PDA

View Full Version : White House privately briefed Boehner on speech



Qtec
09-01-2011, 03:25 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Multiple reporters—Sam Stein, Sam Youngman, and Glenn Thrush— report that Obama administration officials tell them that John Boehner was privately briefed about the timing of President Obama's jobs speech request and that he voiced no objections until rejecting the request this afternoon.

Boehner's office concedes that it was briefed ahead of time, but denies agreeing to the date. <u>But even if they didn't explicitly agree to the schedule, unless they voiced an objection, they were quite clearly operating in bad faith.</u>

But all that is really beside the point. <span style='font-size: 14pt'>For what is almost certainly the first time in the history of our nation, the Speaker of the House has rejected a request from the President to speak on a matter of great national urgency. Everything else about this story is noise.</span> </div></div>

The GOP, no class.

Q

LWW
09-01-2011, 03:33 AM
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_Vr8Xl0cbUZA/SKU0tfFnbkI/AAAAAAAAC24/dGOeRLtFBus/s400/This+Is+An+Outrage.jpg

<span style='font-size: 26pt'><span style='font-family: Comic Sans MS'>HOW DARE THESE JINGOIST, RACIST, SEXIST, HOMOPHOBIC, XENOPHOBIC, CLAUSTROPHOBIC, HOMICIDAL, GENOCIDAL, SUICIDAL, DANCE RECITAL TEA BAGGERS NOT BOW TO THE WILL OF DEAR LEADER!</span></span>

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_Vr8Xl0cbUZA/SKU0tfFnbkI/AAAAAAAAC24/dGOeRLtFBus/s400/This+Is+An+Outrage.jpg

Qtec
09-01-2011, 03:33 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Of course, this is the same exact John Boehner who didn't even watch the first Republican Presidential debate:</div></div>

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">House Speaker John Boehner, the highest-ranking Republican in the country, decided not to watch Thursday night's debate among Republican presidential contenders, the first debate of the 2012 presidential cycle.

<span style='font-size: 14pt'>Hotsheet spotted Boehner at Morton's The Steakhouse on Connecticut Avenue in Washington enjoying a bottle of Cabernet - and a couple of cigarettes.

Speaking of the debate, Boehner told Hotsheet that he will "read about it tomorrow."</span> </div></div>


Q

LWW
09-01-2011, 03:36 AM
http://i357.photobucket.com/albums/oo19/onebadgungan/fark/SouthPark-NotThisShitAgain.jpg

Qtec
09-01-2011, 03:43 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">A senior Democratic aide, granted anonymity to explain the sequence of events honestly, does not dispute that the White House acted hastily.

"I would acknowledge that," the source said. But the broader point, according to the same source, and as confirmed by both House and Senate historians, is that the President has always been allowed to convene a joint session at his pleasure.

"Both sides are citing precedent and protocol. I think both arguments have point," the source said. "When the President requests to address Congress, Congress accommodates -- that's the most important precedent point. Does Boehner know whether or how President Coolidge consulted Speaker Longworth?"

The offices of both Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) confirm that Boehner did not ask them to sign off on the delay.

"The childish behavior coming out of the Speaker's office today is truly historic," said another senior Dem aide. <span style='font-size: 14pt'>"It is unprecedented to reject the date that a President wants to address a Joint Session of the Congress. People die and state funerals are held with less fuss, so the logistics excuse by the Speaker's office is laughable. Yes, consultation always occurs, <u>but the President always gets the date he wants.</u>"</span> </div></div>


Q

LWW
09-01-2011, 03:48 AM
http://mittromneycentral.com/uploads/000-0908110149.jpg

LWW
09-01-2011, 04:13 AM
http://michellemalkin.cachefly.net/michellemalkin.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/obama-bow.jpg

Soflasnapper
09-01-2011, 10:21 AM
Let's review.

Never before has a Speaker of the House declined a request by the WH to address a joint Congressional gathering, even as to its timing.

Never before has such a president making this request been other than a wholly white man.

Some may draw a connection, but of course, that would be horrible.

