Stats

Comments Posted By cyndibru

Displaying 0 To 0 Of 0 Comments

Could Hillary Clinton Become the Next Republican President?

Yes, it’s quite interesting how you leave out what I was replying to in between my comments that you have so conveniently aggregated. I stand by my comments as written, in the entirety of the thread. And starting your post with “sorry” is completely disingenuous. I was replying to a personal post directed at me, not to everyone on the thread nor was I asking for your assistance, nor was the other poster that I could tell. She seems quite capable of speaking for herself should she wish to respond. It’s quite telling where you feel the need to inject your “assistance” and where you don’t.

» Posted By cyndibru On July 11, 2014 @ 2:18 am

In the discussion I was engaged in we were discussing Hillary’s chances in the upcoming Democratic primary and comparing and contrasting them to the previous Democratic one in 2008, not the general election and whose candidate won and whose didn’t. I never mentioned anything about the GOP whatsoever. I’m sorry that you obviously cannot follow the context of a discussion and choose instead to take umbrage and insult where there was none. Nothing you said above has any bearing or relevance to any comments I have made, nor did I address anyone here as to why they voted and for whom, other than to state that obviously they are more informed voters than the general populace simply by virtue of being here. Since you can’t apparently can’t tell the difference between general discussion of an issue and personal feelings about it, and are obviously feel that someone of a different political persuasion is not entitled to respectful discussion, I’ll leave you to your one-sided perspectives.

» Posted By cyndibru On July 11, 2014 @ 12:51 am

How do I know such things? Because I read, see and hear interviews with voters, and know and understand human nature, and don’t discount facts I dislike. I’m sorry, but I find it hilarious that so many of you constantly talk about the “uninformed voters”, the “disinterested voters”, the lack of political knowledge of the general populace, but are now OFFENDED by the notion that it applies to Americans in general, even if they supported the same candidate you did. To acknowledge racism is not the same as agreeing with it. Those who dislike President Obama because he is half-black are racist. Those who support President Obama because he is half-black are ALSO racist. To pretend that the election of ANY politician in this country is not influenced by race, both ways, is ridiculous.

» Posted By cyndibru On July 10, 2014 @ 10:13 pm

I wrote : “HRC has a lot of female support and quite an organization and funds already in place — a big jump on any other candidate. I think it’s pretty much hers to lose, but of course that could certainly happen.”

TresL wrote: “HRC had all those advantages in 2008 and still lost. I can only hope the same is true in 2016.”

I responded: “Yes, but there’s no potential of the “first black President” to compete with this time around, nor will there be the same starry-eyed swallowing of the rhetoric of “hope and change” and jumping on the “yes we can” bandwagon.”

This led to quite a few comments filled with negativity and going off in tangents having absolutely nothing to do with what I actually said. Obviously my comments are pointing out two things that will be different and significant IMO between this Democratic primary and the one in 2008. Why so many of you can’t separate your personal feelings about Obama and his agenda from talking about what goes on in the wider political arena of this country completely bewilders me. That you take such offense to pointing out the obvious facts that many of your fellow Americans voted for President Obama for less-informed reasons than your own, much less assume that by pointing out the facts I am “critiquing” his campaign or the fact that he is black or that he is a progressive again mystifies me. It is obvious that Barak Obama ran a brilliant campaign in 2008.

It is also obvious that whomever challenges HRC for the nomination this time will not have what I named as advantages in going against her.

While I realize that many of you are NOT disappointed in Obama’s presidential performance, many other Americans who voted for him are, some for justifiable reasons, some not. ….just like people vote for a candidate for various reasons….some justifiable, some not. But for those who believed the campaign rhetoric and were disappointed (some because he didn’t go far enough to do what he promised, others because they misunderstood what he wanted and was promising), they’re not going to be as blindly believing this time around. Like it or not, a lot of people feel like they didn’t get their “hope and change”. …even if most of them can’t even define it in concrete terms (which actually is the point of such rhetoric).

