances are supposed to work. But I see that in media, in politics, even in scientific discourse.

Most notably in media, where in the name of "balance" they often give equal airtime to a complete raving idiot to ensure they are not perceived as taking the side of the sensible person. It contributes to a tit-for-tat mentality. And it bolsters the misguided idea that all knowledge is opinion, and all opinion is equally valid or insightful.

 

[xbuzzerx]

I don't think history owes the Republican party a continued existence. And if I may boldly try to be astute twice in one thread, I think US politics suffers from an over-attachment to the idea of checks and balances. Equal weight given to a good idea and a bad idea is not how checks and balances are supposed to work. But I see that in media, in politics, even in scientific discourse.

Most notably in media, where in the name of "balance" they often give equal airtime to a complete raving idiot to ensure they are not perceived as taking the side of the sensible person. It contributes to a tit-for-tat mentality. And it bolsters the misguided idea that all knowledge is opinion, and all opinion is equally valid or insightful.

I cannot overstate how much I agree with this.

The "rules of the game" when it comes to the realm of public discourse and political, ideological, scientific or any other type of difference in opinion or viewpoint have shifted subtly but dangerously into "every viewpoint should be weighted down so that whatever its opposite viewpoint is is treated as 100% as credible", even if facts or preponderance of evidence only support one side.

Of course alternative viewpoints should get airtime. But that has somehow morphed into... "if you aren't making it your job to spin the more poorly supported side of any argument to appear as valid and credible as the better supported side of the argument... you're biased."

At this very moment our society is essentially stalled on a number of topics for which science only supports one side, but people are evenly split on the issues with most people thinking "ehh all the facts and research go either way." Climate change, for instance, is treated as something there's equal and opposite evidence both ways, and I believe the public largely views it that way as well. It's been misrepresented as being a 50/50 crapshot when there is no legitimate or substantial disagreement in the actual scientific community about the issue, and hasn't been for years.

 

[eastofeden]

The GOP was killed by Ronald Reagan.

The previous Republican president, Nixon, started the EPA, passed the Americans With Disabilities Act, reformed welfare, and opened relations with communist China.

Reagan started his party down the path of pseudoscience, fundamentalist Christian theocracy, anti-gay hatred, massive debt accumulation, irresponsible militarization, anti-governance, and the enfranchisement of the rich. He claimed "government is the problem" and then he tried to prove it, by governing incompetently. Bizarrely, Reagan became some kind of GOP god. Every Republican president since Reagan has tried to out-Reagan Reagan's stupidity, with obviously disastrous consequences for America.

Barack Obama has helped correct 30 years of Republican mismanagement, and steer us back onto a reasonable course. It is hard for Republicans to acknowledge that their god was a demon, and his policies incredibly destructive. It will take them some time to re-trench and re-shape themselves in the mold of Eisenhower and Nixon.

YES!!!!!I don't know how I missed this post the first time...this is exactly what I think as well and I have been saying it for many years.

I think Nixon was the only decent Republican President in my lifetime. Of course I am well aware of his faults but there was some definite substance. On another political board some years back during a similar discussion I was surprised at how many other liberals said the same thing.....I thought it was only me. I was too young to appreciate Eisenhower in real time but historically I think either Eisenhower or Nixon would be a much better role model for today's GOP than [STRIKE]Satan[/STRIKE] St Reagan.

 

[Kulindahr]

I don't think history owes the Republican party a continued existence. And if I may boldly try to be astute twice in one thread, I think US politics suffers from an over-attachment to the idea of checks and balances. Equal weight given to a good idea and a bad idea is not how checks and balances are supposed to work. But I see that in media, in politics, even in scientific discourse.

Most notably in media, where in the name of "balance" they often give equal airtime to a complete raving idiot to ensure they are not perceived as taking the side of the sensible person. It contributes to a tit-for-tat mentality. And it bolsters the misguided idea that all knowledge is opinion, and all opinion is equally valid or insightful.

You're not talking about checks and balances, you're talking about the inane notion of a "fairness doctrine". Liberals invented the notion of opposing views being equally valid -- now they're suffering the result.

 

[xbuzzerx]

You're not talking about checks and balances, you're talking about the inane notion of a "fairness doctrine". Liberals invented the notion of opposing views being equally valid -- now they're suffering the result.

Yup you nailed it Kuli, I was going to mention that as well... checks and balances refers to the setup of governmental distribution of powers. And actually this hyper-polarism of viewpoints came about after Reagan demolished the Fairness Doctrine. Under things like the fairness doctrine you had calm, eloquent interviews with controversial figures like Malcolm X available in relatively mainstream news whereas today he'd be on half of them and in the other half they'd just take a few words, mash them together out of context and label him a terrorist on the other half of networks.

The Fairness Doctrine had flaws but Reagan killed it, for a very specific reason, so that private agenda-based for-profit news could start to take over the airwaves without having to be challenged by opposing viewpoints and still call itself news. What we have today is not 'because of the Fairness Doctrine' but rather what we have in a privately-run for profit and often ideologically driven news corporation picture which is post-Fairness Doctrine. We were better with it than without it imo.

