Bill Clinton throws Obama under the bus on raising TAXES on the wealthy

[Meister]

Considering you sit safely behind a keyboard in someone place unknown..you can do that all you want.

Won't work. But you are welcome to try.

And the fact is..Bush LOST the popular election..and won by some very dodgy legal shennigans.

This wasn't a first for Republicans, either.

You can bray on about how you guys got all this "popular" support..but when push comes to shove..you hang on to a system which is both antiquated, baffling and insures that every once in a while..someone will win without the popular vote.

All in the name of "protecting the minority".

The Florida vote count has been re-counted several times now--and by liberal sources--and each and every time Gore lost.

So get over it.

The Supreme court over rode a Florida court (So much for states rights) and the count itself was dubious.

In any case..the governor of Florida was George W. Bush's brother and the Secretary of State in Florida, who "validated" the first vote was running George W. Bush's campaign in Florida.

Add in Scalia was close friends with Cheney and Scalia's son's law firm was working for Bush.

There's so much stink here it's overwhelming. Any ONE of these things should have kiboshed the whole lousy affair.

Let me enlarge oreo's post so you don't need your glasses. It was recounted over and over......the entire state, not just the counties where Gore wanted them recounted. Gore lost....get over it with your leftwing echo chamber BS.

 

[Oddball]

 

[boedicca]

Damn....Liberoidals still sniveling about Florida 2000!

Oh please.

You guys are still sniveling about the ass kicking you got in the civil war.

You are a blithering idiot.

 

[kaz]

yeah right ! You really believe that? I'm not saying the President knows everything that goes on but trading arms to Iran to keep the hostages until his inauguration...really?

I realize liberals grasp logic like a goldfish grasps algebra, but this doesn't refute my point. I was pointing out the story that was used as evidence didn't support the contention that it was cited to support. It said Reagan learned what his administration did after the speech. You still don't get that, do you? Be honest.

I'm saying I disagree that Reagan came clean. Can't you understand that?

As I said, you didn't understand the logic of the conversation...

 

[kaz]

Given what you said...it would be a done deal about Obama knowing about "Fast and Furious"

If fairness if we presented Obama speaking and said that even though the evidence presented didn't support that he lied, but we said we all know Obama's a liar so it still proves he lied, then truthseeker would agree with that of course. Truth seekers don't accept double standards, you know...

lol you must have me confused with some big Obama supporter.

I don't have you "confused" with anything. I can only respond to what you post.

 

[kaz]

And the fact is..Bush LOST the popular election..and won by some very dodgy legal shennigans

Those "legal shenanigans" are called the "electoral college." If you don't understand how it works, you could wiki it...

 

[kaz]

The Supreme court over rode a Florida court (So much for states rights)

a Florida court that overrode the Florida legislature and executive branch, so much for separation of powers

 

[BDBoop]

Damn....Liberoidals still sniveling about Florida 2000!

Oh please.

You guys are still sniveling about the ass kicking you got in the civil war.

QFMFT.

 

[freedombecki]

Considering you sit safely behind a keyboard in someone place unknown..you can do that all you want.

Won't work. But you are welcome to try.

And the fact is..Bush LOST the popular election..and won by some very dodgy legal shennigans.

This wasn't a first for Republicans, either.

You can bray on about how you guys got all this "popular" support..but when push comes to shove..you hang on to a system which is both antiquated, baffling and insures that every once in a while..someone will win without the popular vote.
All in the name of "protecting the minority".

Sallow, are you off your rocker?
You have disregarded all the facts in favor of the electoral college just to try and justify your stupidity. Epic Fail

What "facts"?

The electoral college is ridiculous.

If your state doesn't have the population..it's protected by the Senate.

There's absolutely no reason that 2 fucking branches of government need to protect the minority.
None.

Dear Mr. Sallow,

I know the electoral college is inconvenient at times, but it goes to the heart of this Democratic Republic we live in and how we got this way.

We're 50 countries in one in America. That's right, 50. The big states with small populations didn't come together by accident with us. They came, having been guaranteed a semblance of status into the union with not a lot of, but enough power to make themselves heard over the voices of large, populous areas through a number of means. First, they were guaranteed local control by building in a weakness into the greater fed that would let their voices ring out clear and loud without fear of being outshouted by the big boys by giving ultimate power and even voting privileges with the great big states who could drown out all the little states if things weren't equal at the final voting phase of national bills passage. For every representative and senator it has, a state gets one vote. The least state, Wyoming, has less than half a million people, but its electoral representation is 3 - 1 congressman at large, and 2 senators. The largest population state is California with a whopping 55 - 53 congressmen and 2 senators. New York has 31, Texas 34. It's a combination of small states with final bill passage plus population represented in Congress votes.

It's most likely to be inconvenient to members of large states, yet still, in order to fulfill equal representation, we have to yield to the states as equal partners at decision-making time.

If you think having to listen to your little sister yapping all the time, think of Wyoming. Does it have a lot of votes? The people there don't think they have any say at all. Who is going to resent their 3 votes when at time to elect a POTUS, you have 31 votes--10 times their yap plus!

So it depends on what kind of inconvenience you are talking about, not getting to have much of a say over who is POTUS or having a satisfying enough amount of power at Senate passage bill time to say, ok, buddy, we're all in this together, and have it mean something to small as well as large states.

The electoral college should keep states reasonably happy. If not, the alternative is to let states go and not be "all in this together."

What fun is that?

I lived in Wyoming 35 years. I know what it feels like to not have much of a say in who becomes the President. It feels like you do not have much of a say, because you don't, actually.

We did have a couple of joys, though. As time marched on, Wyoming became #2 in oil production and is likely still there. It's a giver state, and that's very satisfying to people to know that.

 

[Kuros]

The Supreme court over rode a Florida court (So much for states rights) and the count itself was dubious.

In any case..the governor of Florida was George W. Bush's brother and the Secretary of State in Florida, who "validated" the first vote was running George W. Bush's campaign in Florida.

Add in Scalia was close friends with Cheney and Scalia's son's law firm was working for Bush.

There's so much stink here it's overwhelming. Any ONE of these things should have kiboshed the whole lousy affair.

It took you a little time, Sallow, but you finally got to the point.

Al Gore would have won THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE. But a partisan SCOTUS intervened and hijacked the election.

 

[kaz]

Damn....Liberoidals still sniveling about Florida 2000!

Oh please.

You guys are still sniveling about the ass kicking you got in the civil war.

QFMFT.

The Republicans got an ass kicking in the civil war?

 

[Full-Auto]

The Supreme court over rode a Florida court (So much for states rights) and the count itself was dubious.

In any case..the governor of Florida was George W. Bush's brother and the Secretary of State in Florida, who "validated" the first vote was running George W. Bush's campaign in Florida.

Add in Scalia was close friends with Cheney and Scalia's son's law firm was working for Bush.

There's so much stink here it's overwhelming. Any ONE of these things should have kiboshed the whole lousy affair.

It took you a little time, Sallow, but you finally got to the point.

Al Gore would have won THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE. But a partisan SCOTUS intervened and hijacked the election.

So you dont have any idea about the separation of powers and legislative intent.

All you have are hurt feelings. Tissue?

 

[Claudette]

Oh Brother.

 

[kaz]

Al Gore would have won THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE. But a partisan SCOTUS intervened and hijacked the election.

Sorry to throw water on your revisionist rant, but dude, the vote was 9-0. That means both sides voted against the Florida supreme court. How is a 9-0 vote "partisan" when both parties voted for it?

From the liberal dictionary: Partisan - I didn't like it...

 

[Sallow]

Considering you constantly get caught with your misleading, lying, and downright incorrect bullshit... I feel very comfortable with telling you to shut the fuck up, asshole

Considering you sit safely behind a keyboard in someone place unknown..you can do that all you want.

Won't work. But you are welcome to try.

And the fact is..Bush LOST the popular election..and won by some very dodgy legal shennigans.

This wasn't a first for Republicans, either.

You can bray on about how you guys got all this "popular" support..but when push comes to shove..you hang on to a system which is both antiquated, baffling and insures that every once in a while..someone will win without the popular vote.

All in the name of "protecting the minority".

You are living proof that brain cells are lost every day...

You simply either cannot understand how our 3 separate branches have 3 ways of selection and why, or you simply wish to ignore it for a stupid hyper-partisan talking point

And no, the electoral college does not ENSURE that it will happen once in a while... what it ensures is a differing way of selection and that the voices of the states (all of them... you know, those things that make up the country and that actually gave the federal government its power) are heard

Speak for yourself.

I've said that it insures this outcome will happen once in awhile and it has...twice.

It also insures that states with small populations and little skin in the game (as in they get back more from the fed then they put in) have more say then people with ALOT more skin in the game (as in they get back less then they put in).

Frankly..I don't give a fuck about some asshole in Montana that doesn't want rail, sewage or roads in his "Pristine" town..but wants boatloads of money to live in a place that does very little for the country. Heavens to betsy..I think MY VOTE should have as much weight as HIS VOTE.