Sorry, but I’m a realist. There will be people who vote for HRC simply because she is a female, and there will be people who vote against her for the same reason…..and those will be their only reasons. The same thing happened in 2008 with Obama, on a racial basis. If that fact bothers you and leads to vitriol and personal attacks basically calling me a racist, that’s your problem, not my problem. And if you disagree that soaring oratory and rhetoric had any effect, I know you’re intellectually dishonest, no matter how many here back you up. For the record, his mastery of public speaking and persuasion is one of the things I happen to admire about President Obama.

» Posted By cyndibru On July 10, 2014 @ 10:03 pm

If you sincerely think that Obama’s race had nothing to do with his election, then you also likely think that no one opposes him for exactly the same reason. I happen to abhor both sets of circumstances, but I don’t ignore the fact that they exist. There are many people who voted for Obama for no other reason than to elect the first black president and knew or cared nothing about his actual policies, and there are many people who oppose him personally for the same reason rather than opposing his policies. To acknowledge those facts in no way “simplistically reduces the argument”. I also addressed the fact that he was really good with rhetorical uplifting motivating speechifying. I did leave out that because of dissatisfaction with Bush, some voters were voting simply against the GOP, just as will be the case in reverse in 2016. I realize you support the man, and many people obviously did and some still do. But if you truly think the majority of Americans voted on his issues and his promises, I think you’re incorrect. The vast majority of Americans (even the ones who vote), couldn’t tell you the issues much less frame any of the specifics. They swallow the sound bites and the rhetoric they find most appealing.

» Posted By cyndibru On July 10, 2014 @ 9:22 pm

Yes, but there’s no potential of the “first black President” to compete with this time around, nor will there be the same starry-eyed swallowing of the rhetoric of “hope and change” and jumping on the “yes we can” bandwagon.

» Posted By cyndibru On July 9, 2014 @ 9:58 pm

Of course they do, but anyone who thinks Warren or Sanders has a prayer of being the nominee is just wishful thinking. And I’d be surprised if any of the other ones mentioned so far on this thread actually ran, but who knows? HRC has a lot of female support and quite an organization and funds already in place — a big jump on any other candidate. I think it’s pretty much hers to lose, but of course that could certainly happen.

» Posted By cyndibru On July 9, 2014 @ 2:55 pm

Depends on who gets the GOP nomination. So far, I’m not exactly thrilled with any of the mentioned possibilities.

» Posted By cyndibru On July 9, 2014 @ 2:51 pm

After reading all of these comments, I feel a LOT better about the probability that HRC will be our next president. I knew in 2008 I preferred her to Obama, so it was already an improvement, but seeing how much “progressives” dislike her and will have to “hold their noses” if she is the Dem nominee really helps. Makes me wonder about all those claims of GOP obstructionism being the problem with things today though….if one of the big progressive concerns about HRC is that she might actually be better at working with the other side of the aisle and possibly get some things you care about done. Perhaps not to your complete and total satisfaction, and perhaps with the other side getting some things it wants too…..which is what I suspect is the bigger fear than gridlock for some people.

» Posted By cyndibru On July 9, 2014 @ 1:50 pm

Mother Nature At Her Best

Really neat pictures, Nirek! The chubby woodchuck made me laugh. I live in suburbia, but we have 1.5 acres that backs up to a good stretch of woods. When we first moved here, there were peach trees along our fence. We had a huge crop of peaches waiting to ripen….come out one day and the trees are almost bare! We couldn’t believe it! We were wondering if a band of gypsies came through with ladders and took them all in one night! Come outside again and there were two big huge fat woodchucks sitting in the trees munching away on what was left. I had no idea they climbed trees…they almost looked like koala bears sitting on their haunches in the trees. We also get deer, foxes, wild turkeys, raccoons, opossum, etc, but not as many or as close to the house as you do since our usable backyard area is fenced because of the pool. I’ll bet you go through birdseed like crazy!

