Displaying 2,491 To 2,520 Of 3,237 Comments Love your rage. These “gals” are pinups for the “vote against your own interests” crowd. » Posted By MurphTheSurf3 On March 13, 2012 @ 8:58 pm Hey…did you see the developments in the Rush campaign….I have been so busy with this…..140 sponsors are now off line for Limbaugh and 104 are off line for ALL of the right wing fire brands. 64 stations have indicate that alternative programming must be developed. » Posted By MurphTheSurf3 On March 13, 2012 @ 8:20 pm OMG and other abbreviations Saw Gingrich’s sad speech…..Romney will be begging Ettleson (and maybe a few others, discreetly) to fund Newt to the hilt…..as for me….happy, happy. Both Newtron and St. Orum push Nit Mitt to the right and to the edge. Good. » Posted By MurphTheSurf3 On March 13, 2012 @ 8:18 pm THE STATES THAT BELIEVE BARACK OBAMA IS A MUSLIM, WENT FOR… SANTORUM…. He must be so proud….. » Posted By MurphTheSurf3 On March 13, 2012 @ 7:52 pm thirsty for the political gossip » Posted By MurphTheSurf3 On February 7, 2012 @ 10:04 pm $7 Million and we school districts are having kids share books! Watching CNN now for the final numbers. » Posted By MurphTheSurf3 On February 7, 2012 @ 10:00 pm Southern Comfort Manhattan » Posted By MurphTheSurf3 On February 7, 2012 @ 9:03 pm A bitter night here in Missouri. I just wrote a comment a few steps up from here. » Posted By MurphTheSurf3 On February 7, 2012 @ 8:56 pm Sally T- take a look at my comment from my night at a local watering hold…..It’s a few steps up from this one. » Posted By MurphTheSurf3 On February 7, 2012 @ 8:54 pm Hello All… Just got back from the local political watering hole (which is GOP packed in this GOP dominated part of the world-Misery…uh, Missori)…..what an unhappy crowd. This Missouri crowd is happy Romney did not win The word is that the caucas/conference in March will displace Santorum for….Gingrich because he can win. The Santorum crowd says they will fight any effort to overturn the election. BTW, turnout was miserable. » Posted By MurphTheSurf3 On February 7, 2012 @ 8:50 pm One more direction. 5. Call 911. Request ambulance before consuming. » Posted By MurphTheSurf3 On January 17, 2012 @ 4:13 pm Just saw it…..imagine this sanctimonious bastard in the Oval Office. » Posted By MurphTheSurf3 On January 11, 2012 @ 8:03 pm Has anyone seen……. When Mitt Romney Came to Town http://www.webcasts.com/kingofbain/ or http://www.democraticunderground.com/10176037 D-E-V-A-S-T-A-T-I-N-G » Posted By MurphTheSurf3 On January 11, 2012 @ 8:02 pm Funk….what do you think of Lew’s work at Citicorp that focused on Citigroup Alternative Investments, investing in a hedge fund that bet on the housing market to collapse? That’s in 2008. As to the rest….your bio and what I read today seem to be in agreement. Further, some of the pundits I trust agree that Lew will be that Chief of Staff Obama needs to keep the WH moving as he concentrates on the election. Being a budget guru who even the GOP respects makes him someone who cannot be messed with. So….good I think cause Daley has not been a plus. » Posted By MurphTheSurf3 On January 9, 2012 @ 9:25 pm Yup. » Posted By MurphTheSurf3 On January 9, 2012 @ 9:12 pm The way they have teamed up that seems to be clear. » Posted By MurphTheSurf3 On January 9, 2012 @ 9:11 pm Daley was very much identified with Wall Street interests, but is Lew better? » Posted By MurphTheSurf3 On January 9, 2012 @ 4:42 pm And Romney looks like he creepy kid who employs the bully so the bully can be used to take his enemies. I think Christie makes Romney look like a woos and like someone who relies on bullies to do his dirty work. This feels like the kind of thing he would have done at Bain. » Posted By MurphTheSurf3 On January 9, 2012 @ 4:41 pm Sally, you have ths typically perverse, progressive fondness for rationality and logic. Dem small government is about private things. Dem big government is about public things. The GOP inanely reverses that…and you call them on that. You would make a horrible rethug. Good chatting. You know that you and I are on the same page in all of this. » Posted By MurphTheSurf3 On January 4, 2012 @ 8:42 pm You have it wrong….they are against people like YOU and ME having a big government. In their hands it will be blessed, benign, and benevolent and all of that is bullshit. But they believe it. » Posted By MurphTheSurf3 On January 4, 2012 @ 7:15 pm When this guy is vetted…..the most basic info buries him. I did not mention his tie in to the Ensign scandal, or his involvement in that crazy religious cabal of Congressmen who lived together on C street, or……so much more. » Posted By MurphTheSurf3 On January 4, 2012 @ 7:14 pm Why Obama Signed The Bill With military funding due to expire in the first week in January, and knowing the GOP would use his pocket or direct veto as another wedge issue, Obama signed. Obama initially had threatened to veto the legislation because the original wording made the detention issue a military decision. The changes make it clear that the President