Did the Republican senate ignore Americans, just to spite Obama?

1. 60

   IDONOposted 10 years ago

   Did the Republican senate ignore Americans, just to spite Obama?
   
   In the recent failure to pass new background checks for gun purchases, the Republican senate ignored the overwhelming support of the American citizens to pass this bill. This was done because they thought that a bipartisan passing of this bill would be viewed as a victory for President Obama. Many Republican Senators were in favor of it, but voted "no" per instruction of senate leaders. Are their resentments going too far?

   replyreport
2. 61

   RealityTalkposted 10 years ago

   I do not know if spite was in the minds of the Senators that voted no, but it would not surprise me.  Both parties spend more time battling each other and looking out for their own special interests (ties to corporate interests, and party survival and supremacy) than the time they spend on working at solving the problems of their constituents.
   
   More often than not it seems our politicians exist to satisfy their personal goals and not the objectives of the average citizen.  I think we should end party politics and elect non-party politicians.  These non-party politicians when in office should be paid a salary as now, but not be allowed to hold a position or own an interest in any business.  Their sole monetary income should be limited to the job of Congressman, Senator or whatever the political office held.  This might actually lead to an efficient and effective government that works for the people and actually gets things done.

   replyreport
   1. 60

      IDONOposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      Republicans must not have gotten the memo in 2nd grade that said that,"no one likes a sore loser or a bully". If they keep it up, their closest competition in the next election will be the Libertarian Party.

      replyreport
   2. 77

      Jack Burtonposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      That's hilarious when you compare it to the petulant, bitter response of Obama after the vote. We thought that he was going to actually break down and tell the public to just F off.

      replyreport
   3. 71

      stanwshuraposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      Are you serious?  If anything, one of Obama's obstacles is that he doesn't get in there 'n fight.  I love that he is so cerebral and cool, but there is a time to take off the gloves and turn up the heat.  He needs to kick some seriously feckless ass!

      replyreport
   4. 77

      Jack Burtonposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      You and Dowd are two of a kind...
      
      http://tinyurl.com/cnnpub3
      
      Same flawed thinking about a "community organizer" that you should have been smart enough to never back in the first place. What did you expect from someone who has never managed anyone?

      replyreport
   5. 59

      Superkevposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      Obama's biggest obstacle is that he is woefully out of his depth being POTUS and was never qualified to hold the position in the first place.
      
      Community organizer and Adjunct lecturer? Yeah, let's put him in charge.

      replyreport
   6. 60

      IDONOposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      I waited to pick "best answer" to confirm yours is best. Just read all the comments. Sounds like the Senate floor doesn't it? I guess it's assumed by some that I'm a Democrat. I am not.

      replyreport
3. 59

   Superkevposted 10 years ago

   The Senate is controlled by the Democrats. So blame them.
   
   Do you even know anything about politics or do you just blame everything you don't like on Republicans because that fits your agenda?

   replyreport
   1. 60

      IDONOposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      If you knew so much, you would know it took 60 votes to pass and Dems don't have that kind of control. My agenda is to improve the safety of Americans. Not the safety of some grumpy Republican's job. Thx for a typical, Republican answer.

      replyreport
   2. 77

      Jack Burtonposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      The Dems had 60 votes several years ago... and the House majority. If is was and is so important then why didn't they pass it then?And your "agenda" has everything to do with control and nothing with safety. Otherwise you wouldn't back a flawed law.

      replyreport
   3. 59

      Superkevposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      Your'e the one who very inaccurately termed it the "Republican Senate" when anyone who knows about politics knows that it is the DEMOCRAT controlled Senate. Careful, your agenda is showing.
      
      60 votes or not, your boys still control it. Chew on that.

      replyreport
   4. 60

      IDONOposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      Not so superkev, You know what I meant! The Republican Side of the Senate. As Jack would say, " excuuuuuuuuuuuuuse me!" It's a flawed society. Show me a perfect law. Now you're a mind reader too? Why are you on a site with us mindless morons?

      replyreport
   5. 59

      Superkevposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      No, I didn't know what you meant, I took you at your word.
      