» Posted By cyndibru On July 6, 2014 @ 2:42 am

Hobby Lobby, Contraception and Bearing False Witness

@Kalima, you wrote:
“I’m sorry to hear about what you went through and happy to hear that you found the strength to survive. I imagine that your family was supportive.”

(response) Thank you, and no, my family was not supportive, which was pretty much the reason I made bad choices that landed me in that situation to begin with. I dealt with the consequences on my own.

you wrote:
“What about those who have no support when one or both parents lose their jobs and health insurance, and they already have enough children to support as it is? What do they do when it’s a choice between having a roof over their heads or just about managing one meal a day for their children? How can these women ensure that they will have no more children who will suffer the same way if they can’t afford the birth control that suits them?”

(response) What about them? What do they do? Whatever they have to do. I would suggest they avoid the one sexual act known to cause pregnancy and enjoy the many other various forms of sexual intimacy and satisfaction with their partners until they can access and/or afford the birth control that suits them, which today, with the ACA, Medicaid expansion, health clinics, Planned Parenthood, etc is more accessible and available than ever before. I fail to understand your assumed argument that because there are more methods available now than ever before in human history to prevent pregnancy, that society as a whole is obligated to provide every woman the birth control of her choice at no cost so that she and her partner don’t have to adjust their behavior in any way if bad times befall them. These problems you speak of are nothing new in human history for women and/or families either. Human biology hasn’t changed. Seems the only thing that has changed is the idea that some people espouse that it should be a “right” not to have to deal with the natural results of your sexual choices and actions, and that someone else should pay to make this possible for every female.

As for the rest, thank you for sharing your opinions. Obviously, mine differ, in just about all aspects.

» Posted By cyndibru On July 4, 2014 @ 1:27 am

PollyTics, I’m a little confused trying to follow your comment, because most of what you’re addressing here is comments originally made by Killgore that I copied and responded to, in the context of a larger debate where several different arguments and points were advanced. Here, I was focusing on several specific points in Killgore’s original multi-point argument. When I learned debate, we were taught that if part of your argument doesn’t stand up to factual scrutiny, your argument is weakened. That doesn’t mean Killgore can’t continue to make other points, or that we can’t discuss other points that were included in the intial assertion and response. Perhaps my “style” isn’t “the norm” around here, but if I present something as a “fact”, not an opinion, and I am challenged on it and proven wrong, I’ll at least acknowledge that, and in having to do so, it’s a tacit admission that I’m not as informed or correct in my arguments as I thought. Then I’ll have to concede that particular point and move on to another argument to support my position, or rethink my position.

» Posted By cyndibru On July 4, 2014 @ 12:57 am

Thank you, Monicaangela. I learned a new word! “Eristic”….I had to look it up. I will keep that in mind when/if we respond to the same threads again. I AM eristic, so please do not take it personally, that I usually feel that some type of response to new points of discussion or expansion of arguments is in order.

» Posted By cyndibru On July 4, 2014 @ 12:36 am

“President Obama believes that women “should make personal health care decisions for themselves, rather than their bosses deciding for them, that’s number one.”
That’s obviously not true, or the President would be just as concerned about making EVERY FDA-approved drug/device for every medical condition available to women (and men!) for every medical condition, not just contraception or reproductive system-related conditions. Unless both you and the President believe that the only medical issue that affects “women’s health” is reproductive-related, that’s a false statement.

As to the argument related to polling support, what “the majority” of the population thinks or supports has nothing to do with constitutional rights and issues of constitutional law, and is therefore irrelevant. As evidenced by many laws in our history that have been overturned, passing them because of majority support does not ensure their constitutionality.

As far as executive orders, yes, I believe they are a problem in many cases, not simply those by President Obama attempting to advance his agenda in the face of opposition.

