Shady Posted July 26, 2010 Report Share Posted July 26, 2010 Democrat Mike Gatto from California. It's like a disease, spreading from one Democrat to another. I have to assume that the arrogance from winning in the '06 and '08 elections has completely gone to their heads. They seem to think that they have a right to elected office. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shwa Posted July 26, 2010 Report Share Posted July 26, 2010 (edited) Democrat Mike Gatto from California. It's like a disease, spreading from one Democrat to another. I have to assume that the arrogance from winning in the '06 and '08 elections has completely gone to their heads. They seem to think that they have a right to elected office. At least it is not like that "disease" the Republicans caught a few years ago that led them seek out blow jobs and other sexual favours in men's airport washrooms and such. Puts a new spin on the phrase 'gone to their heads' now doesn't it? Maybe the corollary to your thread title could be: More Republican Buggery Edited July 26, 2010 by Shwa Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sharkman Posted July 26, 2010 Report Share Posted July 26, 2010 So does that somehow justify Mike Gatto's behavior, that other politicians misbehave too? Personally I don't think so. This guy's arrogance is really sad and seems to be some kind of norm for the Dems lately when you hear story after story of embarrassing revelations. I really think the upcoming mid-terms have them in bad moods. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shady Posted July 26, 2010 Author Report Share Posted July 26, 2010 So does that somehow justify Mike Gatto's behavior Apparently so. That seems to be a common reply. Excuse bad behavior by point out other bad behavior. It's the liberal way! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GostHacked Posted July 26, 2010 Report Share Posted July 26, 2010 Bad behavior is not partisan. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shwa Posted July 26, 2010 Report Share Posted July 26, 2010 Why sooo ssss-serious? Relax, have some fun. You could even make a little ditty: {sung to the tune of the Beatles 'Maxwell's Silver Hammer'} Democrat thuggery, Republican buggery, When will it ev'r end? Late nights all alone with the you tube Oh, oh-oh, oh... Gatto's regrettable, a little inevitable that Shady's got a burr. One more posting and then all that boasting, burr, berber, burr But as he's getting ready to write, 'bout another knock at the Right: Bang! Bang! Shady's righteous mallet, Came crashing on our heads! Bang! Bang! Shady's righteous mallet, Made fun with a lovely thread. See? This can be fun! Anyone else want to add a few stanzas to what I am now calling, 'Shady's Righteous Mallet?' Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Weber Posted July 26, 2010 Report Share Posted July 26, 2010 Why sooo ssss-serious? Relax, have some fun. You could even make a little ditty: {sung to the tune of the Beatles 'Maxwell's Silver Hammer'} See? This can be fun! Anyone else want to add a few stanzas to what I am now calling, 'Shady's Righteous Mallet?' If it's Shady's Righteous Mallet should'nt the song be "If I Had A Hammer"? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sharkman Posted July 26, 2010 Report Share Posted July 26, 2010 Bad behavior is not partisan. That's right, although I don't recall the Reps showing such disrespect for the media and getting away with it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
punked Posted July 26, 2010 Report Share Posted July 26, 2010 That's right, although I don't recall the Reps showing such disrespect for the media and getting away with it. What are you talking about Angle Ran as fast as she could away from the media just last week. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sharkman Posted July 26, 2010 Report Share Posted July 26, 2010 The Dem response would have been to ban them from her immediate area. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
punked Posted July 26, 2010 Report Share Posted July 26, 2010 The Dem response would have been to ban them from her immediate area. No they waited until the next interview to do that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sharkman Posted July 27, 2010 Report Share Posted July 27, 2010 You don't seem to be able to compare apples to apples, but that's alright. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shady Posted August 1, 2010 Author Report Share Posted August 1, 2010 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yZhuWMXHrtM You gotta wonder why Democrats are always so angry. They win big in the last couple of election cycles, gaining large majorities in the house and senate. They also control the White House. Yet they remain the most nasty, angry, miserable people in politics. I find it pretty bizarre. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