Call me crazy.

 

[kaz]

Speak for yourself.

I've said that it insures this outcome will happen once in awhile and it has...twice.

It also insures that states with small populations and little skin in the game (as in they get back more from the fed then they put in) have more say then people with ALOT more skin in the game (as in they get back less then they put in).

Frankly..I don't give a fuck about some asshole in Montana that doesn't want rail, sewage or roads in his "Pristine" town..but wants boatloads of money to live in a place that does very little for the country. Heavens to betsy..I think MY VOTE should have as much weight as HIS VOTE.

Call me crazy.

Your knowledge (or lack thereof) of the English language is painful. It's "ensures" not "insures." Didn't you learn nothing in school?

 

[Sallow]

Oh please.

You guys are still sniveling about the ass kicking you got in the civil war.

QFMFT.

The Republicans got an ass kicking in the civil war?

No..but Conservatives did.

Big time.

 

[freedombecki]

Considering you sit safely behind a keyboard in someone place unknown..you can do that all you want.

Won't work. But you are welcome to try.

And the fact is..Bush LOST the popular election..and won by some very dodgy legal shennigans.

This wasn't a first for Republicans, either.

You can bray on about how you guys got all this "popular" support..but when push comes to shove..you hang on to a system which is both antiquated, baffling and insures that every once in a while..someone will win without the popular vote.

All in the name of "protecting the minority".

You are living proof that brain cells are lost every day...

You simply either cannot understand how our 3 separate branches have 3 ways of selection and why, or you simply wish to ignore it for a stupid hyper-partisan talking point

And no, the electoral college does not ENSURE that it will happen once in a while... what it ensures is a differing way of selection and that the voices of the states (all of them... you know, those things that make up the country and that actually gave the federal government its power) are heard

Speak for yourself.

I've said that it insures this outcome will happen once in awhile and it has...twice.

It also insures that states with small populations and little skin in the game (as in they get back more from the fed then they put in) have more say then people with ALOT more skin in the game (as in they get back less then they put in).

Frankly..I don't give a fuck about some asshole in Montana that doesn't want rail, sewage or roads in his "Pristine" town..but wants boatloads of money to live in a place that does very little for the country. Heavens to betsy..I think MY VOTE should have as much weight as HIS VOTE.

Call me crazy.

Mr. Sallow, I would not ever call you crazy. The world? Maybe, but not you. The Empire state has 31 votes to Montana's 4 votes in the electoral college. You could swamp them if you could coalesce with other large states with large state problems.

But look at Wyoming. Montana shoots buffalo that cross from Wyoming to their state. And they get 25% more sayso at the electoral college. Are we gonna quit? NO! We just put our cowgals at the border and tell the buffalo, "Go back, little dogies, go back."

You gotta do what ya gotta do.

 

[Sallow]

Speak for yourself.

I've said that it insures this outcome will happen once in awhile and it has...twice.

It also insures that states with small populations and little skin in the game (as in they get back more from the fed then they put in) have more say then people with ALOT more skin in the game (as in they get back less then they put in).

Frankly..I don't give a fuck about some asshole in Montana that doesn't want rail, sewage or roads in his "Pristine" town..but wants boatloads of money to live in a place that does very little for the country. Heavens to betsy..I think MY VOTE should have as much weight as HIS VOTE.

Call me crazy.

Your knowledge (or lack thereof) of the English language is painful. It's "ensures" not "insures." Didn't you learn nothing in school?

How about this.

Start an online english course and direct me to it.

Professor.

 

[Kuros]

Let's do this. Let's find out who on this thread has actually done the work and read Bush v. Gore and who is talking out of their asses.

Al Gore would have won THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE. But a partisan SCOTUS intervened and hijacked the election.

Sorry to throw water on your revisionist rant, but dude, the vote was 9-0. That means both sides voted against the Florida supreme court. How is a 9-0 vote "partisan" when both parties voted for it?

From the liberal dictionary: Partisan - I didn't like it...

I know Supreme Court cases are difficult. In Law School they taught us to count to 5. Well, in this case, to tally the total votes you had to count to 9. Did they teach you to do that in Business School? Let's learn by subtraction. How many dissents do we have below?

Souter's dissent in Bush v. Gore

Breyer's Dissent in Bush v. Gore

Steven's Dissent in Bush v. Gore

Ginsburg's Dissent in Bush v. Gore

Okay. A dissent means a judge offers an opinion that disagrees with the conclusion, or holding, of the decision. We have 4 dissents. Out of 9 votes. So that means the votes were 5-4.