Where you inferred that I am “angry” because I can’t get a drug covered by insurance that my doctor and I believe is the best option available for my health is beyond me. It was simply used to illustrate a point and negate the argument that “women’s health” rights are being violated by not covering EVERY fda-approved drug/device for contraceptive purposes. Millions of Americans face the fact every day that not every fda approved drug or device they may need or want for any medical condition is covered by insurance and it doesn’t mean their “rights” are being violated.

“Why would you want 5 men to decide an issue on the basis of religious belief that would negate an executive order by the President?”

I wouldn’t. However, that’s not what happened. It wasn’t decided on the basis of the male justice’s personal religious beliefs, but on the basis of the right of freedom of religion guaranteed by the constitution, and a President’s executive order doesn’t sweep away that right. The order was very narrowly written, your belief that it applies to all employers in the nation notwithstanding. It doesn’t. But of course, I agree you and I are both entitled to our opinions, and I wish you a nice day as well.

» Posted By cyndibru On July 2, 2014 @ 2:16 pm

ExfanofAriana, you wrote: “I don’t get the urinary drug my doctor says will best work for my condition and that I feel is necessary for my health….because my insurance doesn’t cover it and it’s too expensive for me to buy myself. ”

Cindy, ALL my friends here in the US who cannot afford their pils , have been using Indian pharmacies — they have a warehouse in California — and saved almost (one example only) almost 800 bucks/month.
http://www.alldaychemist.com or alldaypharmacy.com/in. Hope it helps you.

My response: Thank you for the link. Unfortunately, they don’t have the particular drug in question. Not surprising because it is VERY new. I’m getting by ok with what I’m using, there’s simply a possibility I could get better results with this drug because of the particular receptors that it targets. People deal with this stuff every day, in all aspects of medical care.

» Posted By cyndibru On July 2, 2014 @ 1:56 pm

You’re welcome. And for the record, my explanation of the facts has nothing to do with my personal feelings about abortion. Personally, if I have to pay for anything having to do with anyone else’s reproductive choices, I believe that if you cannot afford to provide a child with at least the basic necessities yourself, then the responsible choice if you become pregnant is to have an abortion, rather than selfishly choose to have a child you can’t afford because you “want” it and expect everyone else to pay for your choice to become a parent.

» Posted By cyndibru On July 2, 2014 @ 1:39 pm

It IS about only one thing. The SCOTUS decision was a very narrow ruling on a specific point of law, not withstanding all of your claims to the contrary. When you assert how you think things SHOULD be, and claim as supporting facts statements that are NOT facts, your argument is rendered moot.

And again, like a broken record, no one is “denying women contraception”, anymore than anyone is “denying people diabetes treatment” by not covering EVERY diabetes drug out there. Female contraception drug/devices was the ONLY medical category where the administration decided that EVERY fda-approved drug/device for that stated purpose MUST be covered….nowhere does it say that in the ACA, for contraception or for any other medical category for females OR for males. If it is “discrimination” and “denial of rights” to not require employers to pay for EVERY fda-approved drug device for female contraception purposes, then it’s “discrimination” and “denial of rights” to not require mandated insurance coverage for EVERY fda-approved drug or device for ANY medical purpose, for any individual, male or female.

» Posted By cyndibru On July 2, 2014 @ 1:35 am

I agree there is a separation of church and state. I disagree that it gives more rights to those who have religious beliefs than those who do not. Where is your outrage over poor women who need a particular heart drug not being able to get it because ALL heart drugs are not mandated to be covered? or diabetes drugs? or ANY other drug/device category? It is not written in the ACA that EVERY fda-approved contraceptive drug/device be coverd for FREE to all women. That was an administrative decision, and it carved out a category different from EVERY other medical category, and one that historically those with religious objections have NOT been required to pay for or participate in in any way. The administration’s attempt to interpret and implement the law in this way did not create a legal “RIGHT” to such, whereas the right to religious freedom IS a well-established right.

» Posted By cyndibru On July 2, 2014 @ 1:09 am

@KillgoreTrout….you wrote:
Wrong. The ACA does mandate insurance coverage for contraceptives. I don’t believe it stipulates the moral difference between such contraceptives.

