They were FOR it before they were AGAINST it.

[Oldandtired]

And we'll simply take it that you have not looked into what has changed from what they originally sponsored or supported, in terms of what they are against now....

You're no deeper than a snail trail

Wasn't that John Kerry's argument that he was so roundly laughed at over?

Nope.
Kerry was razzed for the WAY he said it.
Not for the fact that he refused to vote for a bill that he supported until it was changed.

 

[Oldandtired]

Yesterday, we singled out John McCain for once CO-SPONSORING -- and then yesterday voting AGAINST -- the bipartisan proposal to create an independent commission to reduce the debt. But as it turns out, there were five other Republicans who did this (Mike Crapo, Kay Bailey Hutchison, Sam Brownback, John Ensign, and Jim Inhofe), and Robert Bennett, who remained a co-sponsor, also voted against it.

First Read - msnbc.com

---------------------

You see, seven Republicans worked on a "bipartisan proposal", some even sponsoring it. Then, when it came up for vote, they voted AGAINST it.

Were they ever for it? Did they make it up to have something else to vote against? Oh well, at least they gave Democrats something more to use for the next election, so the work wasn't wasted.

Scarborough was taking huge shots at them for that this morning. It was like, really??? you voted against THIS??? Are you nuts?

And yes, they are. That's what the party of "no" does. Heaven forbid they act like they don't believe in that whole "ihopehefails" thing that rushbo told them to do.

Wow Jillian...you made a statement without first reveiwing or KNOWING the facts.
How......typical of you.....

 

[NYcarbineer]

And we'll simply take it that you have not looked into what has changed from what they originally sponsored or supported, in terms of what they are against now....

You're no deeper than a snail trail

Wasn't that John Kerry's argument that he was so roundly laughed at over?

Yes it was. And the 87 billion dollar bill he was originally for?

Bush had promised to veto it. Of course the wingnuts were blithely oblivious to that fact then and they haven't gotten any smarter since.

 

[NYcarbineer]

And we'll simply take it that you have not looked into what has changed from what they originally sponsored or supported, in terms of what they are against now....

You're no deeper than a snail trail

Wasn't that John Kerry's argument that he was so roundly laughed at over?

Nope.
Kerry was razzed for the WAY he said it.
Not for the fact that he refused to vote for a bill that he supported until it was changed.

That's simply not true. He was FOR the bill that made provisions to PAY FOR the 87 billiion. That is the bill Bush said he would veto.

 

[DiamondDave]

Still waiting, asshole

 

[Oldandtired]

Wasn't that John Kerry's argument that he was so roundly laughed at over?

Nope.
Kerry was razzed for the WAY he said it.
Not for the fact that he refused to vote for a bill that he supported until it was changed.

That's simply not true. He was FOR the bill that made provisions to PAY FOR the 87 billiion. That is the bill Bush said he would veto.

And rightfully so, he was for the original bill and against the revisions.
He was razzed for not explaining that. He was razzed for saying "I was for it before I was against it"

No more spin please. I am getting bored here.

 

[DiamondDave]

Are you going to concede that indeed the bill WAS changed/added to??

Or does your partisan hackery simply continue???

You and the OP are simply exposed of misleading... and your feeble attempt at distraction has been blown out of the water


have a nice day

 

[DiamondDave]

Yoo hoo....



















Crickets chirping softly in the background

 

[kwc57]

And we'll simply take it that you have not looked into what has changed from what they originally sponsored or supported, in terms of what they are against now....

You're no deeper than a snail trail

Wasn't that John Kerry's argument that he was so roundly laughed at over?

Dave,

You actually neg repped me for this comment? Seriously? Dude, you so need to get a life if a mundane true statement pisses you off enough to neg rep someone for it. Sheesh, what a fucking hopeless asswad you are.

 

[The Rabbi]

Forget it, Dave. WIth thge progressive crowd nothing must be allowed to come between them and their version of reality, least of all the truth.
THe reason the Dums can't talk about Republican lack of cooperation is because they have the shut the GOP out of the process for over 11 months. Even Olympia Snowe said that work on the bipartisan panel on health care was stymied because of pressure from the White House.
The Dums are the party of ME-ME-ME. They cannot work with anyone not wedded to their vision. They have no interest in compromise because they know they're right.
They are, of course, the party of Fuck You.

 

[DiamondDave]

And we'll simply take it that you have not looked into what has changed from what they originally sponsored or supported, in terms of what they are against now....

You're no deeper than a snail trail

Wasn't that John Kerry's argument that he was so roundly laughed at over?