Gayle in MD
09-01-2011, 10:30 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Of course, this is the same exact John Boehner who didn't even watch the first Republican Presidential debate:</div></div>

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">House Speaker John Boehner, the highest-ranking Republican in the country, decided not to watch Thursday night's debate among Republican presidential contenders, the first debate of the 2012 presidential cycle.

<span style='font-size: 14pt'>Hotsheet spotted Boehner at Morton's The Steakhouse on Connecticut Avenue in Washington enjoying a bottle of Cabernet - and a couple of cigarettes.

Speaking of the debate, Boehner told Hotsheet that he will "read about it tomorrow."</span> </div></div>


Q </div></div>

How does he get away with smoking inside a restaurant?

Gayle in MD
09-01-2011, 10:33 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">A senior Democratic aide, granted anonymity to explain the sequence of events honestly, does not dispute that the White House acted hastily.

"I would acknowledge that," the source said. But the broader point, according to the same source, and as confirmed by both House and Senate historians, is that the President has always been allowed to convene a joint session at his pleasure.

"Both sides are citing precedent and protocol. I think both arguments have point," the source said. "When the President requests to address Congress, Congress accommodates -- that's the most important precedent point. Does Boehner know whether or how President Coolidge consulted Speaker Longworth?"

The offices of both Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) confirm that Boehner did not ask them to sign off on the delay.

"The childish behavior coming out of the Speaker's office today is truly historic," said another senior Dem aide. <span style='font-size: 14pt'>"It is unprecedented to reject the date that a President wants to address a Joint Session of the Congress. People die and state funerals are held with less fuss, so the logistics excuse by the Speaker's office is laughable. Yes, consultation always occurs, <u>but the President always gets the date he wants.</u>"</span> </div></div>


Q </div></div>

And this is not the first time that Boehner, and Republicans have insulted the Office of The Presidency.

Immoral PIGS!

Gayle in MD
09-01-2011, 10:34 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Let's review.

Never before has a Speaker of the House declined a request by the WH to address a joint Congressional gathering, even as to its timing.

Never before has such a president making this request been other than a wholly white man.

Some may draw a connection, but of course, that would be horrible. </div></div>

The racism, sexism and misogyny of the Republican Party, is on display, daily.


G.

LWW
09-01-2011, 11:22 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Let's review.

Never before has a Speaker of the House declined a request by the WH to address a joint Congressional gathering, even as to its timing.

Never before has such a president making this request been other than a wholly white man.

Some may draw a connection, but of course, that would be horrible. </div></div>

Never before has a POTUS requested such a gathering for raw partisan reasons so as to disrupt his political opposition.

Now ... tell me again about how you don't slavishly take the Obama regime's side.

Soflasnapper
09-01-2011, 12:37 PM
Never before has a POTUS requested such a gathering for raw partisan reasons so as to disrupt his political opposition.

Now ... tell me again about how you don't slavishly take the Obama regime's side.

Actually, there is no evidence for either of those propositions in this case. The 'partisan reason' you speak of is to propose a jobs program, from what I've heard. A jobs program that both parties say they want (or at least, both say they want policies promoting jobs).

Obama's 'political opposition' sits in Congress, and his address TO THEM hardly disrupts them. It is far from clear that any of the chuckleheads in the debate will even win their party's nomination, nor would his speech 'disrupt' their little circle jerk, which would be held and televised as planned. If the result was fewer people watching idiocy on parade, it would probably do all of them a favor. In any case, it's one of how many scheduled debates (and how many have we had already)?

As for my defending him, I said nothing about him, and instead dryly stated some facts, and specifically declined to draw a conclusion from them. Double fail for your alleged points.

LWW
09-01-2011, 02:57 PM
So ,any errors ... where do I begin?

How about at the beginning:

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Never before has a POTUS requested such a gathering for raw partisan reasons so as to disrupt his political opposition.

Now ... tell me again about how you don't slavishly take the Obama regime's side.

Actually, there is no evidence for either of those propositions in this case.</div></div>

Actually ... the evidence in in abundance. You ... with the rare exception of criticizing him for not being far enough out in the left field parking lot ... always take the current regime's side. That and the date of this debate has been set for months.