or his designees can determine how the statue is to applied. Using the Reagan era creation, the signing statement, he reshaped the bill to reflect his security and constitut¬onal concerns. “I have signed this bill despite having serious reservations with certain provisions that regulate the detention, interrogation, and prosecution of suspected terrorists,” Obama said. “I want to clarify that my Administration will not authorize the indefinite military detention without trial of American citizens. Indeed, I believe that doing so would break with our most important traditions and values as a Nation.” The president said his administration would seek to repeal any provisions that are inconsistent with his values and added that he would “reject any approach that would mandate military custody where law enforcement provides the best method of incapacitating a terrorist threat.” Supporters of the legislation have said it basically codifies current arrangements INCLUDING the indefinite detention of terrorism suspects housed at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin (D-Mich.) defended the detainee provisions from the floor of the Senate as being carefully worded in a way that allows the president flexibility and waiver authority. Efforts to delay the bill focused on creating a committee to study the matter. In other words, stall. Your reading of the situation is basically mine. » Posted By MurphTheSurf3 On January 4, 2012 @ 6:42 pm TEN OUTRAGEOUS THINGS RICK SANTORUM SAID IN THOSE TOWN HALLS 1) ANNUL ALL SAME-SEX MARRIAGES: Arguing that gay relationships “destabilize” society, Santorum wouldn’t offer any legal protections to gay relationships and has pledged to annul all same-sex marriages if elected president. During his 99-country tour of Iowa, Santorum frequently compared same-sex relationships to inanimate objects like trees, basketballs, beer, and paper towels and even tried to blame the economic crisis on gay people. As Santorum explained back in August, religious people have a constitutional right to discriminate against gays: “We have a right the Constitution of religious liberty but now the courts have created a super-right that’s above a right that’s actually in the Constitution, and that’s of sexual liberty. And I think that’s a wrong, that’s a destructive element.” 2) ‘I’M FOR INCOME INEQUALITY’: “They talk about income inequality. I’m for income inequality,” Santorum said during an event in Pella, Iowa in December. “I think some people should make more than other people, because some people work harder and have better ideas and take more risk, and they should be rewarded for it. I have no problem with income inequality.” 3) CONTRACEPTION IS ‘A LICENSE TO DO THINGS’: Santorum has pledged to repeal all federal funding for contraception and allow the states to outlaw birth control, insisting that “it’s a license to do things in a sexual realm that is counter to how things are supposed to be.” 4) GAY SOLDIERS ‘CAUSE PROBLEMS FOR PEOPLE LIVING IN CLOSE QUARTERS’: During an appearance on Fox News Sunday in October, Santorum defended his support for Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell by arguing that gay soldiers would disrupt the military because “they’re in close quarters, they live with people, they obviously shower with people.” He also suggested that “there are people who were gay and lived the gay lifestyle and aren’t anymore.” 5) OBAMA SHOULD OPPOSE ABORTION BECAUSE HE’S BLACK: During an appearance on Christian television in January, Santorum said he was surprised that President Obama didn’t know when life began — given his skin color. “I find it almost remarkable for a black man to say ‘now we are going to decide who are people and who are not people,” he explained. 6) WE DON’T NEED FOOD STAMPS BECAUSE OBESITY RATES ARE SO HIGH: Speaking in Le Mars, Iowa in December, Santorum promised to significantly reduce federal funding for food stamps, arguing that the nation’s increasing obesity rates render the program unnecessary. 7) ABORTION EXCEPTIONS TO PROTECT WOMEN’S HEALTH ARE ‘PHONY’: While discussing his track record as a champion of the partial birth abortion ban in June, Santorum dismissed exceptions other senators wanted to carve out to protect the life and health of mothers, calling such exceptions “phony.” “They wanted a health exception, which of course is a phony exception which would make the ban ineffective,” he said. 8) HEALTH REFORM WILL KILL MY CHILD: Santorum, who claims that Obamacare motivated him to run for president, told reporters in April that his daughter Bella — who was born with a genetic abnormality — wouldn’t survive in a country with “socialized medicine.” “Children like Bella are not given the treatment that other children are given.” 