Good one Nancy......

Rep Pelosi got upset Friday when a reporter asked her about democrats that vowed to block any Supreme Court nominations by President George W. Bush when he had 18 months left in office......Ms Pelsoi said......Those were different circumstances......You really can't make this stupidity up.....

Just another politician willing to sell the country and LEGAL voters for money, just like Harry Reid...

The fanatical liberals incredible hypocrisy doesn't even register with her equally fanatical drones.

You're 100% correct about them and their drones being fanatical liberals..

nochain wrote:

The fanatical liberals incredible hypocrisy doesn't even register with her equally fanatical drones.

Even Sen Schumer (D-NY) when shown his speech on the Senate floor saying pretty much the same thing that he'd vote against President Bush appointing a Supreme Court judge had a similar reaction....Yes there was a difference...then the democrats controlled the Senate and could do it well within their job description and now they don't control the Senate and they want their cowh to be allowed.....their whining is laughable......

LOL. They may have "vowed" to stop any candidate from being confirmed, but they did not do it, did they?
Bush got both John Roberts and Samuel Alito through the Senate.
Apparently the Republicans just  like getting paid to not do their job.


The situation did not exist with W's presidency. Talk about whining. You're whining about a speech Chuck Shumer made about something that never happened.

Eddard wrote:

LOL. They may have "vowed" to stop any candidate from being confirmed, but they did not do it, did they?
Bush got both John Roberts and Samuel Alito through the Senate.
Apparently the Republicans just  like getting paid to not do their job.


The situation did not exist with W's presidency. Talk about whining. You're whining about a speech Chuck Shumer made about something that never happened.

Not whining....just pointing out the inconsistencies and hypocrisy...Not doing their jobs?...When there's been a leader like Dirty Harry Reid running the Senate....what was is 300 pieces of legislation on his desk that he refused to even allow discussion...let alone a vote?....But then again with his dirty land deals in Vegas he really didn't need to work....

That's because out of those 300 pieces of legislation, probably 299 of them were to overturn Obamacare.

20 million Americans rely on Obamacare to get their health issues addressed.
Not very nice of the Republicans in Congress to want to rip it away from them.

Eddard wrote:

That's because out of those 300 pieces of legislation, probably 299 of them were to overturn Obamacare.

20 million Americans rely on Obamacare to get their health issues addressed.
Not very nice of the Republicans in Congress to want to rip it away from them.

Nope, not even close - a few dozen dealt with full or partial HCA repeals including things like the Medical device tax. Reids obstruction was politically motivated during an election year. Nothing more, nothing less.

This partisanship drives me bonkers...and I don't need help in that regard.

I don't give a damn about ugly partisan politics on either side. If a bill is a good bill and the vast majority of the public supports it, the scumbags in Washington should not declare a bill "dead upon arrival" simply because it was submitted by an opposing political party.

Now, if another scumbag inserts pork into a bill at the last minute... that's different. We need a line item veto that actually works. I know they tried it a while back and it didn't work, but don't remember the particulars.

Eric wrote:

This partisanship drives me bonkers...and I don't need help in that regard.

I don't give a damn about ugly partisan politics on either side.  If a bill is a good bill and the vast majority of the public supports it, the scumbags in Washington should not declare a bill "dead upon arrival" simply because it was submitted by an opposing political party.

Now, if another scumbag inserts pork into a bill at the last minute... that's different.  We need a line item veto that actually works.  I know they tried it a while back and it didn't work, but don't remember the particulars.

The other part of that equation is the 'add ons' to what may be a good piece of legislation....again you are correct it's political and then when there are campaign commercials being made they can run attack ads that a candidate voted against ______________ which is true but in reality the no vote was done because of an add on.....Common sense would have been to have the line item veto YEARS ago....most governors have it and that's what allows them to get mandated budgets passed through state legislatures...well that an the threat of across the board cuts should they fail to do so...