Originally Posted by Guest

Is it not incredible how the progressive movement will take any nook they can get and make everyone believe they own the goodness in the world when it is just the opposite.

I, also, am tired of the being labeled by the progressive movement, and I sincerely hope as I am watching the news on Boehner, that the Republican party will now become the agressor.

I am tired of the progressive movement deciding on their own what choices there are on every issue, as if these issues were that black and white.

Do you think with Boehner leaving things are going to get better in Congress? The Republicans have to get more aggressive, and do what tear up the Constitution? The Republican House can't deal with the Senate, which has rules, and not the Hastert rule.

The filibuster, which was used by McConnell to stop almost everything, is going to be used against them. What goes around comes around. Who gives a damn how aggressive the Republican House is going to be? Boehner tried to find the grey area, and his biggest enemy was his own party. Nobody but nobody will be able to deal with the extreme in the Republican House. The more aggressive the House becomes, the more frustrated they will become, because they want things to be black and white, and never give in on anything.

With Boehner leaving office, things just took a turn for the worse. The biggest assumption is that the Republicans will retain the Senate. There are 25+ Republican seats in the Senate up in the next election, and less than 10 Democratic seats. If the forces that have the outsiders leading in the polls for the Republican nomination, take aim at their own Republican senators up for reelection, and push Tea Party hopefuls, you can guarantee the Republicans will lose control of the Senate.

Originally Posted by Guest

Do you think with Boehner leaving things are going to get better in Congress? The Republicans have to get more aggressive, and do what tear up the Constitution? The Republican House can't deal with the Senate, which has rules, and not the Hastert rule.

The filibuster, which was used by McConnell to stop almost everything, is going to be used against them. What goes around comes around. Who gives a damn how aggressive the Republican House is going to be? Boehner tried to find the grey area, and his biggest enemy was his own party. Nobody but nobody will be able to deal with the extreme in the Republican House. The more aggressive the House becomes, the more frustrated they will become, because they want things to be black and white, and never give in on anything.

With Boehner leaving office, things just took a turn for the worse. The biggest assumption is that the Republicans will retain the Senate. There are 25+ Republican seats in the Senate up in the next election, and less than 10 Democratic seats. If the forces that have the outsiders leading in the polls for the Republican nomination, take aim at their own Republican senators up for reelection, and push Tea Party hopefuls, you can guarantee the Republicans will lose control of the Senate.

I think it will be worse, much worse for a bit.

The Democrats have plied their trade very well in the halls of congress. In the senate would not allow any ammendments at all, disallowed discussion and NOT one bill from the house would ever leave the desk of Harry Reid.

Pelosi riegned supreme in the house and controlled every movement. Nothing the President wanted was denied him

Then in 2014, the Republicans took over both the Senate and the House and guess what....NOTHING CHANGED. NOTHING.

Democrats still manipulate the rules in both places....Iran a good example. The Democrats do not want a vote for the deal on their record so they simply stopped the voting. See, Harry Reid used the nuclear option to get any nominations the President wanted, but the Republicans did not use this option to insure that the Democrats had to vote on Iran.

And so it has gone. I think the entire Republican party is wondering what control over both bodies has gotten them if nothing has changed. As Bobby Jindal, for one, says he admires how Reid and Pelosi have used both houses and made sure they got what they want and wonders why the Republicans will not do the same.

I think Boehner with the best possible intentions just worried about it because it would tie up the government and the Democrats have become so good at blaming the Republicans, he would nt do it.

Now, I think that Republicans get more agressive and more Reid and Pelosi like in how they react.

Originally Posted by Guest

I think it will be worse, much worse for a bit.

The Democrats have plied their trade very well in the halls of congress. In the senate would not allow any amendments at all, disallowed discussion and NOT one bill from the house would ever leave the desk of Harry Reid.

Pelosi reigned supreme in the house and controlled every movement. Nothing the President wanted was denied him

Then in 2014, the Republicans took over both the Senate and the House and guess what....NOTHING CHANGED. NOTHING.

Democrats still manipulate the rules in both places....Iran a good example. The Democrats do not want a vote for the deal on their record so they simply stopped the voting. See, Harry Reid used the nuclear option to get any nominations the President wanted, but the Republicans did not use this option to insure that the Democrats had to vote on Iran.

And so it has gone. I think the entire Republican party is wondering what control over both bodies has gotten them if nothing has changed. As Bobby Jindal, for one, says he admires how Reid and Pelosi have used both houses and made sure they got what they want and wonders why the Republicans will not do the same.

I think Boehner with the best possible intentions just worried about it because it would tie up the government and the Democrats have become so good at blaming the Republicans, he would not do it.

Now, I think that Republicans get more aggressive and more Reid and Pelosi like in how they react.

The amendment process was abused for a long time. Both parties were putting amendments on bills that nothing to do with the bill. Also, you should tie a bill up forever by adding amendments to it.

The comment that you made about Pelosi also applies to Boehner. Boehner reigned supreme in the house and controlled every movement. Nothing the President wanted was given to him.