That is the whole argument behind the SC’s decision……morality, based on religious beliefs.

The ACA does NOT make such distinctions. If you believe it does, then show me, title and section, where the ACA makes such moral,OR medical distinctions!

I believe the ones making such distinctions are Hobby Lobby and their lawyers.

Once again, you employ the tactics of reductionism to narrow this issue down to a single point, contraception. It’s about much more than contraception. This issue is about a corporation, that employs people from the general population, and having the right to discriminate on religious foundations.

This is CLEARLY a violation of the ESTABLISHMENT CLAUSE in the first amendment to the U.S. Constitution! How can you not see this? This isn’t about pro-life or pro-choice only!

My response:
I’m sorry, but you’re wrong about what the ACA itself says. It’s common knowledge where the comprehensive contraceptive mandate came from: the administration and specifically the Secretary of Health and Human Services. If you think it’s in there, please show me where.
You can google it yourself, but here’s what Wikipedia has to say:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contraceptive_mandate_(United_States)
“ACA mandatory coverage for contraceptives[edit]

“With the exception of churches and houses of worship, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act mandates contraceptive coverage for all employers and educational institutions, even though the mandate itself is not included in the wording of the law(s) [1] passed by Congress. The mandate applies to all new health insurance plans effective August 2012. It controversially includes Christian hospitals, Christian charities, Catholic universities, and other enterprises owned or controlled by religious organizations that oppose contraception on doctrinal grounds.

On January 20, 2012, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius announced a (then) final rule of an August 1, 2011 interim final rule on health insurance coverage with no cost sharing for FDA-approved contraceptives and contraceptive services (including female sterilization) for women of reproductive age if prescribed by health care providers, as part of women’s preventive health services guidelines adopted by the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) for the Affordable Care Act. Male contraception is not eligible.[18]

Regulations[19] made under the act rely on the recommendations of the independent Institute of Medicine (IOM) in its July 19, 2011 report Clinical Preventive Services for Women: Closing the Gaps, which concluded that birth control is medically necessary “to ensure women’s health and well-being.”

The administration allowed a religious exemption. The exemption initially applied to church organizations themselves, but not to affiliated nonprofit corporations, like hospitals, that do not rely primarily on members of the faith as employees.[20] An amendment, the Blunt Amendment, was proposed that “would have allowed employers to refuse to include contraception in health care coverage if it violated their religious or moral beliefs,”[21] but it was voted down 51-48 by the U.S. Senate on March 1, 2012.[22]”

I don’t know how much clearer it can be to you that the contraceptive mandate was not included in the law as written, but was mandated by the administration’s HHS department as part of their discretionary “implementation”. Your arguments flow from a false premise.

» Posted By cyndibru On July 2, 2014 @ 12:56 am

Yes, Kalima, as a matter of fact I have. I had an unplanned pregnancy in the spring of my senior year of high school, married and divorced within a year and a half, and was left with no money to pay rent, buy food, or gas, or anything else when my ex-husband walked out the door and I was not currently employed but in school. No, I never sent my child to bed with hunger pangs because I did what I had to do to prevent that, and yes, I’ve had to choose between rent, food, and heat. And when I desired to resume sexual activity, I obtained birth control prior to doing so because it was obviously a necessity. To do otherwise would have been foolish and stupid and needlessly risked compounding the problem.

The point of the ACA isn’t “healthcare for all”. The President freely admitted that there would still be many uninsured even under the new law. The point of the ACA is cost-shifting the burden of providing health care.

I do think about the less fortunate, and I do what I can and what I feel makes a difference in people’s lives. I simply disagree with you that it is government’s job to compel one citizen to economically provide for another citizen. When individuals CHOOSE to do so, I think that’s great.

