A Progressive, a Liberal, and a Leftist walk into a forum

[Procrustes Stretched]

[MENTION=26616]kaz[/MENTION]

I said that both sides don't pursue prior administrations because they don't want the next administration to pursue them. You didn't contradict that. You talked about 2006. That doesn't in any way contradict my point.

no you used things from the future (after 2006) and this isn't about administrations stupid!

2006 was NOT a Presidential election and a change of administration. 2006 was a throw the bums (GOP) out election and at that time there was NO way of knowing what the future held, but...

House members do not care about administrations in the future as they cannot guarantee it will be one they are attached to, and if Nancy was a leftist going after Bush/Cheney admin would have been a crowning glory


get a grip and try to keep up

I didn't bring up 2006, you did. I said both sides don't go after the prior administration because they don't want the next administration to go after them. 2006 is irrelevant to that and your focusing on it like a piece of lint you find in your belly button doesn't make it relevant.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...-a-leftist-walk-into-a-forum.html#post8675965 link

A Progressive (Bill Clinton), a Liberal (Barney Frank), and a Leftist (Dennis Kucinich) walk into a forum: They discuss an issue: Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act


Progressive was in favor of bill and signed it into law. Now says it was a terrible decision and a regret (but may be saying it softened the blow -- who knows?): Eight Progressive Things Bill Clinton Did

Liberal was against the bill and is one of a handful of members of the Congress to vote against it: Barney Frank didn?t cause the housing crisis - The Washington Post

Leftist: I have no idea what he said. He's been so far left I always check myself when finding we agree on something. - go figure

OK, I read it all. You still have three people who are authoritarian leftists who don't disagree on anything except one thing Clinton did, and you pointed out he said he was wrong. So at best your argument is that the difference between them is that while they have all the same positions, they tweak the priorities. Though you really had nothing on the difference between a "liberal" and a "leftist" even in that. And you said you are shocked when you agree with Kucinich while you still couldn't name anything you disagree with him on.

I do like the argument that the Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act was bad because it allowed fraud, even though fraud was already illegal. So apparently if something is only illegal once that isn't enough, it has to be illegal twice for a law to work...

[MENTION=26616]kaz[/MENTION] "authoritarian leftists"?????????

your speech in fraud is puzzling

Department of Peace

Like Nancy Pelosi and President Obama (then US Senator) refused the left's demands to hold Issa type hearings in order to prosecute Bush/Cheney officials

Like Nancy Pelosi and President Obama (then US Senator) refused the left's demands to hold Issa type hearings in order to prosecute Bush/Cheney officials

No idea what this has to do with the discussion, they are not pursuing W because then the next Republican administration would pursue them for their crimes in Benghazi, fast and furious, the IRS targeting conservative groups. And then the next administration would pursue them, and so on.

I would welcome all of it. Pursue W for his crimes, let's get Obama for his. But you are seriously clueless, they are not pursuing it like none of them do for that reason, to protect themselves from their successors. You haven't supported anything with this pointless observation.

Pelosi as Speaker and Obama as a Dem candidate for US Senate/Senator -elect is NOT an administration ... they are the Congress.

The Congress. Get IT yet? You keep saying shit that dopes add up or make sense

 

[kaz]

Pelosi as Speaker and Obama as a Dem candidate for US Senate/Senator -elect is NOT an administration ... they are the Congress.

The Congress. Get IT yet? You keep saying shit that dopes add up or make sense

OK, seriously, that was what confused you? That the specific scandals that I mentioned hadn't happened yet in 2006? You couldn't figure that out out on your own? Seriously? My point is that every administration is going to have things the next administration could go after them for. They don't want to leave office and then have to have their asses hauled into congress over and over to defend themselves.

First of all, I'd be fine with it, if the current administrations were obsessed with getting the last ones then they would be a lot more careful and they'd spend their time on that instead of growing government. Of course in Iraq, you didn't even mention all the liars in the Democratic party who said the same things the Republicans did. You just want a partisan witch hunt, not the guilty being held accountable.

 

[kaz]

Pelosi as Speaker and Obama as a Dem candidate for US Senate/Senator -elect is NOT an administration ... they are the Congress.

The Congress. Get IT yet? You keep saying shit that dopes add up or make sense

OK, seriously, that was what confused you? That the specific scandals that I mentioned hadn't happened yet in 2006? You couldn't figure that out out on your own? Seriously? My point is that every administration is going to have things the next administration could go after them for. They don't want to leave office and then have to have their asses hauled into congress over and over to defend themselves.

First of all, I'd be fine with it, if the current administrations were obsessed with getting the last ones then they would be a lot more careful and they'd spend their time on that instead of growing government. Of course in Iraq, you didn't even mention all the liars in the Democratic party who said the same things the Republicans did. You just want a partisan witch hunt, not the guilty being held accountable.