A speech by the POTUS would undoubtedly take away viewership and lessen the debate as a news story ... which would minimize the dispersion of whatever criticism of Obama might be wielded at said debate. I'm sure we can agree that criticism will be wielded.

LWW
09-01-2011, 03:01 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The 'partisan reason' you speak of is to propose a jobs program, from what I've heard. A jobs program that both parties say they want (or at least, both say they want policies promoting jobs).</div></div>

The partisan reason is well known and we both are smart enough to know that you know what it is.

Also, OIMHO, there will be no "JOBS PROGRAM" ... but instead another call for a stimulus package to obliterate all semblance of fiscal responsibility.

The next partisan part is that as the economy continues to flounder due to the regime's already implemented offensive in the war on prosperity, the regime will absolve their own selves of all blame and assign said blame to the failure of the new stimulus to get through a quasi sane congress.

The next partisan part is that the Obamatrons will lick the spoon clean of this "TRUTH" and beg for more.

LWW
09-01-2011, 03:03 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Obama's 'political opposition' sits in Congress, and his address TO THEM hardly disrupts them. It is far from clear that any of the chuckleheads in the debate will even win their party's nomination, nor would his speech 'disrupt' their little circle jerk, which would be held and televised as planned. If the result was fewer people watching idiocy on parade, it would probably do all of them a favor. In any case, it's one of how many scheduled debates (and how many have we had already)?</div></div>

Nice partisan rant ... I have came to expect no less.

LWW
09-01-2011, 03:03 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">As for my defending him, I said nothing about him, and instead dryly stated some facts, and specifically declined to draw a conclusion from them. Double fail for your alleged points. </div></div>

I don't believe that even you believe that.

Soflasnapper
09-01-2011, 04:09 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">So ,any errors ... where do I begin?

How about at the beginning:

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Never before has a POTUS requested such a gathering for raw partisan reasons so as to disrupt his political opposition.

Now ... tell me again about how you don't slavishly take the Obama regime's side.

Actually, there is no evidence for either of those propositions in this case.</div></div>

Actually ... the evidence in in abundance. You ... with the rare exception of criticizing him for not being far enough out in the left field parking lot ... always take the current regime's side. That and the date of this debate has been set for months.

A speech by the POTUS would undoubtedly take away viewership and lessen the debate as a news story ... which would minimize the dispersion of whatever criticism of Obama might be wielded at said debate. I'm sure we can agree that criticism will be wielded. </div></div>

You missed the qualifying phrase, 'in this case.'

NBC and Politico, the sponsors of the GOP candidates debate, had already agreed to push their start time back 1/2 hour or so, in which case there would be no conflict in viewers seeing either one they chose.

Apparently, by the time line, Rush had yelled about this announced speech from 12-3 pm (Carney announced it before noon to the press), in which he called for 'putting this guy in his place,' and denying him an alleged political 'win.' (Heard the audio already). Boehner and Co. heard their marching orders, so as of 4 pm, announced they were saying no to the time, after having raised no objections as of their discussion with Obama at 10:30 am or so.

I will now offer an unusual sincere bit of advice to the GOP. Stop taking marching orders from Limbaugh. He is not a popular figure in America by the numbers for vs. against, and he has not a bit of civility in him. It is a very bad mistake to think he represents the country at large. However much he is invulnerable to backlashes himself in his career, that doesn't apply to public leaders taking cues from his directives.

Soflasnapper
09-01-2011, 04:11 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">As for my defending him, I said nothing about him, and instead dryly stated some facts, and specifically declined to draw a conclusion from them. Double fail for your alleged points. </div></div>

I don't believe that even you believe that. </div></div>

Since I can read, and can remember what I typed a few hours back at most, I refer you to my text (above), and rest my case.

Said NOTHING about defending Obama, and mentioned two facts about this case.

ugotda7
09-01-2011, 04:56 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Multiple reporters—Sam Stein, Sam Youngman, and Glenn Thrush— report that Obama administration officials tell them that John Boehner was privately briefed about the timing of President Obama's jobs speech request and that he voiced no objections until rejecting the request this afternoon.

