So much to say…

on

yet I am speechless.

I would not piss on Obama or any other Democrat if they were on fire. You can call that racist,hateful,right-wing nuttery or anything else. You will prove to be an asshole in doing so though.

Watch this video. Reflect on what this country is supposed to be. I can honestly say that I am viscerally sickened by the left of America.

I simply can’t go on without taking a break.

Advertisements

18 Comments

  1. Three cheers for Alfie! he succeeded in finding a video with all “the usual suspects” in one place showing the sheer naked arrogance and hypocrisy that they practice on a regular basis! I might have to steel that Alphie,and take each one of them one piece by piece.

    Unless you do that of course.

    Strong work!

  2. Rutherford says:

    Alfie it almost hurts to see you being a tool of the GOP talking points. If I can sit through 4:55 of this foolishness, you can sit through 7 minutes of the truth.

    Bottom line, what the GOP did in 2005 had nothing to do with budget changes through reconciliation, it had to do with stopping the filibuster to sweep in Bush judicial appointees. Apples and oranges. No nuclear option, just a f*cking lie.

    I don’t know whether you should be embarrassed or just ashamed of yourself. If you want to be taken seriously, watch the following and learn.

    P.S. Yes I’m a bit pissed because you’re better than this.

  3. Alfie says:

    Rutherford. Ive deleted your Maddow piece not because I lack an openness to another view but because thats not the point. Reconciliation and more importantly filibuster evasion was evil in the eyes of the Dems in 05 but not now. If I am a tool it is only matched by your own toolness regards swallowing Maddows spin. My embed is not about spin of facts. Just facts.

  4. Alfie says:

    Also if you want to read a minor piece showing Maddow as the liar go http://www.poligazette.com/2010/03/03/watch-rachel-maddow-lie-about-tax-cuts-and-reconciliation/
    Bottomline shes a total lying douchebag who dogs Budget related issues re GOP reconciliation. You know the fucking thing the law was meant for.

  5. Elric66 says:

    Heh. The marxist drone crawled back to berate Alfie.

    Alfie,

    Honestly, you are wasting your time with these drones.

  6. Rutherford says:

    Alfie it’s your blog and you can edit comments as you please but what matters here is not your “lack [of] an openness to another view”, it’s your censoring a video that directly answers the charge made in the video you chose to post. In your video, reference is made to the nuclear option. It is a flat out lie to apply that phrase to this situation and even if you do not know it, the legislators who used that language DO know it and they are liars and they are playing you for a chump.

    Fortunately, you helped prove my point with an almost equally effective video that you linked to. In that one, Rachel again calls out the hypocrisy of the GOP.

    Let’s summarize:

    1. The nuclear option refers to a GOP attempt to do non-budget related legislation via reconciliation in 2005. The current reconciliation being contemplated is budgetary. Hence calling it the nuclear option is a flat out lie.

    2. Budgetary legislation of large scope (Medicare, broad tax cuts (without bi-partisan support)) have been passed by the GOP in the past via reconciliation. To say that today’s scope is unprecedented is a flat out lie.

    3. The claim that the entire HCR package is being rammed via reconciliation is a flat out lie. The bulk of the legislation was already passed by a super majority in the Senate and similar legislation passed by a majority in the House. The current plan (possibly not achievable) is for the House to pass the Senate bill as is and then financial-only issues will be fixed to the House’s liking via reconciliation. The bulk of the legislation (I’d venture to say 80%) will have passed through the “normal” means.

    What is fascinating is that the article you link to has nothing to do with the use of the term nuclear option. It deals with Maddow’s claim about tax cuts causing deficits which is “not the point” of your own post.

  7. Alfie says:

    Rutherford I just don’t know what planet you’re on but good luck to you.
    Maddow = liar everyone knows it
    Nuclear option = reconciliation.
    HCR by no means budget related
    As for other parts of your comment your supermajority failed otherwise Obie would’ve been able to ink up and that has nothing to do with GOP.
    Your love of Maddow spin on a word here and there is a either a discredit to you or proff that I should probably not hold you in any positive regard.

  8. *ROARS LAUGHING!*

    This is too rich… The numero uno attention whore of wordpress calls out Alfie for pointing out the hypocrisy that is in fact going on in D.C.

    Rock on Alfie!

  9. Rutherford says:

    Alfie, it is hard to believe we are speaking the same language.

    Maddow = liar everyone knows it
    Clearly wrong since I and a good number of people find her quite credible. To use the word “everyone” means you put your brain in neutral (or worse, reverse) before writing your last comment.

    Nuclear option = reconciliation.
    Ehhh, no. The nuclear option was reconciliation used in a particular (distasteful) way in 2005. To call the current effort the nuclear option is to smear it with the bad taste of the 2005 effort. Then again, it is possible that this is splitting hairs and the Republicans are just being rhetorically lazy. Kind of like when the Tea Party folks co-opted the term “teabagging” before they knew what it meant. 🙂

    HCR by no means budget related
    I’ll give a bit on this one. We have been told that only budget related aspects of HCR will be done via reconciliation. If that turns out to be false, I’ll gladly call foul on my liberal friends. But again, your use of language is generalistic and sloppy. Certain aspects of HCR obviously effect the budget. So I really don’t know what you’re talking about.

