Re: Obama 9 -- Its Been a Whole Year Now
First off, let me say I fell asleep 20 minutes into the clown's State of the Union. Not because I didn't want to hear what he had to say, but because I was exhausted. I did hear at one point he was in favor of a new generation of nuclear power plants - kudos to him if he's serious, but I think he is lying.
And what about Pelosi lol? Did she have a spring under her butt? She was like a jack-in-the-box, jumping up high and proud every time Obama cranked the wheel... it was very funny/disturbing seeing one of our national "leaders" turned into such a puppet....
Anyway....
You're a little flawed in your logic. The country is split in half on whether they want Obama's agenda or not. That's never enough to get anything done. Many of Bush's successes were done through reconcillation. Example:
– The 2001 Bush Tax Cuts [HR 1836, 3/26/01]
– The 2003 Bush Tax Cuts [HR 2, 3/23/03]
– Tax Increase Prevention and Reconciliation Act of 2005 [HR 4297, 5/11/06]
– The Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 [H. Con Res. 95, 12/21/05]
Scoobs, everyone knows you are uneducated and stupid. Let me tell you why this is so in this particular case. The "reconciliation" process is meant ONLY as a budgetary tool. If it has happened in the past, that is why it has happened. This will be the first time in history the "nuclear option" will be used for something other than it was intended for. I won't contest all your citations, even though I should, knowing you they're probably all wrong. But it's irrelevant. Reconciliation has never been used the way the libs are threatening to do so in the history of the Union.
Funny, cause polls in Massachusetts say exactly the opposite, that they don't think Obama's been forceful enough, nor gone far enough in his policy goals.
But keep on believing what you want to believe, if it makes you feel all superior at the end of the day.
Someone's a wounded moron, lol.
Some of Obama's recent steps may be questionable in different ways...but the whole Brown episode is waay over done.
All Mass's politicians are liberal...and the 'conservatives' who aren't moderates are shown the door very quickly. Even one's like Romney who are a serious candidate for president.
Its very common for voters to look for balance...even in 2008 after the Bush era, many new Republicans were voted in as a balance to what would be an upcoming heavy Dem majority in the govt. In the Bush aftermath, I was ready to punish Republicans...but voted for new Republicans for this overall reason.
And he won with what 52%? That equates to a relatively small swing of voters.
So Brown's election was not a surprise...in fact piling on with more Dems at this point would have been. And a huge number of Mass voters were trying to do just that.
Don't be stupid. Brown was 30 points behind a month left before the elections - it the bluest of blue states. And all those voters in Coakley's camp bailed on her when Brown got his message out - again, in the bluest of blue states. And he won with 52%, correct, a solid victory nearing a landslide. 7 more days and he would have had 60% of the vote.
The only thing it proves is that a huge number of Mass voters rejected liberalism.
"combat troops" now we'll have 50,000 "advisors" there.
No. Everyone we have there are all combatants, not advisors.
![Smile :) :)](https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png)