Dave,

You actually neg repped me for this comment? Seriously? Dude, you so need to get a life if a mundane true statement pisses you off enough to neg rep someone for it. Sheesh, what a fucking hopeless asswad you are.

Trying another attempt at deflection???

Nice try

This is not about Kerry, nor his "I was for it before I was against it" line... but you had to try and put it in there to deflect away from the bullshit OP and the bullshit deflections by bunkaneer.... yeah, I neg repped for the deflection

Now.. care to admit that I was right in stating that the bill was severely changed from the original, is correct??

 

[DiamondDave]

BTW... still waiting for carBUNKaneer....










Yoo Hoo............

 

[Oldandtired]

And we'll simply take it that you have not looked into what has changed from what they originally sponsored or supported, in terms of what they are against now....

You're no deeper than a snail trail

Wasn't that John Kerry's argument that he was so roundly laughed at over?

Dave,

You actually neg repped me for this comment? Seriously? Dude, you so need to get a life if a mundane true statement pisses you off enough to neg rep someone for it. Sheesh, what a fucking hopeless asswad you are.

Actually, Dave saw that I gave you an accurate response to your claim. He was not criticized for changing his sentiments. He, like many, change their mind about a bill after the "add ins" are put into it.

What made it so funny was the way he said it. "I was for it before I was against it"

Truth is...he was for it and was STILL for it...but he did not appreciate the metamporphosis it went through by thwe time it came to vote time.

He was ridiculed for his poor use of words...nothing more....except for the far right loons...

But that being said...I do not hold the left responsible for the far left loons saying that 9-11 was an inside BUSH job.

 

[kwc57]

Wasn't that John Kerry's argument that he was so roundly laughed at over?

Dave,

You actually neg repped me for this comment? Seriously? Dude, you so need to get a life if a mundane true statement pisses you off enough to neg rep someone for it. Sheesh, what a fucking hopeless asswad you are.

Trying another attempt at deflection???

Nice try

This is not about Kerry, nor his "I was for it before I was against it" line... but you had to try and put it in there to deflect away from the bullshit OP and the bullshit deflections by bunkaneer.... yeah, I neg repped for the deflection

Now.. care to admit that I was right in stating that the bill was severely changed from the original, is correct??

Deflection? No, a simple question that was pertinent to the conversation. The OP is about conservatives who were for something until they were against it. Why? For the same reason that liberal Kerry was for something until he was against it........because amendments changed it from it's original form. A lot of political hay was made over Kerry's statement. As an honest and independent conservative, I like to call a spade a spade. Kerry had a point....just as these guys now have a point. But they can't cry foul over being called for something they derided the other side for.

So, no deflection at all. It was a legitimate question given the history of the infamous quote and how partisans spun it. The fact that you don't have an argument and want to call "deflection" and neg rep a fellow conservatve makes you the.....

USMB Major Asshat Douche of the Day!!! Congrats!

View attachment 9333

 

[bodecea]

And we'll simply take it that you have not looked into what has changed from what they originally sponsored or supported, in terms of what they are against now....

You're no deeper than a snail trail

You, of course, remember this is the same reason that Kerry voted for the Iraq War and then against it....because the bill changed in between votes.

 

[DiamondDave]

Dave,

You actually neg repped me for this comment? Seriously? Dude, you so need to get a life if a mundane true statement pisses you off enough to neg rep someone for it. Sheesh, what a fucking hopeless asswad you are.

Trying another attempt at deflection???

Nice try

This is not about Kerry, nor his "I was for it before I was against it" line... but you had to try and put it in there to deflect away from the bullshit OP and the bullshit deflections by bunkaneer.... yeah, I neg repped for the deflection

Now.. care to admit that I was right in stating that the bill was severely changed from the original, is correct??

Deflection? No, a simple question that was pertinent to the conversation. The OP is about conservatives who were for something until they were against it. Why? For the same reason that liberal Kerry was for something until he was against it........because amendments changed it from it's original form. A lot of political hay was made over Kerry's statement. As an honest and independent conservative, I like to call a spade a spade. Kerry had a point....just as these guys now have a point. But they can't cry foul over being called for something they derided the other side for.

So, no deflection at all. It was a legitimate question given the history of the infamous quote and how partisans spun it. The fact that you don't have an argument and want to call "deflection" and neg rep a fellow conservatve makes you the.....

USMB Major Asshat Douche of the Day!!! Congrats!