      You called it a "Republican Senate" and I pointed out the inaccuracy of that statement. You didn't say the Republican side now did you?
      
      Nice try backtracking but sorry, ain't buying it.

      replyreport
4. 71

   stanwshuraposted 10 years ago

   This is without doubt.  Some Republican members of Congress have even admitted as much.  During Obama's first term, many of the same forsook their sworn duty to the American people with one goal:  making Obama a one-termer.  The evidence of this is widespread and far beyond the scope of, or space to answer, this question.

   replyreport
   1. 59

      Superkevposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      So, what was the issue with the Democrat Senators who voted against it? Are they racists perhaps?

      replyreport
   2. 77

      Jack Burtonposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      And just ~what~ do you suppose the "sworn duty" of a senator is, eh? I have never seen anything written down that Republicans are obligated to vote for programs that guarantee a Democrat will win the White House the next election.

      replyreport
   3. 71

      stanwshuraposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      Their sworn duty, eh, is to govern, eh, do America's business, eh, and serve the citizenry that, eh, got their sorry asses to Washington, eh.  It is NOT their job to obstruct for their own bitterness, advantage, or political gain, eh?

      replyreport
   4. 60

      IDONOposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      Do we have a bunch of Canadians here?  If Republicans want a chance at the next election, their only true example of an American is  Chris Christy of N.J. Or do Republicans hate him too because he puts his people before his politics? Race card? ???

      replyreport
   5. 77

      Jack Burtonposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      And ~your~ view of "governing" is, of course, to pass laws that ~you~ want. Other people "wants" are then just playing politics or being bitter. We see. It all becomes blindingly obvious now. "Governing" works only one way -- your way.

      replyreport
   6. 77

      Jack Burtonposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      Some people dislike Christie because they dislike his policies. Do you believe that every person who puts an "R" or "D" behind their name deserves the unwavering support of everyone in the party? Is there no room for disagreement?

      replyreport
   7. 71

      stanwshuraposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      Background checks are exclusively -my- way?  Seriously?

      replyreport
   8. 77

      Jack Burtonposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      Doesn't matter if it is exclusively "your way" or many other "people's way." A representative government is just that. Other people get to chime in.  And ~you~ don't get to choose which are the only voices who get heard or paid attention to.

      replyreport
   9. 71

      stanwshuraposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      You speak with forked tongue, grasshopper.  I just showed you that I was not speaking only for me, and you basically go nuh-uhhhh!  Very clever.

      replyreport
   10. 77

       Jack Burtonposted 10 years agoin reply to this

       Best you can do, eh, Stan. There's no wonder why you want to move the thread to me instead of about the topic. You really have nothing of value to add to it except bumper sticker slogans and emotional ffffeeellliiiinnngggsss. No logic, no reason.

       replyreport
   11. 71

       stanwshuraposted 10 years agoin reply to this

       Why don't you change your feckless content heretofore and lead by example, chief?  I mean, since I'm so obviously emotionally over-wrought!

       replyreport
   12. 77

       Jack Burtonposted 10 years agoin reply to this

       I'm not the one making up "sworn duties" that only apply to Republicans, eh.

       replyreport
   13. 71

       stanwshuraposted 10 years agoin reply to this

       Oh dear me, I must be getting me a bit o' the vapors!  This tawdry, awful m'ayan keeps teasing the facts!  Yo, chief, what I said is that "many members of congress forsook their sworn duty".  You are doing quite the act trying to hide that.  Et, tu?

       replyreport
   14. 77

       Jack Burtonposted 10 years agoin reply to this

       If you want to claim that it is okay with you that no Democrat senator can participate in any effort to make a Republican president a "one termer" I am jake with that. I still want to know exactly what that "sworn duty" is, though. Sure u can answer.

       replyreport
   15. 71

       stanwshuraposted 10 years agoin reply to this

       You ARE kidding, right?  Ever hear of an Oath of Office?  Let me help ya out.  Start with Article 6 of the United States Constitution.  I smell the end of this thread, folks, lest more chicanery lurks forthwith!

       replyreport
   16. 59

       Superkevposted 10 years agoin reply to this

       You mean the oath in which they promise to "Preserve, protect and defend the constitution of the United States"? That one?
       
