Posts Tagged ‘nuts and bolts’

Obstructionist Congress

Obstructionist is defined as:

Obstructionism: deliberate interference with the progress or business especially of a legislative body. Webster’s

Given that, it is safe to assume that an obstructionist is one who partakes in obstructionism. School is over, time to get to it. Democrats and Liberals have been claiming the Republicans are merely obstructionists for their actions in the House since the Republicans took over the majority in that portion of Congress. Approval ratings are in the toilet and both sides blame each other. Well here is the nuts and bolts of the argument.

The Democrats had control of Congress (Senate and House of Representatives) and the White House. This was the time to bully their opposition as they could push through any legislation. I personally think they got used to that. They enjoyed having the power to pass any law they wanted and fed off the power. Now they are unable to do that resulting in this obstructionist language (whining). From my perspective, the House has passed numerous bills the Senate refuses to even allow a vote on. Would that not make the Senate the obstructionist side of Congress? Well, if that were true, then that means the Democrats are being obstructionists. Now the talking point does not work, so let us ignore what the Senate does, like NOT passing a budget, or taking up a single jobs bill from the House.

Truth be told, the Democrats want it their way or no way. That is their version of “negotiations” all the while their talking heads go out and blatantly lie and change the subject when it is brought up. Need examples? Bob Beckel when pressed about ANY touchy subject gets “angry” and attempts to take over the conversation by loudly attempting to demonize Mitt Romney. Alan Colmes won’t answer a question directly if his life depended on it, and quite frequently talks about something else as if that were the topic at hand. Jehmu Greene gets on her talking points and ignores others are speaking, so she just rambles on about whatever SHE wants to talk about, or personally attacks (Calling Tucker Carlson a bow-tying white boy). Could you imagine the outrage if he would even SUGGEST she were black, much-less adding a stigma to that observation? THAT would be highly racist to call a black woman black. I digress.

This is not really about which side of the aisle you are on, but common sense. If you think the questions are loaded, which they generally are, then don’t go on the shows and give your expert “opinions”. If you are such a political and mental powerhouse, then just answer the question as you see it. I see the problem being that the Liberals don’t really have a position on some issues, so they tend to attack instead of defend their own thoughts. They have none, so they try to muck up the water. This is quite apparent with the obstructionist Congress. If anyone is being obstructionist, then they ALL are. The glory of divided government – it works that way to ensure we are not overloaded with more ObamaCare fiascoes.

So I suggest if the Right is obstructing, then so is the Left. Guess we are paying these jack-wagons to do nothing. I just find it so amusing that in today’s politics if you are the opposition party, you are somehow expected to not be in opposition? Megan McArdle writes a great article on the obstructionist Congress and its history (This is not the first time). To act as though Congress not agreeing is unprecedented – well that in itself is a fallacy.

– Me


ObamaCare on the Defense?

The Supreme Court finished hearing the arguments for and against the Affordable Care Act (ObamaCare). I am against this and was at the time of passing. I am for certain aspects of it, like the pre-existing conditions, etc. . . Here is the nuts and bolts of the new Left argument. The Obama Administration failed miserably through the Solicitor General and the Bill looks as though it will fail miserably. There appeared to be times the Liberal leaning judges tried to HELP explain on behalf of the bill and the Conservative judges picked it apart. That is no surprise to anyone I would argue.

Here is where the propaganda comes in. The Left is now claiming the Supreme Court is too Republican, and only on those merits are going to deem the law unconstitutional. They are setting up the excuses now in anticipation the law will be struck down. Some on the Left are even claiming the Supreme Court is exercising “judicial activism”, or will “lose legitimacy” if the law is overturned. What a joke of a political comment. These idiots are posturing before a single vote is cast. Interesting; makes me think they KNOW it is going to be struck down.

A point of note (please click the link and look at the numbers) is 48% of cases in 2010 were decided 9-0, 13% 8-1, 15% 7-2, 5% 6-3 and 20% 5-4. Is it political and judicial activism when the Justices agree unanimously almost half the time, or only when things don’t seem to go their way? I suggest the Left is terrified the legislation is gone, and when that happens, the process would have to start over. I personally hope it does, and take the B/S out of it this time – and READ it for crying out loud. Anyway, the Left is always on a new talking point in a failed attempt to once again become the victim. I am tired of the same old tired attitude of the Left, when they tend to get most everything they want. Saying the Supreme Court loses legitimacy if a decision does not go your way is simple disregard for the law. If they find this bill to be legal, then I am on board, I just hope they do not.

–          Me

%d bloggers like this: