Do Republicans believe in the politics of retaliation?

[OnePercenter]

It is combat with them. If the other person swings at you, even if it is only perceived, when they go past you clock 'em. You call retaliation, they call it politics, the only way they know how. The other thing is they have the "hidden hand" holding them up. Makes them fearful of discovery.

And the IRS attack on the Tea Party groups was??????

Kochbaggers? The right move.

 

[Missouri_Mike]

The need to "make them pay" bought Bush a useless war in Iraq with republicans, pretty easily it turns out. Played them like a cheap made-in-china war drum.

What was the Democrat plan for Iraq?

What the hell does it matter at this point? You assholes got your great patriotic republican war to avenge 9/11, wait, to get the WMDs, wait, to liberate the oppressed, yeah that's the ticket.,

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ny3bOmey-BE]Clinton Benghazi Testimony - What does it matter? - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Londoner]

Fun fact: Regime change in Iraq was voted on and made official federal policy in 1998.

Care to refresh our memory as to who the president who signed off on that was?

This actually a great point, and a true one.

Key members of what would later become Bush's defense team (Chaney, Bolton, Libby, & Wolfowitz) formed a group called PNAC (Policy for a New American Century) in the 90s. They wrote a very persuasive policy paper entitled "Rebuilding America's Defenses".

Click me to read it.

This paper makes the case that the energy resources in the Middle East are so vital to the US and Global Economy that controlling this region is key to American and global security. Furthermore, they make the case, again I think persuasively, that Hussein's Iraq is the most viable territory to seize. They also point out, again very persuasively, that Hussein was leading the charge to price oil in Euros rather than dollars, which would have a devastating effect on the American economy. Essentially, Hussein, whose country Clinton had bombed and starved for 8 years, was trying to leverage middle east energy resources against the US.

Clinton was persuaded by the Neocon argument for regime change, and thus he made regime change in Iraq and official US Policy. However, he did not take action because of CIA and Defense projections that it would be impossible to stabilize the country without incurring massive expenses and casualties; moreover, the pulverization of an ancient middle eastern city and the likelihood of a high body count would only serve to create more terrorism in the future, an unintended consequence that folks from Washington never seem to understand. This is the reason Bush 41 didn't invade Baghdad in Gulf War I - because he understood the limitations of Government. However, Chaney and Bush 43 (and their loyal followers here) had far more faith in Washington (which is ironic at first glance. But if you study the policies of Republican Presidents, you realize that they grow the power and budget of Washington far more than their democratic counterparts). So Bush/Chaney used 9/11 as a context to remove Hussein in order to create a US-friendly satellite state near the world's most necessary resource. The unintended consequence is that they dumped kerosene on the housing market to create a temporary prosperity bubble so that Americans would give them a second term... where they would ensure the survival of a failed war.

 

[HelenaHandbag]

Fun fact: Regime change in Iraq was voted on and made official federal policy in 1998.

Care to refresh our memory as to who the president who signed off on that was?

This actually a great point, and a true one.

Key members of what would later become Bush's defense team (Chaney, Bolton, Libby, & Wolfowitz) formed a group called PNAC (Policy for a New American Century) in the 90s. They wrote a very persuasive policy paper entitled "Rebuilding America's Defenses".

Click me to read it.

This paper makes the case that the energy resources in the Middle East are so vital to the US and Global Economy that controlling this region is key to American and global security. Furthermore, they make the case, again I think persuasively, that Hussein's Iraq is the most viable territory to seize. They also point out, again very persuasively, that Hussein was leading the charge to price oil in Euros rather than dollars, which would have a devastating effect on the American economy. Essentially, Hussein, whose country Clinton had bombed and starved for 8 years, was trying to leverage middle east energy resources against the US.

Clinton was persuaded by the Neocon argument for regime change, and thus he made regime change in Iraq and official US Policy. However, he did not take action because of CIA and Defense projections that it would be impossible to stabilize the country without incurring massive expenses and casualties; moreover, the pulverization of an ancient middle eastern city and the likelihood of a high body count would only serve to create more terrorism in the future, an unintended consequence that folks from Washington never seem to understand. This is the reason Bush 41 didn't invade Baghdad in Gulf War I - because he understood the limitations of Government. However, Chaney and Bush 43 (and their loyal followers here) had far more faith in Washington (which is ironic at first glance. But if you study the policies of Republican Presidents, you realize that they grow the power and budget of Washington far more than their democratic counterparts). So Bush/Chaney used 9/11 as a context to remove Hussein in order to create a US-friendly satellite state near the world's most necessary resource. The unintended consequence is that they dumped kerosene on the housing market to create a temporary prosperity bubble so that Americans would give them a second term... where they would ensure the survival of a failed war.

Good grief, you liberal nutbars can't stop blaming Bush for everything bad that happens, even stuff from BEFORE he was president.

Be that as it may, Clinton didn't need to be persuaded. He had kept Bush 41's policies regarding Iraq in full force for the entire 8 years of his presidency. Likewise, those policies were used as a convenient shield (i.e. tossing a few cruise missiles at Baghdad) whenever he felt the need to get his zipper off the front pages of newspapers. Moreover, the list of democrats who were beating the war drum in 1998 is so long and well known, that posting the quotes from the various political figures would be a dreary exercise in redundancy.

 

[LoneLaugher]

It is combat with them. If the other person swings at you, even if it is only perceived, when they go past you clock 'em. You call retaliation, they call it politics, the only way they know how. The other thing is they have the "hidden hand" holding them up. Makes them fearful of discovery.

And the IRS attack on the Tea Party groups was??????

A fabrication.

 

[Mac1958]

.

Good gawd. Politicians lie, straight to your face. They manipulate, they retaliate, they intimidate, they stretch the rules, they break the rules, they do whatever it takes to achieve and maintain power.

Some get caught, some don't, and the partisans on the "other side" always act just so ******* indignant. Oh my! This time it's different! This time it's really bad!

Partisan politics = Professional wrestling.

Freakin' joke.

.

 

[HelenaHandbag]

The need to "make them pay" bought Bush a useless war in Iraq with republicans, pretty easily it turns out. Played them like a cheap made-in-china war drum.

What was the Democrat plan for Iraq?

What the hell does it matter at this point? You assholes got your great patriotic republican war to avenge 9/11, wait, to get the WMDs, wait, to liberate the oppressed, yeah that's the ticket.,

How many Senate democrats voted for that war, sport?

 

[Statistikhengst]

troll thread.

Perhaps, perhaps not.

Can you dispute or disprove what the OP says?

The Politics of Retaliiation has existed for a long time, in both parties, for instances.

The antics of Democratic controlled "Tammany Hall" are legendary.

But so are the antics of the Republican crew that caused the "Teapot Scandal" that engulfed Warren Harding's administration.

So, counter-evidence?

 

[Politico]

No.

 

[Statistikhengst]

What does Chris Christie have to do with the Republican Party?
Does the Democratic Party believe in the politics of bribery and payoffs?

Well, let's see, Rabbi:

1.) He's a registered Republican
2.) He ran on and won - as a REPUBLICAN - the Governorship of NJ, twice.
3.) He was the KEYNOTE speaker for the 2012 Republican National Convention.

He may not be your kind of Republican, but he is definitely a Republican.

Time for Righties to grow up and not play this kind of nonsense.

 

[Statistikhengst]

Hoboken NJ suffered major structural damage because of Sandy, worse than the majority of cities in NJ. The city was 80% under water. The mayor of Hoboken, Dawn Zimmer, scheduled a meeting to discuss getting a small portion of NJ's massive Federal Relief Fund, which was supposed to be allocated judiciously based on need. The meeting turned into a solicitation by the Christie administration for an endorsement for the upcoming election. The mayor of Hoboken, a democrat, said she would be supporting her own party in the election. She reports that Christie “was quite disappointed”. The mayor of Hoboken went on to say that Christie kept asking for the endorsement, almost if it was a "pay to play" deal. Then, because the mayor of Hoboken chose to support her party's gubernatorial candidate, her city only received 1% of what it asked for, which has left it terribly in debt. Meanwhile some cities inland, supporters of Christie, received more than they requested or needed.

Christie’s retaliation on Hoboken hurt innocent citizens who not only had to endure massive delays in getting repairs, but their city now faces terrible revenue problems, the consequences of which will plague the city for quite a while.

The new mayor of Jersey City NJ Steve Fulop, also a Democrat, scheduled a number of meetings with state officials and agencies. These meetings were intended to establish working relationships with agencies that provide necessary services to his city and its citizens. One of the meetings was scheduled to obtain relief funds for Hurricane Sandy. Once the meetings were fixed on the calendar, the Christie team solicited Fulop’s endorsement. He too said that he had to support the Democratic candidate for Governor. Within the hour of notifying the Christie team that he would be unable to provide an endorsement, the various state official with whom a meeting was scheduled called to cancel all the meetings, with no promise to re-schedule.

Christie’s retaliation on Jersey City hurt innocent citizens.

It appears that Christie created a very punitive “pay to play” retaliation machine. Either you kiss his ring, or he hurts the innocent Americans in your district. Thank god this guy's presidential run is over.

My question: is there a culture within the Republican Party that fosters partisan retaliation and the abuse of government power, or, is this an exception to rule? Discuss.

You wouldn't waste your time asking of the Democrat Party has such a culture because there is no question that it does. In fact, it goes much further than "retaliation." Democrats do everything they can to destroy their opponents, not just defeat them.

They are filthy, sleazy disgusting vermin. Most of them belong in prison.

Hey, you got any facts to go with that whine?

You make broad generalizations about a large swath of the national population just because you decide that you hate them? Wow.....

Oh, hey, yer the dude who started the crazy-assed thread claiming that DEMS were being overrepresented (oversampled) in polls and therefore, Romney was gonna win....

Oh, this is gonna be fun.



Proceed, Bripat, proceed.

 

[Statistikhengst]

Hoboken NJ suffered major structural damage because of Sandy, worse than the majority of cities in NJ. The city was 80% under water. The mayor of Hoboken, Dawn Zimmer, scheduled a meeting to discuss getting a small portion of NJ's massive Federal Relief Fund, which was supposed to be allocated judiciously based on need. The meeting turned into a solicitation by the Christie administration for an endorsement for the upcoming election. The mayor of Hoboken, a democrat, said she would be supporting her own party in the election. She reports that Christie “was quite disappointed”. The mayor of Hoboken went on to say that Christie kept asking for a public endorsement (for the upcoming election), almost if it was a "pay to play" deal. Then, because the mayor of Hoboken chose to support her party's gubernatorial candidate, her city only received 1% of what it asked for, which has left it terribly in debt. Meanwhile some cities inland, supporters of Christie, received more than they requested or needed.

Christie’s retaliation on Hoboken hurt innocent citizens who not only had to endure massive delays in getting repairs, but their city now faces terrible revenue problems, the consequences of which will plague the city for quite a while.

The new mayor of Jersey City NJ Steve Fulop, also a Democrat, scheduled a number of meetings with state officials and agencies. These meetings were intended to establish working relationships with agencies that provide necessary services to his city and its citizens. One of the meetings was scheduled to obtain relief funds for Hurricane Sandy. Once the meetings were fixed on the calendar, the Christie team solicited Fulop’s endorsement. He too said that he had to support the Democratic candidate for Governor. Within the hour of notifying the Christie team that he would be unable to provide an endorsement, the various state official with whom a meeting was scheduled called to cancel all the meetings, with no promise to re-schedule.

Christie’s retaliation on Jersey City hurt innocent citizens.

It appears that Christie created a very punitive “pay to play” retaliation machine. Either you kiss his ring, or he hurts the innocent Americans in your district. Thank god this guy's presidential run is over.

My question: is there a culture within the Republican Party that fosters partisan retaliation and the abuse of government power, or, is this an exception to rule? Discuss.

Punish our enemies and reward our friends- Obama

Only 12 seconds and taken out of context.

 

[HelenaHandbag]

troll thread.

Perhaps, perhaps not.

Can you dispute or disprove what the OP says?

The Politics of Retaliiation has existed for a long time, in both parties, for instances.

The antics of Democratic controlled "Tammany Hall" are legendary.

But so are the antics of the Republican crew that caused the "Teapot Scandal" that engulfed Warren Harding's administration.

So, counter-evidence?

The republican policy of appeasement and capitulation, that has been in place for most of the time from the Eisenhower administration until today.

And while you can, yes, find a few scattered examples of token resistance (the 1995 government shutdown, for example) and a scattered few individuals (like Nixon) who sought to use their power to destroy their perceived enemies, the overall theme of the GOP has been that of general mollification of the left.

 

[Statistikhengst]

Do Republicans believe in the politics of retaliation?

No. They believe in the politics of capitulation and appeasement.

They have tragically low self-esteem and don't want to get called big meanies, by the democrats and their army of media stooges.

Capitulation and appeasment? Really?


Hmmmm... hardly. There has never before been an oppostion party so voracious and vicious as the GOP of the last 5 years.

You live in the same universe as we do?

 

[Mac1958]

Hoboken NJ suffered major structural damage because of Sandy, worse than the majority of cities in NJ. The city was 80% under water. The mayor of Hoboken, Dawn Zimmer, scheduled a meeting to discuss getting a small portion of NJ's massive Federal Relief Fund, which was supposed to be allocated judiciously based on need. The meeting turned into a solicitation by the Christie administration for an endorsement for the upcoming election. The mayor of Hoboken, a democrat, said she would be supporting her own party in the election. She reports that Christie “was quite disappointed”. The mayor of Hoboken went on to say that Christie kept asking for a public endorsement (for the upcoming election), almost if it was a "pay to play" deal. Then, because the mayor of Hoboken chose to support her party's gubernatorial candidate, her city only received 1% of what it asked for, which has left it terribly in debt. Meanwhile some cities inland, supporters of Christie, received more than they requested or needed.

Christie’s retaliation on Hoboken hurt innocent citizens who not only had to endure massive delays in getting repairs, but their city now faces terrible revenue problems, the consequences of which will plague the city for quite a while.

The new mayor of Jersey City NJ Steve Fulop, also a Democrat, scheduled a number of meetings with state officials and agencies. These meetings were intended to establish working relationships with agencies that provide necessary services to his city and its citizens. One of the meetings was scheduled to obtain relief funds for Hurricane Sandy. Once the meetings were fixed on the calendar, the Christie team solicited Fulop’s endorsement. He too said that he had to support the Democratic candidate for Governor. Within the hour of notifying the Christie team that he would be unable to provide an endorsement, the various state official with whom a meeting was scheduled called to cancel all the meetings, with no promise to re-schedule.

Christie’s retaliation on Jersey City hurt innocent citizens.

It appears that Christie created a very punitive “pay to play” retaliation machine. Either you kiss his ring, or he hurts the innocent Americans in your district. Thank god this guy's presidential run is over.

My question: is there a culture within the Republican Party that fosters partisan retaliation and the abuse of government power, or, is this an exception to rule? Discuss.

Punish our enemies and reward our friends- Obama

Is that an exact quote? Gotta link?

Or are you just lying out your ass?

[ame="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=riVzMzX4hiE"]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=riVzMzX4hiE[/ame]

 

[NoNukes]

It is combat with them. If the other person swings at you, even if it is only perceived, when they go past you clock 'em. You call retaliation, they call it politics, the only way they know how. The other thing is they have the "hidden hand" holding them up. Makes them fearful of discovery.

And the IRS attack on the Tea Party groups was??????

There were left wing groups investigated also, so what is your point?

 

[Statistikhengst]

Fun fact: Regime change in Iraq was voted on and made official federal policy in 1998.

Care to refresh our memory as to who the president who signed off on that was?

This actually a great point, and a true one.

Key members of what would later become Bush's defense team (Chaney, Bolton, Libby, & Wolfowitz) formed a group called PNAC (Policy for a New American Century) in the 90s. They wrote a very persuasive policy paper entitled "Rebuilding America's Defenses".

Click me to read it.

This paper makes the case that the energy resources in the Middle East are so vital to the US and Global Economy that controlling this region is key to American and global security. Furthermore, they make the case, again I think persuasively, that Hussein's Iraq is the most viable territory to seize. They also point out, again very persuasively, that Hussein was leading the charge to price oil in Euros rather than dollars, which would have a devastating effect on the American economy. Essentially, Hussein, whose country Clinton had bombed and starved for 8 years, was trying to leverage middle east energy resources against the US.

Clinton was persuaded by the Neocon argument for regime change, and thus he made regime change in Iraq and official US Policy. However, he did not take action because of CIA and Defense projections that it would be impossible to stabilize the country without incurring massive expenses and casualties; moreover, the pulverization of an ancient middle eastern city and the likelihood of a high body count would only serve to create more terrorism in the future, an unintended consequence that folks from Washington never seem to understand. This is the reason Bush 41 didn't invade Baghdad in Gulf War I - because he understood the limitations of Government. However, Chaney and Bush 43 (and their loyal followers here) had far more faith in Washington (which is ironic at first glance. But if you study the policies of Republican Presidents, you realize that they grow the power and budget of Washington far more than their democratic counterparts). So Bush/Chaney used 9/11 as a context to remove Hussein in order to create a US-friendly satellite state near the world's most necessary resource. The unintended consequence is that they dumped kerosene on the housing market to create a temporary prosperity bubble so that Americans would give them a second term... where they would ensure the survival of a failed war.

Good grief, you liberal nutbars can't stop blaming Bush for everything bad that happens, even stuff from BEFORE he was president.

Be that as it may, Clinton didn't need to be persuaded. He had kept Bush 41's policies regarding Iraq in full force for the entire 8 years of his presidency. Likewise, those policies were used as a convenient shield (i.e. tossing a few cruise missiles at Baghdad) whenever he felt the need to get his zipper off the front pages of newspapers. Moreover, the list of democrats who were beating the war drum in 1998 is so long and well known, that posting the quotes from the various political figures would be a dreary exercise in redundancy.

NO, he brought it up because YOU mentioned 1998, which automatically brings a time-line to the present day with it. And President Bush is also a part of that time-line. Tough for you if you don't like it. Good grief, you should at least know that when you start that kind of stuff, people are gonna respond.

And the PNAC DID play a role in all of this.

 

[mudwhistle]

The Clinton Administration took all of the Ws off of the typewriters when they left office and trashed the place. Bush said, forget it and just move on.

Robert Gates said that every meeting with the president (Obama) began with a period of Bush-bashing.

Yup, the Repugs are vindictive Mofos, aren't they.

 

[HelenaHandbag]

Do Republicans believe in the politics of retaliation?

No. They believe in the politics of capitulation and appeasement.

They have tragically low self-esteem and don't want to get called big meanies, by the democrats and their army of media stooges.

Capitulation and appeasment? Really?


Hmmmm... hardly. There has never before been an oppostion party so voracious and vicious as the GOP of the last 5 years.

You live in the same universe as we do?

Oh, please.

They're all voracious and vicious, right up until the time that it comes for them to fold up like pup tents.

The question about who is living in the same universe is the height of irony.

 

[Statistikhengst]

Punish our enemies and reward our friends- Obama

Is that an exact quote? Gotta link?

Or are you just lying out your ass?

[ame="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=riVzMzX4hiE"]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=riVzMzX4hiE[/ame]

Thank you very much. Yes, Obama did say that, but in context of quoting what a voter group, namely Latinos, might think. He did not say that HE would do it. The audio from the video makes that quite clear.

You just supported my argument. Thanks!!!