» Posted By cyndibru On July 2, 2014 @ 12:41 am

My personal beliefs on abortion, contraception, etc don’t enter into my arguments on this matter at all. You’d probably be surprised at my personal opinions. That said, I simply disagree with your opinions re: incorporation, and so did the court. There is a world of difference between a tightly held family-owned company whose religious beliefs are embedded in their corporation, and, for example, Procter & Gamble. The legal history of this country places a very high priority on religious freedom, and declining to pay for things that violate your religious beliefs in no way infringes on anyone else’s religious or secular beliefs. For years, surgical abortion is legal, yet taxpayers cannot be required to fund it because of numerous religious objections. And until the Obama administration’s interpretation of the ACA, employers were free to preclude surgical abortions and/or drugs/devices they objected to on those grounds from their insurance policies offered to employees. They were also free to cover them via insurance if they chose. People who wanted it could obtain it if they chose, but others weren’t forced to pay for it if it violated their religious beliefs. This decision by the Court comes as no surprise based on legal history and precedent.

» Posted By cyndibru On July 2, 2014 @ 12:21 am

Since there is no constitutional “right” to choose the health care anyone feels is necessary for their family under their selected insurance plan, I do not understand your argument. You may feel there SHOULD be one, but there isn’t. I don’t get the urinary drug my doctor says will best work for my condition and that I feel is necessary for my health….because my insurance doesn’t cover it and it’s too expensive for me to buy myself. That argument is moot, it doesn’t apply to any other aspect of health care, yet you feel it should be a “right” for this particular health care aspect alone.

Why shouldn’t they cover Viagra and vasectomy? They are mandated to do so, and it doesn’t violate their religious rights to do so. They AREN’T, however, mandated to cover Levitra, Cialis, or any other ED drugs. Wonder why the administration didn’t see fit to mandate that? After all, what about the poor, poor men that Viagra doesn’t work for? They’re being discriminated against! Their rights must be being violated! AND, the male employee will be charged a co-pay for his generic Viagra and his vasectomy.

They cover 16 out of 20 female birth control types, FOR FREE, and they also cover tubal ligations. Don’t see the comparison here at all as far as “fairness” or what you think should be considered a “right” for females.

» Posted By cyndibru On July 2, 2014 @ 12:07 am

Which established law are you claiming they overturned? There is nothing in the ACA as written that mandates free insurance coverage for any and all birth control/contraceptive drugs and devices. THAT came from the administration and HHS’s decisions on how to “implement” the law, not the law as written. The original challenge to the ACA/Obamacare, in which Justice Roberts concurred and ruled the ACA to stand other than striking the portion that mandated that the states’ MUST expand Medicaid, had nothing to do with the administration’s interpretation of the law re: birth control. Nothing in the law itself was overturned. The administration’s “discretion” re: the law’s implementation was challenged and curtailed.

» Posted By cyndibru On July 1, 2014 @ 11:58 pm

Hi EX, The U.S. law has allowed “discrimination” in “women’s healthcare” for years. The Hyde Amendment has had support from both political parties and been renewed many times. The government for years pledged not to use government funds to pay for abortion procedures because of some religious (and some people who are not particularly religious, but have moral issues wtih abortion just the same) objections to abortion. Now there are pills that can be taken that can cause what some people view as an abortion, or medically implanted devices that can cause what some people view as abortion, nothing has really changed. Birth control in general is still legal and available and covered by all insurance plans, and since the ACA, most methods are covered for free. The President attempted to implement the ACA to mandate that all plans cover every single type of pill or medical device that can be construed as a contraceptive for free to women and compel employers who provide health insurance options to their employees to pay for it. The employers who objected to some (they agreed to cover 16 out of 20) of these methods for religious reasons sued in court, and won. Anyone who wants to use these methods can still use them, they will simply have to pay for them themselves. No “rights” are being violated. There is no right to have someone else pay for any medication or device you desire. Actual rights are a big deal, and often when people claim their “rights” are being violated, nothing of the sort is happening.