 

[Jack Springer]

So Centex, you don't think that Obama wants to degrade the republican party so that he can have control of both houses. I guess you haven't been watching MSNBC.

Gerrymandering has been going on for centuries in the USA -- the party in power at the state level will do what they can to help themselves on the national level -- dem's do it too -- they just don't have the majority in most state legislatures now.

The fallacy of the dem's big tent continues -- we saw what happened at the DNC last summer when part of the big tent wanted to remove God from their party platform -- big tents eventually cave -- the threads that bind them together become thinner and farther apart. In 2 to 4 years the dem's will have the similar problems as the repub's are having right now.

If 'restricting' access to the polls means only legal US citizens can vote -- then 'restricting' is the correct way to go'

The house has legislated - they have pasted a budget since the republicans have had control. The Senate and last dem controlled House refused to pass or consider a budget. Obama has said he will break the law and not propose a budget on time. The repub controlled House has passed many bills -- you and others don't want to consider them because you don't like them.

Blaming Obama? He's a big boy. There has always been disagreement in Washington. Obama is friend and cordial to those he likes -- those he doesn't he demeans.

I think it would be good if Obama would spend more of his energy on destroying the enemies of the USA rather than trying to destroy the republican party.


Overall, I think this thread is just another jerk-off session for liberals.

BTW --- Obama has taken the dem party in a completely different direction than the party was during the Clinton years.

Have you not been watching Fox News, or listening to Talk Radio for the past four years?

They can't win elections based upon their political policies, so they Gerrymander Districts, thus assuring that their candidate remains in office.

They can't (or are hamstrung by the "fringes" from within their own party to) expand their "Big Tent" so they pass laws to restrict minority access to the polls.

They can't legislate, so they blame Obama.

That seems to be the narrative that the GOP, and those who support them have been giving the American Public here lately.

Where's the "leadership" in that?

 

[White Eagle]

^ Exhibit F.

Isn't putting the GOP in the dustbin what Obama wants and intending to do?

 

[Kulindahr]

If 'restricting' access to the polls means only legal US citizens can vote -- then 'restricting' is the correct way to go'

Once again you weigh in on the side of disenfranchising some citizens just to be sure non-citizens don't get to vote (which the evidence says they haven't been doing anyway).

 

[bankside]

You're not talking about checks and balances, you're talking about the inane notion of a "fairness doctrine". Liberals invented the notion of opposing views being equally valid -- now they're suffering the result.

Same thing. Same principle.

 

[Kulindahr]

Same thing. Same principle.

Not really. As xbuzzerx said, checks and balances are formal structures built into government. We could actually benefit from restoring some of them -- a very important check on government was the right to trial by jury, where the jury was empowered to rule that the law in the case was stupid and deliver a "not guilty" verdict accordingly.

 

[T-Rexx]

If 'restricting' access to the polls means only legal US citizens can vote -- then 'restricting' is the correct way to go'

That is NOT what "restricting access" means, of course.

It means stopping Democrats from voting, so that Republicans can achieve an unfair advantage.

Period.

 

[chrisrobin]

How do you kill that which has no life?!

A stake through the heart.

 

[Centexfarmer]

So Centex, you don't think that Obama wants to degrade the republican party so that he can have control of both houses. I guess you haven't been watching MSNBC.

Actually I very rarely watch MSNBC, unless I'm tired of listening to my Fox News loving family members regurgitate GOP talking points.

It's refreshing for me to watch The Ed Show, and see someone who's actually passionate about what they believe instead of parroting bullshit.

I like Rachel Maddow's perspective on things, and how it's clear (at least to me) that she puts her own thoughts into the equation, and isn't reading a prompter of propaganda that has already been written by someone else.

Guilty.

And if Obama is in fact guilty of what Bohner is accusing him of, please explain to me how that's worse than the entire GOP Caucus dragging their heels in helping "jump start" our failing economy, and literally saying NO to every proposition sent their way, regardless of Obama's efforts to compromise?

The GOP Leadership in Washington, it appears (at least over the past two years) were hoping that by not providing any support to ANY of Obama's attempts to Lead, that they might be able to score some political points, and win a few elections in the process.

As you and I both know the November Elections of 2012 didn't change anything. Except that a few one term Tea Baggers were sent packing.

Now Bohner, and the Right Wing Editorialists are crying that 'Obama is a big meanie!'

Seriously!

Wouldn't you much prefer some context? Some content? Some Government Cheese to go with that whine?

Instead the American Electorate/Taxpayers/Independents get shit, while I'm personally paying over $700 more a year in taxes since January 01, 2013, not to mention what it's doing to those trying to get buy on minimum wage.

But boo hoo! 'Obama is a big meanie!'

If that works for you, then all that I can say is, "I'm happy for you."

Gerrymandering has been going on for centuries in the USA -- the party in power at the state level will do what they can to help themselves on the national level -- dem's do it too -- they just don't have the majority in most state legislatures now.

The fallacy of the dem's big tent continues -- we saw what happened at the DNC last summer when part of the big tent wanted to remove God from their party platform -- big tents eventually cave -- the threads that bind them together become thinner and farther apart. In 2 to 4 years the dem's will have the similar problems as the repub's are having right now.