Boehner's office concedes that it was briefed ahead of time, but denies agreeing to the date. <u>But even if they didn't explicitly agree to the schedule, unless they voiced an objection, they were quite clearly operating in bad faith.</u>

But all that is really beside the point. <span style='font-size: 14pt'>For what is almost certainly the first time in the history of our nation, the Speaker of the House has rejected a request from the President to speak on a matter of great national urgency. Everything else about this story is noise.</span> </div></div>

The GOP, no class.

Q </div></div>

Urgency? What about that vacation.....was that also urgent?

The left, dumb as a box or rocks.

ugotda7
09-01-2011, 04:57 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Let's review.

Never before has a Speaker of the House declined a request by the WH to address a joint Congressional gathering, even as to its timing.

Never before has such a president making this request been other than a wholly white man.

Some may draw a connection, but of course, that would be horrible. </div></div>

How freakin' pathetic you are....take your race card and F off.

Soflasnapper
09-01-2011, 06:30 PM
Urgency? What about that vacation.....was that also urgent?

The left, dumb as a box or rocks.

The CONGRESS went on vacation for 5 weeks, as they typically do, during a time known as 'summer recess.' Of course the president picked the same timing, although his planned time off was going to be shorter. And perhaps you noticed, he cut it short to go to the hurricane emergency command center?

Do you mean to suggest he could have addressed the Congress when they weren't scheduled to be in town? Perhaps by calling a special session just for that purpose?

In this case, Obama simply picked the first day the Congress came back into session, because there was only 1 OTHER day they were working this first 'week' back, and then they were off for ANOTHER week off.

Soflasnapper
09-01-2011, 06:33 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: ugotda7</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Let's review.

Never before has a Speaker of the House declined a request by the WH to address a joint Congressional gathering, even as to its timing.

Never before has such a president making this request been other than a wholly white man.

Some may draw a connection, but of course, that would be horrible. </div></div>

How freakin' pathetic you are....take your race card and F off. </div></div>

So you are drawing that conclusion? I'm not. I said it would be horrible to do so.

Maybe Limbaugh is. He said Obama should be 'put in his place.' He said it might be called racist, but he didn't care.

Qtec
09-01-2011, 08:46 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">... which would minimize the dispersion of whatever criticism of Obama might be wielded at said debate. <u>I'm sure we can agree that criticism will be wielded. </u></div></div>

They do that everyday!

Q

Qtec
09-01-2011, 08:48 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Obama's 'political opposition' sits in Congress, and his address TO THEM hardly disrupts them. It is far from clear that any of the chuckleheads in the debate will even win their party's nomination, nor would his speech 'disrupt' their little circle jerk, which would be held and televised as planned. If the result was fewer people watching idiocy on parade, it would probably do all of them a favor. </div></div>

LOL


Q

ugotda7
09-01-2011, 09:50 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: ugotda7</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Let's review.

Never before has a Speaker of the House declined a request by the WH to address a joint Congressional gathering, even as to its timing.

Never before has such a president making this request been other than a wholly white man.

Some may draw a connection, but of course, that would be horrible. </div></div>

How freakin' pathetic you are....take your race card and F off. </div></div>

So you are drawing that conclusion? I'm not. I said it would be horrible to do so.

Maybe Limbaugh is. He said Obama should be 'put in his place.' He said it might be called racist, but he didn't care.

</div></div>

You're casting it out there looking for a bite. Don't kid yourself and don't think you're kidding anybody else. We all know what you're implying and it's pathetic.

LWW
09-02-2011, 02:09 AM
That was an Alinsky tactic he used ... wanting someone to defend a position taken by nobody.

To the Obamatron crowd, the denial of the accusation of racist intent is determined to be prima facie evidence of the ridiculous claim being true.

Qtec
09-02-2011, 05:45 AM
link to Rush video (http://www.mediaite.com/online/limbaugh-on-obamas-joint-session-request-no-genuine-president-would-do-this/)

Its amazing to me that such a hate filled windbag can have so much power over Republicans.

Oh, and BTW, he got his facts wrong.
He claimed Boehner was never consulted, which he was. Either Rush never knew the facts when he uttered his verbal diarrhoea- which makes him a moron, or he was deliberately lying.