» Posted By cyndibru On July 1, 2014 @ 1:17 am

What Can Be Done to Stop Children From Crossing Our Borders?

Excellent plan, Murph. It is realistic and includes compromises for both political sides of the aisle. I’ll be interested to see if others of your political persuasion agree that some “hard” but necessary things must be done to ever solve this problem.

» Posted By cyndibru On July 4, 2014 @ 11:00 am

The 2018 Congressional Republican Orientation Handbook

I thought the piece was hilarious! Couldn’t resist 🙂

» Posted By cyndibru On July 1, 2014 @ 11:45 pm

I beg to differ. Since Rand Paul is now the President and Mitch McConnell the Senate Majority Leader, we’ve sent some business Kentucky’s way. Maker’s Mark has the government contract for the standard issued Bourbon that comes with the bullet to bite packaged under the standard wax seal. While the better bourbon IS a bit more expensive initially, the cost is covered by the packaging savings. The nutritional value of the wax dipped seal you have to chew your way through (we added some Vitamin D) to access both the bourbon and the bullet is just an added bonus. Don’t say we don’t care!

» Posted By cyndibru On June 29, 2014 @ 2:13 pm

Republicans to Sue Obama For Not Being Republican

Murph, you wrote: As to your point. No- they do not have standing. No court has ever accepted an action such as the one being proposed by Boehner.

As to the number persons pushes impeachment. The silent cannot be counted among those opposed to it- they are just on the sidelines but rest assured they would have no choice if the measures get to the floor.

The party you are defending, the one I belonged to and worked for, no longer exists.

I don’t see it as “defending” anything, simply discussing possibilities and challenging what you present as a certainty.

I think a case could be made for a suit. Just because it hasn’t been done before doesn’t mean it couldn’t be done. The claim of “no standing” is made in response to just about every lawsuit ever filed. It will be argued and one side will prevail. I don’t presume to know which side would win that argument.

As for the rest, I would assert the measures would never get to the floor. And even if they did, the “silent” of course still have a choice. You seem to think that the moderate GOP should spend their time addressing and admonishing the fringe, “spanking” them so to speak. The more attention you pay them, the more credence they claim. Your fear gives them far more attention than they deserve.

» Posted By cyndibru On June 30, 2014 @ 10:39 am

Cyndi, why do the Republican Congresspersons not do any work? They block any Bills and don’t present any that have any chance of passing. They sure are getting paid but do nothing! Why? Could it be that they are afraid of the tea party types?

Nirek, I could ask the same question. Why do the Dems keep proposing bills they know have no chance of passing the GOP house? Why does Harry Reid refuse to allow amendments or votes on amendments? If they have objections to bills the GOP House sends to the Senate, why doesn’t Reid take them out of his desk drawer and work on them to affect a compromise?

The answer, IMO, is that NEITHER party wants to allow the other to claim any sort of legislative victory, except in the rare circumstances where they consider it imperative that something gets done. When they BOTH do, they’ve shown they can do it……with the budget compromise worked out by Murray and Ryan and by the veterans bill worked out by Sanders and McCain.

» Posted By cyndibru On June 30, 2014 @ 10:23 am

As you said, members of the House could file a suit. They have standing. And as you pointed out, there are 47 of them who I’m sure would be willing to do so. Boehner is the one talking about it in the media as the Speaker, but it doesn’t have to be him that files. But why is the fact that there’s 47 House and 7 Senators who would support impeachment make you so certain that’s where the GOP as a whole wants and intends to go? Yes, you’ve got these hardliners out there. That’s 11% of the House, and 7% of the Senate. Big deal. There’s not enough of them to force their agenda, and the majority are far more pragmatic than to settle for “sending a message” to Obama and the progressives when he’ll be gone in two years anyway and if they have already won the Senate he’ll be even more limited in what he can do. They’re far more likely to use the courts to “tie him up” if he tries to go to far to get around them than they are to impeach him.

» Posted By cyndibru On June 29, 2014 @ 1:49 pm