    Finally, Patrick I don’t think I’ve ever seen a comment from you on my blog. I have absolutely no reason to believe you’ve ever read my blog. So where you get off calling me an “attention whore” escapes me. In fact, I have a sneaking suspicion you’re just Elric posting under a different name. Otherwise, man up, visit my blog and take me on there. Otherwise, you don’t know squat about me.

  10. Rutherford says:

    Ahhh .. correction … Patrick can’t be Elric because Patrick has his own blog. Elric is incapable of writing more than one snarky comment at a time, usually preceded by http:// 🙂

  11. Elric66 says:

    “In fact, I have a sneaking suspicion you’re just Elric posting under a different name. Otherwise, man up, visit my blog and take me on there. Otherwise, you don’t know squat about me.”

    Patrick, you have him dead on. He is nothing more than a leftist drone that goes along with the demomarxists whatever they do. al-Thuggy can do no wrong in his eyes. You wont find any common ground with him. Just a progressive enemy of the state. But if you do visit his blog, let me know how much whining he is doing because the wheels of the al-Thuggy bus are coming off. 🙂

  12. Actually I have read your blog from time to time Rutherford. I stopped though quite some time ago simply so that I would not be contributing to you hit count. You constantly deal in warped logic, historical fallacy, and things of that nature. That being the case why should I “man up” as you say, and get into a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent?

    Sorry for starting a spitting match on your blog Alfie.

  13. Alfie says:

    Wow Rutherford you had your Wheaties this morning? Before you insult the gear status of any other persons brain I suggest you get a tune up on your own.
    Yeah Maddow has her fans,she teeters on cancellation in any other world than MSNBC. She has a great history of picking a word or two and then run with what seems to be one of her fave lines. “….demonstrably untrue….” Well when anybody takes stuff out of context and then lies about everything else I guess they see truth. I’m equally confident there is a page in the DSM IV that explains that as well as your problem.

    Ehhh, no. The nuclear option was reconciliation used in a particular (distasteful) way in 2005. To call the current effort the nuclear option is to smear it with the bad taste of the 2005 effort. Then again, it is possible that this is splitting hairs and the Republicans are just being rhetorically lazy.

    You pompous slippery fuck you. So is it or isn’t it? Hint it is. The GOP in 05 were going to use it in an inappropriate manner to stop the illegal filibustering of judicial appointments. yeah illegal. Review and consent baby not direct and seat. Regardless the current potential use is aimed at avoiding democracy and Senate rules same deal-e-o.

    But again, your use of language is generalistic and sloppy. Certain aspects of HCR obviously effect the budget. So I really don’t know what you’re talking about.

    Well I really enjoy this nasty side of you. Methinks probably your true colors.
    The author of the law aka Robert Byrd is whom I’ll defer. Bottomline your side can’t pass a bad bill. HCR will present policy change….A MAJOR VIOLATION OF THE LAW.As for HCR and the budget ummmm NO NO NO NO!!!!!!!!Unless your talking about how ObamaCare is to rape Medicare there really isn’t a budget issue that exists that it will effect. Except the new policies it creates which negates the ability to use reconciliation.
    Really I’m sorry my writing skills and style is so unbecoming to you and your high standards. I have a job and a life away from the computer and the keyboard whence I tickle the little squares is more about catharsis,venting.I have to say,and I admit total bias here,I think I make myself relatively clear.
    I see us parting ways here Rutherford. Take care.

  14. Rutherford says:

    Wow, calling your language sloppy is “nasty”? Alfie, have you never “met” Tex Taylor? I throw softballs compared to some of the stuff that hits my blog.

    No need to argue further about Maddow. You clearly seriously dislike her, I don’t. No meeting of the minds there.

    But on the budget issue. First you make a reference to Medicare being “raped” so you acknowledge there ARE budget issues in the bill. But not just that. Don’t opponents of the bill yell and scream about all the “new taxes” that will go into effect? How is that not a budget issue?

    However, more important than all of that, in your haste to view me as the enemy, you ignored my concession to you. If policy gets enacted via reconciliation, then the Dems are no better than the Republicans and their entire defense is moot.

    The main reason why HCR is in grave danger of NOT passing is that there are differences between the House and Senate bills that cannot be resolved via reconciliation (like the Stupak abortion stuff), thereby making it a hard sell for the House to approve the Senate bill as is.

    My argument with you has been from the beginning, an assumption that dirty tricks are going on. I maintain that remains to be seen. And of course my main quibble with you was use of a video that relies on specific language to elicit a particular reaction. I think the language is misleading, you don’t. That’s what blogs are for. Discussion of opposing views.

  15. Elric66 says:

    I warned you Alfie. 🙂

  16. Elric66 says:

    “There’s A Communist Living In The White House!!”

    Amen sister. Think you will appreciate the video Alfie.

  17. Rutherford says:

    Oh yeah … a real authority, a comedian who went from SNL straight to “has been”. Real rich.

  18. Elric66 says:

    If you ban me on your blog, dont come to someone elses blog to try to debate me coward. Now man up and apologize to your kid for screwing over her future.

Comments are closed.