Q

Gayle in MD
09-02-2011, 05:55 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> link to Rush video (http://www.mediaite.com/online/limbaugh-on-obamas-joint-session-request-no-genuine-president-would-do-this/)

Its amazing to me that such a hate filled windbag can have so much power over Republicans.

Q </div></div>

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> "When the President requests to address Congress, Congress accommodates -- that's the most important precedent point.</div></div>

End of story!

Far from the first time Repiglicans have insulted this president, and displayed disrespect for the office of the presidency. WE've watched their continued, unprecedented, very rude behavior throughout President Obama's tenure.


Limpballs doesn't have to worry about displayng his gross racism, because the Repiglican Party IS racist, through and through, and they have made that very obvious to their racist base, who ARE Limpballs listeners. He gives them exactly what they want, more racist attacks, and they love it!

I'd like to see this President, go straight to the capital, invite the press, and the Democratic Party, and supporters, and make his speech when he wishes. What's The Boner going to do, throw him out?

I'd love to see him give the petty, lying, POS, RUDE Repiglicans, and BOEHNER, (pronounced Boner, btw)a graphic middle finger, and put them in their place, which is in a pig trough.

He doesn't have to compromise, nor be polite, to such a rude bunch of pigs as they are. Who needs them there anyway? They've made it very clear, they will continue to block every Bush/Repiglican Majority Recession, recovery effort, anyway.
G.

Qtec
09-02-2011, 06:36 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">End of story!

Far from the first time Repiglicans have insulted this president, and displayed disrespect for the office of the presidency. WE've watched their continued, unprecedented, very rude behavior throughout President Obama's tenure. </div></div>

Respect. They don't know the meaning of the word. When Bush was POTUS, any criticism and you were branded by the RW as unpatriotic.



<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The discussion began with Hannity teasingly calling Kayleigh “the only socialist on the panel,” based on her Obama-supporting comments in the previous segment.

Kayleigh objected to the characterization and said, “(Obama) can be wrong. But this atttitude that you have is only going to divide us. We have to come together and find solutions.”

“Patriotic” Hannity immediately started whining accusatorily, “I can't be critical or else I will divide the country.”

“Of course you can be critical,” Kayleigh began.

But Hannity had already directed the panel over to Jesse Lee Peterson, Hannity's favorite bigot. Instead of listening to Kayleigh's concerns, Peterson (supposedly an advocate for personal responsibility) pointed the “liberals did it first with President Bush” finger.

<span style='font-size: 14pt'>“When people attacked Bush, they were called unpatriotic,” Kayleigh said.

Hannity said resentfully, “Not true. That's not true.”</span> Then he began counting off on his fingers about Democrats, saying, “They said the surge lost, the war was lost.” You could almost hear him longing to attack Democrats further but couldn't when he had just denied being intolerant. So he moved on, pointing to his pal Peterson.

<u>So just to correct the record,</u> here are just a few of the things that have been said about Bush critics on Hannity's show, either by him or by a guest he never rebutted:

"Why don’t you liberals just admit it? <u>You don’t like the military. It’s all phony when you say you support the troops,</u>" Mark Levin (Hannity calls him "The Great One"), 11/2/06

“The left has a disdain for the military... They’re dangerous... <span style='font-size: 14pt'>trying to undermine the will of the American people.</span>" Tom DeLay, 10/31/06

<span style='font-size: 14pt'>"It’s clear that the Howard Dean, Nancy Pelosi, John Kerry wing of the Democratic Party has a visceral loathing for the American military and for, frankly, America as a country in the world. </span>Their whole approach is to blame us for what, in fact, our enemies do... I think it tells you how deep the sickness is in the left wing of the Democratic Party.” Newt Gingrich, 11/1/06

</div></div>

link (http://www.newshounds.us/2009/04/03/hannity_denies_calling_bush_critics_unpatriotic.ph p)

When two unique events happen to one President, [ failure to raise the debt ceiling/ threaten default and now this ] you have to wonder.


The all hate him with a vengeance, wonder why.


Q

Gayle in MD
09-02-2011, 06:57 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">End of story!