OMG Jack!

Do you realize what this means???

We agree!

I think that what we both saw during the Party Conventions last summer was nothing more than pandering.

Both the GOP, and the DNC pandering to their fringes without much regard for the Majority of Americans "in the middle."

And look at the choices that we were left to deal with.

If 'restricting' access to the polls means only legal US citizens can vote -- then 'restricting' is the correct way to go'

If I just read that one sentence alone, I'd have a hard time finding anything to disagree with.

However, that entire debate is a straw man, and you know it.

The house has legislated - they have pasted a budget since the republicans have had control. The Senate and last dem controlled House refused to pass or consider a budget. Obama has said he will break the law and not propose a budget on time. The repub controlled House has passed many bills -- you and others don't want to consider them because you don't like them.

What's to like?

Please point out one piece of legislation (that wasn't tacked onto another bill) that the Congressional Republicans presented that you feel should now be the law of the land during the past Congressional Session.

I'd be interested to know.

Blaming Obama? He's a big boy. There has always been disagreement in Washington. Obama is friend and cordial to those he likes -- those he doesn't he demeans.

I think it would be good if Obama would spend more of his energy on destroying the enemies of the USA rather than trying to destroy the republican party.

I think that it would be equally as important for Congressional Leaders like Bohner, and other Republicans to come up with solutions, as well as for Democrats that benefited more Americans rather than their own parties, or Corporations.

As opposed to playing the "blame game."

Wouldn't you agree?

Overall, I think this thread is just another jerk-off session for liberals.

Well...I don't know if you noticed or not, but this is a Discussion Forum on a Gay Porn website, so I hope that some one is doing some jerking off around here.

Frankly, I've found that if I want to "maintain my wood" I typically avoid this forum.

BTW --- Obama has taken the dem party in a completely different direction than the party was during the Clinton years.

The same could be said about Clinton in regard to Carter.

And your point would be......?

 

[chance1]

Keep it coming

Hypocritical bullshit

More points mod - "contributor"

 

[White Eagle]

Actually I very rarely watch MSNBC, unless I'm tired of listening to my Fox News loving family members regurgitate GOP talking points.

It's refreshing for me to watch The Ed Show, and see someone who's actually passionate about what they believe instead of parroting bullshit.

I like Rachel Maddow's perspective on things, and how it's clear (at least to me) that she puts her own thoughts into the equation, and isn't reading a prompter of propaganda that has already been written by someone else.

Guilty.

And if Obama is in fact guilty of what Bohner is accusing him of, please explain to me how that's worse than the entire GOP Caucus dragging their heels in helping "jump start" our failing economy, and literally saying NO to every proposition sent their way, regardless of Obama's efforts to compromise?

The GOP Leadership in Washington, it appears (at least over the past two years) were hoping that by not providing any support to ANY of Obama's attempts to Lead, that they might be able to score some political points, and win a few elections in the process.

As you and I both know the November Elections of 2012 didn't change anything. Except that a few one term Tea Baggers were sent packing.

Now Bohner, and the Right Wing Editorialists are crying that 'Obama is a big meanie!'

Seriously!

Wouldn't you much prefer some context? Some content? Some Government Cheese to go with that whine?

Instead the American Electorate/Taxpayers/Independents get shit, while I'm personally paying over $700 more a year in taxes since January 01, 2013, not to mention what it's doing to those trying to get buy on minimum wage.

But boo hoo! 'Obama is a big meanie!'

If that works for you, then all that I can say is, "I'm happy for you."



OMG Jack!

Do you realize what this means???

We agree!

I think that what we both saw during the Party Conventions last summer was nothing more than pandering.

Both the GOP, and the DNC pandering to their fringes without much regard for the Majority of Americans "in the middle."

And look at the choices that we were left to deal with.



If I just read that one sentence alone, I'd have a hard time finding anything to disagree with.

However, that entire debate is a straw man, and you know it.



What's to like?

Please point out one piece of legislation (that wasn't tacked onto another bill) that the Congressional Republicans presented that you feel should now be the law of the land during the past Congressional Session.

I'd be interested to know.



I think that it would be equally as important for Congressional Leaders like Bohner, and other Republicans to come up with solutions, as well as for Democrats that benefited more Americans rather than their own parties, or Corporations.

As opposed to playing the "blame game."

Wouldn't you agree?



Well...I don't know if you noticed or not, but this is a Discussion Forum on a Gay Porn website, so I hope that some one is doing some jerking off around here.

Frankly, I've found that if I want to "maintain my wood" I typically avoid this forum.



The same could be said about Clinton in regard to Carter.

And your point would be......?

I would like to see the answer to what bills were passed by the GOP. I've only heard of name a Post Office.
Oh, I had a tune to post, but I thought better to put it here. I put it in the song thread.

 

[Kulindahr]

Once again a potentially interesting thread has been turned into a pile of insinuation and insult by Chance. Maybe he should join Boehner in the "dustbin of history", since he seems to 'think' so much like the Tea Party, the disease afflicting DC.