punked Posted August 1, 2010 Report Share Posted August 1, 2010 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yZhuWMXHrtM You gotta wonder why Democrats are always so angry. They win big in the last couple of election cycles, gaining large majorities in the house and senate. They also control the White House. Yet they remain the most nasty, angry, miserable people in politics. I find it pretty bizarre. You don't know why he is angry I will tell you. The Dems brought a bill to the floor to pay for medical costs of those who were injured in 9/11 trying to save lives. Republcians said they would vote for it so the Dems pushed it to a vote with out any amendments. This meant no Dems attaching anything or Republicans it also meant that it needed a 2/3s majority to pass. Wiener the guy yelling got all but four Dems to vote for the bill, his Republican co-sponsor of the bill got 12 Republicans that is it. 94% of Dems voted for it, 91% of Republcinas voted against it. When they voted against it they used excuses like "We didn't debate it enough, why do we need a 2/3s majority, and we want tweak it." You are either for this or you are against this stop making excuses for being the party of NO. Weiner represents those people who need this health care, who were there when the towers feel and if he wasn't mad about this I would shocked. Republicans promised they would vote for this and they turned tail and ran. Here is a video of Him and his Republican counter part on TV. You see the Republican make excuses because his party is terrible and he knows it. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ZXar9bhTyg&feature=player_embedded#! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shady Posted August 1, 2010 Author Report Share Posted August 1, 2010 You are either for this or you are against this stop making excuses for being the party of NO. Republicans don't have the votes to stop anything in the house. The only reason it failed is because many Dems voted against it too. Word on the street is that there as an immigration provision tucked away in it. On top of that, it was a ridiculous sum of money. It shouldn't cost $10 billion to provide healthcare for 500 some odd people. Unless of course they're using diamond studded equipment, and gold plated beds! Fact is punked, the Dems tried to pull a political fast-one, and it blew up in their face. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
punked Posted August 2, 2010 Report Share Posted August 2, 2010 (edited) Republicans don't have the votes to stop anything in the house. The only reason it failed is because many Dems voted against it too. Word on the street is that there as an immigration provision tucked away in it. On top of that, it was a ridiculous sum of money. It shouldn't cost $10 billion to provide healthcare for 500 some odd people. Unless of course they're using diamond studded equipment, and gold plated beds! Fact is punked, the Dems tried to pull a political fast-one, and it blew up in their face. You are a LIAR. 4 Democrats voted against it. LIAR! Here is where you all can go to look at the vote count and which 4 Dems voted against this and which 12 Reps voted for it. We can all see Punked tells the truth and all Shady does is lie. Do I get tired of Calling Shady out on his lies? I am starting to. http://www.opencongress.org/vote/2010/h/491 Edited August 2, 2010 by punked Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shady Posted August 2, 2010 Author Report Share Posted August 2, 2010 You are a LIAR. 4 Democrats voted against it. LIAR! Here is where you all can go to look at the vote count and which 4 Dems voted against this and which 12 Reps voted for it. We can all see Punked tells the truth and all Shady does is lie. Do I get tired of Calling Shady out on his lies? I am starting to. http://www.opencongress.org/vote/2010/h/491 Looking at the vote count is great. But it doesn't address that other more significant issues. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
punked Posted August 2, 2010 Report Share Posted August 2, 2010 (edited) Looking at the vote count is great. But it doesn't address that other more significant issues. The one where you posted a video not knowing what it was about, than lied about it so you didn't look stuipd? I know the vote count doesn't address that. More from Weiner on the 9/11 bill. http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0810/40544.html Edited August 3, 2010 by punked Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shady Posted August 5, 2010 Author Report Share Posted August 5, 2010 The one where you posted a video not knowing what it was about, than lied about it so you didn't look stuipd? I know the vote count doesn't address that. More from Weiner on the 9/11 bill. http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0810/40544.html These are the facts punked. The House had 255 votes, many more than the 218 needed to pass a bill. But the Democrats didn't want any amendments to the bill they wrote. Republicans wanted to attach an amendment stating that illegal immigrants aren't entitled to the legislation. Apparently Democrats think illegal immigrants should receive free healthcare. Because that's when they changed the rules, and made it a two thirds majority vote, instead of the regular 218. Anthony Weiner is being a weiner. He's demagoging this issue for purely political purposes. Because the Dems were going to lose the votes of their Hispanic Caucus if the Republican amdendment went through. This is why Congress has such a low approval rating. Cheap political games played instead of acheiving what's best for the people. Welcome to the Democrat controlled Congress. Prediction. In September, the Dems will be forced to bring this bill up again, under regular rules. And it will pass easily, with many more than the 218 votes required. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