Far from the first time Repiglicans have insulted this president, and displayed disrespect for the office of the presidency. WE've watched their continued, unprecedented, very rude behavior throughout President Obama's tenure. </div></div>

Respect. They don't know the meaning of the word. When Bush was POTUS, any criticism and you were branded by the RW as unpatriotic.



<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The discussion began with Hannity teasingly calling Kayleigh “the only socialist on the panel,” based on her Obama-supporting comments in the previous segment.

Kayleigh objected to the characterization and said, “(Obama) can be wrong. But this atttitude that you have is only going to divide us. We have to come together and find solutions.”

“Patriotic” Hannity immediately started whining accusatorily, “I can't be critical or else I will divide the country.”

“Of course you can be critical,” Kayleigh began.

But Hannity had already directed the panel over to Jesse Lee Peterson, Hannity's favorite bigot. Instead of listening to Kayleigh's concerns, Peterson (supposedly an advocate for personal responsibility) pointed the “liberals did it first with President Bush” finger.

<span style='font-size: 14pt'>“When people attacked Bush, they were called unpatriotic,” Kayleigh said.

Hannity said resentfully, “Not true. That's not true.”</span> Then he began counting off on his fingers about Democrats, saying, “They said the surge lost, the war was lost.” You could almost hear him longing to attack Democrats further but couldn't when he had just denied being intolerant. So he moved on, pointing to his pal Peterson.

<u>So just to correct the record,</u> here are just a few of the things that have been said about Bush critics on Hannity's show, either by him or by a guest he never rebutted:

"Why don’t you liberals just admit it? <u>You don’t like the military. It’s all phony when you say you support the troops,</u>" Mark Levin (Hannity calls him "The Great One"), 11/2/06

“The left has a disdain for the military... They’re dangerous... <span style='font-size: 14pt'>trying to undermine the will of the American people.</span>" Tom DeLay, 10/31/06

<span style='font-size: 14pt'>"It’s clear that the Howard Dean, Nancy Pelosi, John Kerry wing of the Democratic Party has a visceral loathing for the American military and for, frankly, America as a country in the world. </span>Their whole approach is to blame us for what, in fact, our enemies do... I think it tells you how deep the sickness is in the left wing of the Democratic Party.” Newt Gingrich, 11/1/06

</div></div>

link (http://www.newshounds.us/2009/04/03/hannity_denies_calling_bush_critics_unpatriotic.ph p)

When two unique events happen to one President, [ failure to raise the debt ceiling/ threaten default and now this ] you have to wonder.


The all hate him with a vengeance, wonder why.


Q </div></div>

It's a smack in their face to see a brilliant bi-racial man, a black man, if you will, follow an ignorant, embarrassing, lying POS, failure, like Bush.

They were mashed potatos at the end of the Bush regime, and they knew it.

Their only hope, was to use their propaganda stations to scare Americans, and lie about this President, and his policies, deny their own responsibility, and block any economic recovery.

The dummies in this country, fell for it, just like they fell for being neo-conned for eight years, and lost their own economic solvency, all because of Bush's policies, Twelve years of Repiglican policies, before him, and the Wall St. Pigs, who were justifying no oversight, and as Americans continued struggling under Repiglican policies for twelve years before Bush finished the job, with his Tax Cuts for the wealthy, and his illegal, immoral war in Iraq, for OIL, Greenspan flamed this housing bubble, and Well St., committed the biggest Ponzi Scheme in history, allowed by Bush's "Ownership Society" policies.

We were struggling with a totally dysfunctional Federal Government, for six years, of Bush, couldn't even address a hurricane, and the Blank Check Repigs, continuing with Repiglican Trickle Down, which had already been a wage losing proposition for the Middle Class, during Repiglican control of the Hill, for years, as they continued re-distribution of wealth to the wealthiest, and repiglican destruction of oversight, on every level.

Bush's tax cuts, set uus up for failure, as much as anything else.

They didn't address the changes brought about by the Global Economy, and make adjustments, because they didn't care how may jobs were outsourced, or how much Industry we were losoing, as long as their precious corporate pigs, were racking up the billions, and evading their taxes, and hiding their money, offshore.