[MENTION=26616]kaz[/MENTION]

You are still stuck on administrations when Dante specifically mentioned Congress going after administrations?

see? if you would stick to that point you'd have to agree Dante was correct and...

It's only about political parties in DC

 

[bedowin62]

LMAO!1

left-wing nutjobs think it is the job of the opposition to roll over and play dead for the President and Majority Party; just because that's what they did under Bush ( now matter how many LWNJs deny it and talk about the Bush years as if they werent there)


idiots and hypocrites

 

[bedowin62]

left-wing nutjobs talking about compromise when their Dear Leader LITERALLY said "Im not going to compromise" and "elections have consquences" and " go sit in the back of the bus"


libs are losers and hypocrites who lie to themselves

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

OK, seriously, that was what confused you? That the specific scandals that I mentioned hadn't happened yet in 2006? You couldn't figure that out out on your own? Seriously? My point is that every administration is going to have things the next administration could go after them for. They don't want to leave office and then have to have their asses hauled into congress over and over to defend themselves.

First of all, I'd be fine with it, if the current administrations were obsessed with getting the last ones then they would be a lot more careful and they'd spend their time on that instead of growing government. Of course in Iraq, you didn't even mention all the liars in the Democratic party who said the same things the Republicans did. You just want a partisan witch hunt, not the guilty being held accountable.

[MENTION=26616]kaz[/MENTION]

You are still stuck on administrations when Dante specifically mentioned Congress going after administrations?

see? if you would stick to that point you'd have to agree Dante was correct and...

It's only about political parties in DC

well D'Oh! Politics is about political parties and political parties are about politics.

Except, compromise is about governing and one party has been the party of NO for the past few Democratic administrations which then pushes the other party to play the game on some level

governing well and playing politics is an art form reactionaries and populists care little about

...

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Pelosi as Speaker and Obama as a Dem candidate for US Senate/Senator -elect is NOT an administration ... they are the Congress.

The Congress. Get IT yet? You keep saying shit that dopes add up or make sense

OK, seriously, that was what confused you? That the specific scandals that I mentioned hadn't happened yet in 2006? You couldn't figure that out out on your own? Seriously? My point is that every administration is going to have things the next administration could go after them for. They don't want to leave office and then have to have their asses hauled into congress over and over to defend themselves.

First of all, I'd be fine with it, if the current administrations were obsessed with getting the last ones then they would be a lot more careful and they'd spend their time on that instead of growing government. Of course in Iraq, you didn't even mention all the liars in the Democratic party who said the same things the Republicans did. You just want a partisan witch hunt, not the guilty being held accountable.[/QUOTE [MENTION=26616]kaz[/MENTION]

You are still stuck on administrations when Dante specifically mentioned Congress going after administrations?

see? if you would stick to that point you'd have to agree Dante was correct and...

(pardon repositioning but loser troll spammed the thread)

 

[kaz]

[MENTION=26616]kaz[/MENTION]

You are still stuck on administrations when Dante specifically mentioned Congress going after administrations?

see? if you would stick to that point you'd have to agree Dante was correct and...

It's only about political parties in DC

well D'Oh! Politics is about political parties and political parties are about politics.

Except, compromise is about governing and one party has been the party of NO for the past few Democratic administrations which then pushes the other party to play the game on some level

governing well and playing politics is an art form reactionaries and populists care little about

...

All you're interested in is getting Republicans, not holding administrations accountable. And you're not interested in going after the Democrats who did the Iraq war hand and hand with them either.

As I said, I'm for holding prior administrations responsible, but it should be all of them in both parties in our out of power. Leftists witch hunts do nothing to advance anything but the selfish interest of the Democratic party.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

It's only about political parties in DC

well D'Oh! Politics is about political parties and political parties are about politics.

Except, compromise is about governing and one party has been the party of NO for the past few Democratic administrations which then pushes the other party to play the game on some level

governing well and playing politics is an art form reactionaries and populists care little about

...

All you're interested in is getting Republicans, not holding administrations accountable. And you're not interested in going after the Democrats who did the Iraq war hand and hand with them either.

As I said, I'm for holding prior administrations responsible, but it should be all of them in both parties in our out of power. Leftists witch hunts do nothing to advance anything but the selfish interest of the Democratic party.

hey moron! pay attention.

Dante supported and advocated for what Pelosi ultimately did: stop the drum beat to go after Bush/Cheney admin for war crimes and other nonsense

Dante supported going into Iraq for reasons other than WMD and never supported dismantling Iraqi government and society and staying in Iraq (Bremmer)