       Sounds to me like that is exactly what they were doing in voting against infringement on our 2nd amendment rights.

       replyreport
   17. 71

       stanwshuraposted 10 years agoin reply to this

       yeah...and that part about a well-regulated militia is pretty keen, too.

       replyreport
   18. 59

       Superkevposted 10 years agoin reply to this

       "I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people except for a few public officials."
       George Mason
       
       Please, try to keep up, moving kinda fast here.

       replyreport
   19. 77

       Jack Burtonposted 10 years agoin reply to this

       poor stan...still doest't know after all these years since heller that the SC ruled 9-0 that the RKBA was individual and not connected to the militia...but he comments anyway. and he still can't explain what that sworn duty is

       replyreport
   20. 59

       Superkevposted 10 years agoin reply to this

       Not to mention that in the vernacular of the late 18th century "well regulated" meant well-equipped, not regulated by the government.
       
       The founding fathers indeed had little concept of government regulation over anything.

       replyreport
   21. 71

       stanwshuraposted 10 years agoin reply to this

       Superkev, I don't think Mr. Mason could have forseen Columbine or Newtown, do you?  As far as keeping up, Jackie boy is playing dumb to my rebuke.  Now say it with me, kids "O-a-t-h   o-f   O-f-f-i-c-e".  Very good, boys and girls!

       replyreport
   22. 59

       Superkevposted 10 years agoin reply to this

       They could not have foreseen Hustler or Playboy magazine either, yet the 1st amendment endures. Anymore hollow arguments you wish to try??

       replyreport
   23. 71

       stanwshuraposted 10 years agoin reply to this

       Ever hear of ancient Rome?  And the first nude was sculpted long before Jefferson and the boys were even thought of.  The 1st Amendment exists EXACTLY because they predicted differences of taste and opinion, including nudey mags.

       replyreport
   24. 77

       Jack Burtonposted 10 years agoin reply to this

       :-)
       
       Suddenly stans "sworn duty" just got morphed into a general "oath of office."  The fact is he has no clue as to what "sworn duty" he was making up from thin air, and after being confronted on it has continued to duck it. He simply cannot answer.

       replyreport
   25. 77

       Jack Burtonposted 10 years agoin reply to this

       Mr. Mason didn't foresee TV and the 'net either, but the 1st applies to both. And stan doesn't know that people could and did own cannons in 1790, which were perfectly capable of blowing down a school. Yet he comments anyway in his ignorance.

       replyreport
   26. 71

       stanwshuraposted 10 years agoin reply to this

       Whether you cannot or will not see the literal synonymy between oath and duty, you are either beyond help or just f/n around.  No matter which, I'm not playing your game anymore.  Point made, won and done.

       replyreport
   27. 77

       Jack Burtonposted 10 years agoin reply to this

       As duly noted, you cannot defend or actually give specifics of your mythical "sworn duty" of the Republicans not to oppose the agenda of a Democrat president. You've been given multiple chances and have failed to produce every single time.

       replyreport
5. 77

   Jack Burtonposted 10 years ago

   Why is ~any~ senator, regardless of party, seemingly obligated to vote for junk legislation that:
   
   1) has nothing to do with solving the problem of Sandy Hook, Auroura, Columbine, VA Tech and other mass type shootings
   
   2) had significant flaws that hampered the right of the people to keep and bear arms
   
   3) didn't have the support of the American people. No, that 90 percent figure was pretty much made up and bogus. If you ask a person "should people have a background check before guns are sold to them" WITHOUT telling them that this is the federal law of the land for the vast majority of gun sales then of course people will say "yes." I can get 90 percent of the public to agree to banning abortion if I get to be the person who words the question for them. Does that mean that congress should rush out and ban abortion?

   replyreport
   1. 60

      IDONOposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      No one said this would solve anything. But you have to start somewhere. We will never eradicate gun violence. But we can minimize it. I'm willing to have my rights "hampered" if it saves some lives. It's not a ban. It's regulation like abortion has.