Iran is not a good example. They didn't manipulate any rules. They used the filibuster preventing the Iran bill to be voted on. The Democratic Senators took a great deal of time reading the agreement, and attending closed door hearing where the agreement was explained to them. They explained their for or against the agreement. The Republicans were against it before they even looked at it.

See, Harry Reid used the nuclear option to get ANY nominations the President wanted. This statement is not accurate. The Republicans were holding up every nomination that the president made. He used the nuclear option on positions that are not high positions. He never used it for Supreme Court nominees.

McConnell is not stupid, and is very reluctant to use the nuclear option. The Republicans could very well lose the Senate in 2016. He doesn't want to lose his filibuster option for no good reason. Even if he did use the nuclear option, he wouldn't have enough votes to override a presidential veto. Besides the Senate Democrats made it known what their vote on the Iran agreement would be, if the agreement was ever voted on.

One more thing on the nuclear option, Reid didn't use it when the Republicans held up Elizabeth Warren's appointment to head the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection agency. They also held up Obama's second choice. Obama used recess appointment, and not the nuclear option to get his choice to head the agency in there through the end or 2012. The Republicans challenged his use of the recess appointment, and won in court. However, the second choice was approved in senate vote in 2013.

By holding up Warren, the Republicans lost a senate seat. Her popularity is really high among Democrats. She could be on the next Democrat ticket as vice president with Biden. Biden/Warren ticket is a very strong ticket. If the Republicans had a do over, do you think they would hold up her appointment, again? Talk about something really blowing up in your face for no good reason, this one could take the prize.

The pope is full if poopy.

Originally Posted by Guest

One more thing on the nuclear option, Reid didn't use it when the Republicans held up Elizabeth Warren's appointment to head the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection agency. They also held up Obama's second choice. Obama used recess appointment, and not the nuclear option to get his choice to head the agency in there through the end or 2012. The Republicans challenged his use of the recess appointment, and won in court. However, the second choice was approved in senate vote in 2013.

By holding up Warren, the Republicans lost a senate seat. Her popularity is really high among Democrats. She could be on the next Democrat ticket as vice president with Biden. Biden/Warren ticket is a very strong ticket. If the Republicans had a do over, do you think they would hold up her appointment, again? Talk about something really blowing up in your face for no good reason, this one could take the prize.

You mean Elizabeth high cheeks warren the 1/20098764 part Indian. Anybody the would vote for that wacko in beyond me. But, that's what you get in wacko land.

Originally Posted by Guest

I think that we are in a weird place in the world when the following things are considered political. Five things, I'm going to tick them off. These are the five things that were on [the pope] and our president's agenda. Caring for the marginalized and the poor. That's now political. Advancing economic opportunity for all. Political? Serving as good stewards of the environment. Protecting religious minorities and promoting religious freedom globally. Welcoming [and] integrating immigrants and refugees globally. And that's political?

I mean, I don't know what we expect to hear from an organization's leader like the pope of the Catholic Church other than protect those who need help, bring in refugees who have no place because of war and violence and terrorism. These seem like universal truths that we should be good to others who have less than we do, that we should give shelter to those who don't have it. I think these were the teachings in the Bible of Jesus. They're the words of the pope, they're the feelings of the president. And people who find themselves on the other side of that message should consult a mirror, it seems like. Because I think that's what we're supposed to do as a people, whatever your religion. I mean, it seems to me — and I think to probably, as Bill O'Reilly would put it, most clear-thinking Americans — that that's how we're supposed to roll

Dear Guest:
Au contraire

Every one of the five issues you view as being non-political are political. Caring for the marginalized and the poor. That's now political. Advancing economic opportunity for all. Political? Serving as good stewards of the environment. Protecting religious minorities and promoting religious freedom globally. Welcoming [and] integrating immigrants and refugees globally. And that's political?

They are political because the definition of politic is the government's attempt for influencing people's behavior. Welfare Entitlements, EPA's continual assaults on businesses, government's climate change agenda, endangered species Act, government's interference with people's right to display religious figure, of forcing them to accept abortion, contraception, same sex marriage when it is against their belief. As to immigration again political some call for open immigration, others caution as to whom we let in.

While I like most on Fox News, Shepard Smith annoys the heck out of me as does Bill O'Reilly

As to Boehner he dropped the ball

As to Congress most members abdicate their responsibilities. they have the power of the purse and will we see what tey do or fail to do with it.

But the biggest breach here is that of the various agencies that especially with Obama's abuses have circumvented congress altogether and are making policy and law.

Our founders set a good balance of power. what we have now is Obama making policy and law utilizing agencies like EPA, Consumer Financial Protection Agency, NLRB, IRS, SEC DOJ, FTC etc

Personal Best Regards:

I think that some are misunderstanding the totality of the whole theme.

All of the above is NOT political. What is political is when a nation is MANDATED, REQUIRED and TAXED to pay/subsidize someone else's idea of morality and charity. Demanding that a free American citizen pay for something for someone else is UN-American. Asking one to voluntarily contribute is American.

It's really that simple. The politics involved is when the gov wants to take sole ownership in deciding how these things should be handled. The American citizen is not given a choice. Supposed morality is forced/enforced.