punked Posted August 5, 2010 Report Share Posted August 5, 2010 These are the facts punked. The House had 255 votes, many more than the 218 needed to pass a bill. But the Democrats didn't want any amendments to the bill they wrote. Republicans wanted to attach an amendment stating that illegal immigrants aren't entitled to the legislation. Apparently Democrats think illegal immigrants should receive free healthcare. Because that's when they changed the rules, and made it a two thirds majority vote, instead of the regular 218. Anthony Weiner is being a weiner. He's demagoging this issue for purely political purposes. Because the Dems were going to lose the votes of their Hispanic Caucus if the Republican amdendment went through. This is why Congress has such a low approval rating. Cheap political games played instead of acheiving what's best for the people. Welcome to the Democrat controlled Congress. Prediction. In September, the Dems will be forced to bring this bill up again, under regular rules. And it will pass easily, with many more than the 218 votes required. No Republicans wanted to add an amendment which stripped the bill of the tax loopholes the Bill closed to pay for the medical care. In that amendment in which they stripped the bill of its way to pay for itself they would also mention illegals so when Dems voted it down because they want the bill to pay for itself the Republicans can say they did so to protect illegals. That is what happened not your own constructed reality dummy. It was all about Republicans putting big business before the Heros of 9/11 again again and again. BTW you look at the vote count? You ready to admit you lied. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shady Posted August 5, 2010 Author Report Share Posted August 5, 2010 No Republicans wanted to add an amendment which stripped the bill of the tax loopholes the Bill closed to pay for the medical care. In that amendment in which they stripped the bill of its way to pay for itself they would also mention illegals so when Dems voted it down because they want the bill to pay for itself the Republicans can say they did so to protect illegals. That is what happened not your own constructed reality dummy. It was all about Republicans putting big business before the Heros of 9/11 again again and again. None of that is true. Stop making excuses. Fact is, this bill will be brought up again in the fall, and pass easily with the 218 needed, instead of the ridiculous two-thirds majority. Besides that, just because an amendment is proposed, doesn't mean it's adopted. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shady Posted August 5, 2010 Author Report Share Posted August 5, 2010 Even more pathetic Democrat behavior regarding this bill. * The bill is introduced as a mandatory spending bill and will run for 10 years. * Mandatory funding of legislation means the program would be automatically funded every year just as Social Security and Medicare are. It would be exempt from annual Congressional review and would not have to go through the appropriations process every year. * Republicans point out that other medical programs, such as health care for veterans, are not given this special treatment. * The bill is being brought to the House Floor today under a parliamentary procedure known as “suspension of the rules.” Under this procedure the bill can only be debated for 40 minutes and no amendments can be offered. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BubberMiley Posted August 5, 2010 Report Share Posted August 5, 2010 Yet they remain the most nasty, angry, miserable people in politics. At least they are according to the most nasty, angry, miserable people in politics. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GostHacked Posted August 5, 2010 Report Share Posted August 5, 2010 Looking at the vote count is great. But it doesn't address that other more significant issues. Like the fact that you are wrong the majority of the time? What is really pathetic is that the First Responders for 9/11 are not going to get the health care coverage that they need. They risk life and limb every day (and every day) and many gave their lives. Let's make sure that we take care of the First Responders ... first. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shady Posted August 5, 2010 Author Report Share Posted August 5, 2010 They risk life and limb every day (and every day) and many gave their lives. Let's make sure that we take care of the First Responders ... first. I agree. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.