      replyreport
   2. 77

      Jack Burtonposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      There ya go, Dear Readers. The actual mindset of the gun control community. "We don't care if it doesn't work as long as we can fffffeeeelllll gggggooooodddd about ddddoooiiiiingggg ssssoooommmmeeetttthhhiiiinnggg". Reality doesn't matter. to them.

      replyreport
   3. 60

      IDONOposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      Jack, Who the hell are you talking to, anyway? All I see is a lot of unnecessary letters with no content of value. Much like all the other comments coming from a Republican brat.

      replyreport
   4. 77

      Jack Burtonposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      Best you can do, eh, Idono.

      replyreport
6. 58

   taburkettposted 10 years ago

   as usual - when someone does not get their way - they play the blame-shame-game.
   USA politics is working just as designed.  Elected officials place their votes based on intelligence, not emotional characterization.
   Your "overwhelming support" evaluation has yet to be proven through truthful evaluation. 
   Besides, there is no need for another paper document that will only get dusty as it sits on the shelf with all the other previous documents that did little to stem the tide of violence.  Criminals never follow the law, so paper law will never curb the violence and provide the safety you desire.  If you wish to invoke true safety, then arm all law abiding citizens and present a law for "make my day".  This will stem most of those who wish to be violent because they do not wish to be confronted with any weapon.  Otherwise, they would not strike easy targets as they have always done.  Risk is elevated through weak leadership - that is why the nation is suffering such tragedy - and no amount of ridiculous paper is going to stop a criminal with a weapon.  The only thing that will protect you from a criminal with a weapon is better training with a better weapon.  Criminogenic factors indicate that criminals fear weapon carrying individuals.  Otherwise, why do they run from the law?

   replyreport
   1. 77

      Jack Burtonposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      If you want to see the depths of disgusting behavior the gun controllers descend into you only have to check this out...
      
      http://tinyurl.com/bu8gztf
      
      And they wonder why no one trusts them and they just can't get any traction with the public?

      replyreport
   2. 60

      IDONOposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      You can trust a criminal with a weapon, because he'll always be a criminal. Never trust an honest man with a weapon, because he can become a criminal at anytime.Is your town safer by not having speed limits? Or should I buy a faster car?

      replyreport
   3. 77

      Jack Burtonposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      Here's the extent of idono's illogic and unreason... "never trust an honest man with a peniis, because he can become a rapist at anytime." By his reasoning we should castrate all boys at age 14... after all, if it saves just one woman from rape...

      replyreport
   4. 77

      Jack Burtonposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      Speaking of speed limits, here's indono's solution to speeders. If the speed limit is 45, and people are going 55 on a regular basis, he would reduce the limit to 35 to make them stop. The concept of catching them and giving tickets is beyond him.

      replyreport
7. 67

   LandmarkWealthposted 10 years ago

   Those that opposed the bill were doing the American people a favor regardless of their motivations.  The Bill had virtually nothing to do with preventing people that shouldn't have firearms from getting them...and a lot to do with punishing law abiding citizens.  Just because you put a name on a bill and call it something, doesn't mean the actual text of the legislation does what it is marketed as supposedly doing.  We should have learned that from the "Affordable Care Act", which should have been titled the "Even More Unaffordable Care Act". 
   
   The President has for virtually his entire term been just throwning out titles for legislation that had nothing to do with what is actually drafted and proposed.  The gun bill is just another example.  Most of the time he has virtually nothing to do with how the legislation is even drafted.  He is more than happy to turn it over to Pelosi and Reid so he can rubber stamp it.  From the stimulus to the healthcare legislation, I have never seen a President who was so leaderless and uninvolved.
   
   In terms of spite, I have never seen an administration spite the American people more than this one.  When his scare tactics around sequestration proofed to be utter nonsense, he made sure...as many of us expected, that any reduction in spending would be directed in the places the American people would feel it most to punish them.  Meanwhile, with all of the redundancies across Federal agencies, the thought of cutting the infinite amount of waste was the furthest thing from his mind.

   replyreport