Repiglican Pigs! And the Dummies who vote against their own best interests, are what destroyed this country.

All one must do is look at the charts, but, the proof of their failed policies, are right there, but, just as we have seen here over and over again, the right, doesn't know how to read charts...if they did, they'd realize, for one thing, that Fannie and Freddie, were merely a very small part of the housing bubble and ultimate crash.

Idiots!

G.

ugotda7
09-02-2011, 11:39 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> link to Rush video (http://www.mediaite.com/online/limbaugh-on-obamas-joint-session-request-no-genuine-president-would-do-this/)

Its amazing to me that such a hate filled windbag can have so much power over Republicans.

Q </div></div>

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> "When the President requests to address Congress, Congress accommodates -- that's the most important precedent point.</div></div>

End of story!

Far from the first time Repiglicans have insulted this president, and displayed disrespect for the office of the presidency. WE've watched their continued, unprecedented, very rude behavior throughout President Obama's tenure.


Limpballs doesn't have to worry about displayng his gross racism, because the Repiglican Party IS racist, through and through, and they have made that very obvious to their racist base, who ARE Limpballs listeners. He gives them exactly what they want, more racist attacks, and they love it!

I'd like to see this President, go straight to the capital, invite the press, and the Democratic Party, and supporters, and make his speech when he wishes. What's The Boner going to do, throw him out?

I'd love to see him give the petty, lying, POS, RUDE Repiglicans, and BOEHNER, (pronounced Boner, btw)a graphic middle finger, and put them in their place, which is in a pig trough.

He doesn't have to compromise, nor be polite, to such a rude bunch of pigs as they are. Who needs them there anyway? They've made it very clear, they will continue to block every Bush/Repiglican Majority Recession, recovery effort, anyway.
G. </div></div>

You'd like to meet Mr. Boner wouldn't you?

ugotda7
09-02-2011, 11:41 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">End of story!

Far from the first time Repiglicans have insulted this president, and displayed disrespect for the office of the presidency. WE've watched their continued, unprecedented, very rude behavior throughout President Obama's tenure. </div></div>

Respect. They don't know the meaning of the word. When Bush was POTUS, any criticism and you were branded by the RW as unpatriotic.



<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The discussion began with Hannity teasingly calling Kayleigh “the only socialist on the panel,” based on her Obama-supporting comments in the previous segment.

Kayleigh objected to the characterization and said, “(Obama) can be wrong. But this atttitude that you have is only going to divide us. We have to come together and find solutions.”

“Patriotic” Hannity immediately started whining accusatorily, “I can't be critical or else I will divide the country.”

“Of course you can be critical,” Kayleigh began.

But Hannity had already directed the panel over to Jesse Lee Peterson, Hannity's favorite bigot. Instead of listening to Kayleigh's concerns, Peterson (supposedly an advocate for personal responsibility) pointed the “liberals did it first with President Bush” finger.

<span style='font-size: 14pt'>“When people attacked Bush, they were called unpatriotic,” Kayleigh said.

Hannity said resentfully, “Not true. That's not true.”</span> Then he began counting off on his fingers about Democrats, saying, “They said the surge lost, the war was lost.” You could almost hear him longing to attack Democrats further but couldn't when he had just denied being intolerant. So he moved on, pointing to his pal Peterson.

<u>So just to correct the record,</u> here are just a few of the things that have been said about Bush critics on Hannity's show, either by him or by a guest he never rebutted:

"Why don’t you liberals just admit it? <u>You don’t like the military. It’s all phony when you say you support the troops,</u>" Mark Levin (Hannity calls him "The Great One"), 11/2/06

“The left has a disdain for the military... They’re dangerous... <span style='font-size: 14pt'>trying to undermine the will of the American people.</span>" Tom DeLay, 10/31/06

<span style='font-size: 14pt'>"It’s clear that the Howard Dean, Nancy Pelosi, John Kerry wing of the Democratic Party has a visceral loathing for the American military and for, frankly, America as a country in the world. </span>Their whole approach is to blame us for what, in fact, our enemies do... I think it tells you how deep the sickness is in the left wing of the Democratic Party.” Newt Gingrich, 11/1/06

</div></div>

link (http://www.newshounds.us/2009/04/03/hannity_denies_calling_bush_critics_unpatriotic.ph p)

When two unique events happen to one President, [ failure to raise the debt ceiling/ threaten default and now this ] you have to wonder.