9) UNINSURED AMERICANS SHOULD SPEND LESS ON CELL-PHONE BILLS: During a meeting with the editorial board of the Des Moines Register in August, Santorum said that people who can’t afford health care should stop whining about the high costs of medical treatments and medications and spend less on non essentials. Answering a question about the uninsured, Santorum explained that health care, like a car, is a luxury resource that is rationed by society and recalled the story of a woman who said she was spending $200 a month on life-saving prescriptions. Santorum told her to stop complaining and instead lower her cable and cell phone bills. 10) INSURERS SHOULD DISCRIMINATE AGAINST PEOPLE WITH PRE-EXISTING CONDITIONS:Santorum sounded like a representative from the health insurance industry when he addressed a small group of high school students in Merrimack, New Hampshire in December. The former Pennsylvania senator not only defended insurers for denying coverage to people with pre-existing conditions, he also argued that individuals who are sick should pay higher premiums because they cost more money to insure. » Posted By MurphTheSurf3 On January 4, 2012 @ 6:34 pm With you on this 1000 percent. Back the prez. » Posted By MurphTheSurf3 On January 4, 2012 @ 2:55 pm Yes. You are correct. The first filibuster threat of any significance was in 1841 re. the chartering of the 2nd Bank of the U.S. There had been theoretical discussions of the concept before this and there was general agreement the motion was possible. But, it was not until 1917 when Dems, at Wilson’s urging, adopted the cloture rule which is the fundamental mechanism for filibuster. The cloture rule passed in ’17 was 2/3. That stayed in place until 1049.It was looming civil rights legislation that led to the change in the rules to 3/5 which were then returned to 2/3 in 1959. In the early 70’s in a series of changes that created the current 3/5, dual tracking system. In 1975, the Senate voted to make Senate rules subject to the 2/3 rule. Current practice requires the filing of a filibuster notice but there is no actual holding of the floor. The Ballin ruling is as you say, but to date we can’t get even a majority to change the rule because they do not want to. » Posted By MurphTheSurf3 On January 4, 2012 @ 2:54 pm Filibuster reform was introduced before the current session and looked like it stood a good chance of passing but everyone chickened out. The Dems and GOP want the advantages the current rules give to the Minority. I say bring back the old rules. You want to filibuster, you and your allies must take and hold the floor demonstrating the justice of your cause. No more secret holds. If a Senator wants a hold on a bill or an appointment, he/she must put his/her name on it. AND holds must be time limited. After that someone else must place the hold etc. And restructured cloture rules. 55 votes. Or 60 in the first week, 59 in the second etc. A step down. I am glad to see the President pushing. » Posted By MurphTheSurf3 On January 4, 2012 @ 2:08 pm AT THE CORE OF THE CORDAY APPOINTMENT: Obama uses signing statements much, much less often than either Clinton or Bush, Obama uses recess appointments much, much less often than either Clinton or Bush so….when he does use them…. HE IS DAMNED BY THE GOP….WHY? Recent Presidents have made both intersession (between sessions or Congresses) and intrasession (during a recess within a session) recess appointments. Intrasession recess appointments were unusual, however, prior to the 1940s. Intrasession recess appointments have sometimes provoked controversy in the Senate, and there is also an academic literature that has drawn their legitimacy into question. PRO FORMA SESSIONS HAVE BEEN USED TO BLOCK PRESIDENTIAL APPOINTMENTS BEFORE. REID USED THEM TO BLOCK BUSH IN HIS LAST TWO YEARS IN OFFICE. Definition of the Pro Forma Session WHY PRO FORMA SESSIONS MAY BE CHALLENGEABLE There have been serious questions about the use of the pro forma session to block appointments in the past. 1) In this case, the other house is not in session which seems to eliminate the reason for which pro forma sessions exist (to give the other house time to conclude its business and recess). 2) Another challenge cited is that pro forma sessions can only take place when the it is possible to assemble the majority of the Senate in reasonable time so that business could be conducted. Just another example of Senate rules established for one reason but being used for another, to slow down movement and block action. Think Filibuster and Secret Hold. » Posted By MurphTheSurf3 On January 4, 2012 @ 12:16 pm Talk About A Bad Investment Romney has invested 3.4 million of his own campaign money in Iowa and his puppet SuperPac has invested 1.4 million. He went ALL IN in cash and personnel and personal/family commitment and what did he get….. A T with a guy with no money, a very small organization and a tiny staff. F-R-O-N-T R-U-N-N-E-R GOP GOLD? (FOOLS GOLD) » Posted By MurphTheSurf3 On January 3, 2012 @ 8:49 pm HYSTERICAL, HYPERBOLIC, EXAGGERATED, PROPAGANDA DEATH OF A DEMOCRACY Thanks to changes in the law, company honchos can now buy an election as easily as they order office furniture. The president has tried to make an issue of this in the past 10 days, but I suspect his commentary will have little effect. In case you missed it, recent Supreme Court rulings mean that corporations can now effectively spend freely on political campaigns, including during elections. Loopholes in the tax code, particularly pertaining to 501(c)4 nonprofits, mean they can do so secretly through anonymous front groups. Many CEOs can cut checks for millions, even tens of millions, without blinking. According to data from FactSet, there are around 350 companies on the U.S. stock market that have more than $750 million on hand just in cash and equivalents, such as short-term Treasury bills. In other words, under the new law, the chief executive of any of these companies could match the most successful grassroots, populist fund-raising campaign in history with a single phone call. That understates the issue; only a small percentage of a company’s true wealth is tied up in ready cash. Annual cash flow runs to tens of billions of dollars a year. No one company will have to pay the full tab to buy each election for corporate America anyway: The bill will be shared. How many companies could chip in $20 million or $50 million without even noticing? You think they can’t find that cash around to buy off reform? That’s plutocracy, pure and simple. Corporations are only just waking up to the good news. In the last few months, money has started pouring into outside groups. Most of that, about three-quarters, has gone into organizations on the right. Various experts will try to tell you the new system of unlimited, secret corporate donations can’t survive. “I don’t believe secretly funding our elections can be sustained,” Fred Wertheimer, head of reform group Democracy 21, told the New York Times. “It won’t hold up. The public won’t stand for it. This is guaranteed corruption.” I’m glad he’s so optimistic. But who is going to stop it? There are no gatekeepers left with any power. How can you fix a broken political system with a broken political system? How can someone in manacles strike off his own chains? http://www.marketwatch.com/Story/story/print?guid=0D506C28-DAED-11DF-951A-002128049AD6 » Posted By MurphTheSurf3 On December 31, 2011 @ 11:28 pm E MAIL SENT TO POLITIFACT’S IN RESPONSE TO ITS SELECTION OF ======THE E MAIL====== Can’t tell you how disappointed I am in your site today. The reactions I have read from a number of commentators and my own research led me to believe that the proposals made by Mr. Ryan substantially undermined both the financing and services offered by Medicare. Was the Democratic Counterpunch over the top? Yes. Did it exaggerate the amount of change? Yes. Did it give the impression that the changes would take effect immediately? Yes. Already today your story has been raised on high by a number of conservative voices as proof of all sorts of lies and half truths. I am one of those who often praises your site, but today I am embarrassed. Perhaps the very idea of a “lie of a year” is a bad one. Your readers picked five conservative statements as models for falsehood in this year. Your choice was not one of them. Indeed, it would seem that less than one percent have your backs on this. Your article describing how the statement was chosen states: “We define the Lie of the Year as the most significant falsehood, the one that had the most impact on the political discourse. ” May I suggest that there is enough truth in the Democratic attack on the Ryan program to cast significant doubt on your choice? May I suggest that the the GOP counter to the Democratic campaign was every bit as misleading when they claimed the Ryan plan made the program better and stronger. I still value your sight but I tend to believe that your desire to appear fair and impartial created an editorial lean which your decision reflects. You will be used by the right now to spread its lies and that is a great shame. » Posted By MurphTheSurf3 On December 20, 2011 @ 6:30 pmComments Posted By MurphTheSurf3
LOL
THAT NATURAL SELECTION/EVOLUTION IS A MYTH, AND
THAT CLIMATE CHANGE IS A FRAUD….
and not happy Santorum did since they think he cannot win a wider election.
And so would I (and I used to be one).
and How His Signing Statement Defines the Statutes
Overheated rhetoric from the left misleads
A CHALLENGE TO PRO FORMA SESSIONS
A Significant Constitutional Battle in the Making
ANYTHING HE DOES….ANYTHING….IS DAMNED BY THEM.
Technically, a pro forma session is a brief meeting (sometimes only several seconds) of the Senate in which no business is conducted. It is held usually to satisfy the constitutional obligation that neither chamber can adjourn for more than three days without the consent of the other.
I
E
WHAT THE CRITICS HAD TO SAY ABOUT WALL STREET JOURNALS BRET ARENDS
And they were wrong….reprinted prophecy
============================================
Good News for Corporations, Bad News for Voters
Oct. 19, 2010
«« Back To Stats Page
truthometer@politifact.com AND badair@sptimes.com
Lie of the Year 2011: ‘Republicans voted to end Medicare’
AT http://www.politifact.com/
Home Stats