doublegunshop.com - home Forums UH OH

Once again King, your knowledge of American political system is very flawed.The raciest Harry Reid "keeping my Wongs straight "has been blocking house bills for years.


http://www.nationalreview.com/article/368369/harry-reids-obstructionism-andrew-stiles

Harry Reid�s Obstructionism


Republicans complain that the media�s reporting on the �unprecedented obstructionism� of a �do-nothing Congress� has focused almost exclusively on GOP filibusters in the Senate and the refusal of the Republican-controlled House to take up Senate-passed bills, such as the Gang of Eight immigration-reform legislation. They note that House Republicans passed more than 200 bills in 2013, many of which Reid has refused to hold votes on in the Senate.

Reid has refused to bring up measures that would almost certainly pass with bipartisan support, such as legislation approving construction of the Keystone XL oil pipeline, or the aforementioned medical-device-tax repeal. He has also refused to consider legislation to impose new sanctions on Iran: A majority of Senate Democrats support the idea, but it�s strongly opposed by the White House. On the Iranian issue, Republicans have accused Reid of �playing defense for the president� against the wishes of his own conference.

The system is dysfunctional---admitted, confessed, acknowledged, castigated by the general public---because its political leaders put their interests before the country.

My understanding of the system isn't flawed because I don't acknowledge the opportunists by name. The public is fed up with finger-pointing when they're all doing it.

It's pulling down the country any way you cut it.

Ever wonder why you know these names and issues, but joe average voter does not. You make the informed decision to brush off real documented concerns as 'timid'. Does it matter in the slightest bit where any political leaders' interest lies. Since joe average can't investigate as an individual, maybe the small club referred to as the mainstream media proactively promotes an agenda above the interests of an entire nation.

Not so timid when folks will agree along and blame others for just pursuing their interests. Then again what interests are we thinking about, who says they're bad for the country and why. Maybe, you're right, the mainstream folks are too timid to share.

Craig, where does your "timid" come into the discussion? I've used the word describing US media as generally beholden to its advertisers and almost benign with political leadership even on late-night talk shows. There's nothing timid about your and others' opinions about the rights and wrong of the political or anything else.

Political leaders' interests certainly matter, as does media promoting dozens of agendas depending on owner interests. Both genuflect to powerful lobbies and others paying the bills as noted on another current Misfires thread concerning the plutocrats supporting liberal and conservative notions of governance.

Joe Average doesn't know what's really going on. If truth be told neither do I or you. Today we're told in Misfires accurately that the US backed the Iraq invasion. No one here should have forgotten the hokum that preceded it and later the misgivings of Colin Powell for his role in promoting it.

I read the book on US propaganda machinations by an US political science academic that General Powell gave to our Defence Minister, on a visit to Washington, who loaned it to me. Political schemes are sold like soap. Say it often enough, Joe Average will believe it.

Why King, 'timid' comes from you, but you throw me a curve ball. Benign? Is that a fundamental transformation of timid. When your was happy iraqi invader, G.Dubya, was a sitting president, the media got a giggle out of images of him burning in effigy. The benign response, eh.

Why would a politicians interests matter, when you've told us they lie, and it didn't matter. Maybe the media might unbenign and 'report' on the politicians real interest and their lies, and let folks decide instead of do the spoon feeding thing.

If you or I don't really know what's going on, as an insider, why do you suppose not. What's the purpose of 'news', just advertising dollars. Then again, there're a bunch of sayings like, if it quacks like a duck or peeing down my back or smell'in like poop, that there could be some fire where the smoke is billowing out uncontrollably.

I've noticed you like to repeat some things a lot. You're not one of those trying to get folks to buy in to your 'political schemes' are you.

Who'd buy into anything I say here, Craig! A liberal who says each one is responsible to everyone for everything, that politics is a punk's game, that the political system we have is unrepresentative but the best compared to the rest, that all politicians say things they know not to be true, that my 16 Parker hammer 0 grade is absolute magic---who'd believe that?

Comrade King,

The statement that "Each one is responsible to everyone for everything" is a massive sign of not only mental instability, but of an anti-intellectual, statist, religious belief. It is a belief of collectivism, not individualism. It is so preposterously subjective as to be beyond rational belief. Since there is obviously no possible way for an individual to be responsible to "everyone", what you really mean is that individuals are responsible to the State, and whatever sociopathic Neo-slavemasters who happen to be in charge. There is no aspect of individual freedom in your beliefs, you are merely another indoctrinated, religious, neostatist, pseudo-elitist who gleefully believes that the totalitarian state is "righteous and good". Since you think that these beliefs can be inflicted upon others against their will and at the expense of their individual freedom, it makes you a classic sociopath. A bigoted, racist, sexist, religious sociopath.

Whatever you call it, Ken, it's a tenet of Christianity which I believe, opposite of totalitarian materialism.

Comrade King,

You miss my point.

You and your statist, fundamentalist, religious ilk use the power of the State to force your beliefs upon others. This is typical for anti-intellectual religious zealots. It is this aspect that makes the difference between religious freedom and personal choice and freedom, as opposed to the actions of a totalitarian religious state. Since Christianity is about individual choice and a personal relationship with one's own deity, not the sociopathic infliction upon others, you do not fit the definition of a Christian.

I admire much of what Christians believe and do and participate in their work. I don't believe all of it so call myself an atheist.