The all hate him with a vengeance, wonder why.


Q </div></div>

It's a smack in their face to see a brilliant bi-racial man, a black man, if you will, follow an ignorant, embarrassing, lying POS, failure, like Bush.

They were mashed potatos at the end of the Bush regime, and they knew it.

Their only hope, was to use their propaganda stations to scare Americans, and lie about this President, and his policies, deny their own responsibility, and block any economic recovery.

The dummies in this country, fell for it, just like they fell for being neo-conned for eight years, and lost their own economic solvency, all because of Bush's policies, Twelve years of Repiglican policies, before him, and the Wall St. Pigs, who were justifying no oversight, and as Americans continued struggling under Repiglican policies for twelve years before Bush finished the job, with his Tax Cuts for the wealthy, and his illegal, immoral war in Iraq, for OIL, Greenspan flamed this housing bubble, and Well St., committed the biggest Ponzi Scheme in history, allowed by Bush's "Ownership Society" policies.

We were struggling with a totally dysfunctional Federal Government, for six years, of Bush, couldn't even address a hurricane, and the Blank Check Repigs, continuing with Repiglican Trickle Down, which had already been a wage losing proposition for the Middle Class, during Repiglican control of the Hill, for years, as they continued re-distribution of wealth to the wealthiest, and repiglican destruction of oversight, on every level.

Bush's tax cuts, set uus up for failure, as much as anything else.

They didn't address the changes brought about by the Global Economy, and make adjustments, because they didn't care how may jobs were outsourced, or how much Industry we were losoing, as long as their precious corporate pigs, were racking up the billions, and evading their taxes, and hiding their money, offshore.

Repiglican Pigs! And the Dummies who vote against their own best interests, are what destroyed this country.

All one must do is look at the charts, but, the proof of their failed policies, are right there, but, just as we have seen here over and over again, the right, doesn't know how to read charts...if they did, they'd realize, for one thing, that Fannie and Freddie, were merely a very small part of the housing bubble and ultimate crash.

Idiots!

G. </div></div>

Take your race card and F off.

Gayle in MD
09-03-2011, 07:04 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Urgency? What about that vacation.....was that also urgent?

The left, dumb as a box or rocks.

The CONGRESS went on vacation for 5 weeks, as they typically do, during a time known as 'summer recess.' Of course the president picked the same timing, although his planned time off was going to be shorter. And perhaps you noticed, he cut it short to go to the hurricane emergency command center?

Do you mean to suggest he could have addressed the Congress when they weren't scheduled to be in town? Perhaps by calling a special session just for that purpose?

In this case, Obama simply picked the first day the Congress came back into session, because there was only 1 OTHER day they were working this first 'week' back, and then they were off for ANOTHER week off. </div></div>

Bush took more official vacation time than any president in history!

Is there anyone in this country so uninformed that they don't know that the POTUS, is never really on vacation?

This President has taken less vacation time than the last four presidents.

Another RW nutjob, spewing the usual crock of BS!

G.

LWW
09-03-2011, 07:10 AM
It would be better for the nation if Obama took more vacation time.

Gayle in MD
09-14-2011, 09:47 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Multiple reporters—Sam Stein, Sam Youngman, and Glenn Thrush— report that Obama administration officials tell them that John Boehner was privately briefed about the timing of President Obama's jobs speech request and that he voiced no objections until rejecting the request this afternoon.

Boehner's office concedes that it was briefed ahead of time, but denies agreeing to the date. <u>But even if they didn't explicitly agree to the schedule, unless they voiced an objection, they were quite clearly operating in bad faith.</u>

But all that is really beside the point. <span style='font-size: 14pt'>For what is almost certainly the first time in the history of our nation, the Speaker of the House has rejected a request from the President to speak on a matter of great national urgency. Everything else about this story is noise.</span> </div></div>

The GOP, no class.

Q </div></div>


We must destroy Repiglican Fascism before it's too late!