View attachment 9333

No.. it was not pertinent to the conversation... it was off on a tangent.... you see.... what was in discussion was the fact the the bill had changed from what many Senators had originally supported... there was nothing in the discussion or in the idea behind the discussion about a verbal flub and politicized sound bite by John Kerry years ago

But nice try

Now... if you have a problem with some Senator changing their support when a bill is bastardized and changed from the original... or if you think that my point was wrong about this being a changed bill.... discuss.. I'd love to slap you around some more

 

[Oldandtired]

And we'll simply take it that you have not looked into what has changed from what they originally sponsored or supported, in terms of what they are against now....

You're no deeper than a snail trail

You, of course, remember this is the same reason that Kerry voted for the Iraq War and then against it....because the bill changed in between votes.

Yep...
And he was not criticized for that.
He was criticized for saying "he was for it before he was against it"
Without an explanation of what he meant...that sounded silly....and yes...many on the right jumped all over it.
Bush tried to open a door that was not a door. He looked silly and the left jumped all over it.
But other than the far far right, no one criticized Kerry for his switch after the bill was altered.

 

[DiamondDave]

And we'll simply take it that you have not looked into what has changed from what they originally sponsored or supported, in terms of what they are against now....

You're no deeper than a snail trail

You, of course, remember this is the same reason that Kerry voted for the Iraq War and then against it....because the bill changed in between votes.

Funny... I don't think this was anything about John Kerry or a poor choice of words.... except, if you consider the OP's direct attempt to misconstrue what happened as a "poor choice of words"

 

[kwc57]

Trying another attempt at deflection???

Nice try

This is not about Kerry, nor his "I was for it before I was against it" line... but you had to try and put it in there to deflect away from the bullshit OP and the bullshit deflections by bunkaneer.... yeah, I neg repped for the deflection

Now.. care to admit that I was right in stating that the bill was severely changed from the original, is correct??

Deflection? No, a simple question that was pertinent to the conversation. The OP is about conservatives who were for something until they were against it. Why? For the same reason that liberal Kerry was for something until he was against it........because amendments changed it from it's original form. A lot of political hay was made over Kerry's statement. As an honest and independent conservative, I like to call a spade a spade. Kerry had a point....just as these guys now have a point. But they can't cry foul over being called for something they derided the other side for.

So, no deflection at all. It was a legitimate question given the history of the infamous quote and how partisans spun it. The fact that you don't have an argument and want to call "deflection" and neg rep a fellow conservatve makes you the.....

USMB Major Asshat Douche of the Day!!! Congrats!

View attachment 9333

No.. it was not pertinent to the conversation... it was off on a tangent.... you see.... what was in discussion was the fact the the bill had changed from what many Senators had originally supported... there was nothing in the discussion or in the idea behind the discussion about a verbal flub and politicized sound bite by John Kerry years ago

But nice try

Now... if you have a problem with some Senator changing their support when a bill is bastardized and changed from the original... or if you think that my point was wrong about this being a changed bill.... discuss.. I'd love to slap you around some more

I was unaware that you started this thread and therefore were appointed the thread direction hall monitor. Oh, that's right, you didn't and you weren't. Nice try, but epic fail.

 

[DiamondDave]

Deflection? No, a simple question that was pertinent to the conversation. The OP is about conservatives who were for something until they were against it. Why? For the same reason that liberal Kerry was for something until he was against it........because amendments changed it from it's original form. A lot of political hay was made over Kerry's statement. As an honest and independent conservative, I like to call a spade a spade. Kerry had a point....just as these guys now have a point. But they can't cry foul over being called for something they derided the other side for.

So, no deflection at all. It was a legitimate question given the history of the infamous quote and how partisans spun it. The fact that you don't have an argument and want to call "deflection" and neg rep a fellow conservatve makes you the.....

USMB Major Asshat Douche of the Day!!! Congrats!

View attachment 9333

No.. it was not pertinent to the conversation... it was off on a tangent.... you see.... what was in discussion was the fact the the bill had changed from what many Senators had originally supported... there was nothing in the discussion or in the idea behind the discussion about a verbal flub and politicized sound bite by John Kerry years ago

But nice try

Now... if you have a problem with some Senator changing their support when a bill is bastardized and changed from the original... or if you think that my point was wrong about this being a changed bill.... discuss.. I'd love to slap you around some more

I was unaware that you started this thread and therefore were appointed the thread direction hall monitor. Oh, that's right, you didn't and you weren't. Nice try, but epic fail.

no... I just pointed out the inherent BS in the OP's thread..... and then tried to keep ones like you and BUNKaneer from trying to change the focus when the bullshit was pointed out

nice try