Repubs Agenda

[Comish]

 

I thought a person to person exchange might have a bit more veracity, but Carl asked if I believed the Senator; evidently insinuating that he lied to me face to face.

I can probably clear that up for you without the insinuation: he was either lying to your face or spinning half-truths . . . which is the same thing.

 

Sorry that your world view is so negative that the default position is that he must be lying or spinning half truths.

I prefer to give folks the benefit of the doubt before assuming the worst.

(given the disingenuousness of the current occupant of the White House, you must really be morose)

[Comish]

The number 360 hasn't been disputed; its meaning and significance has. Saying that it's been widely quoted in the media is exactly repeating the claim, without supporting its interpretation.

 

You can't find it too shocking that a Republican congressman would state that he feels a Democrat is responsible for the gridlock or that there isn't enough media attention devoted to Democrat shortcomings.

Fair assessment........

[carlfense]

Sorry that your world view is so negative that the default position is that he must be lying or spinning half truths.

It's not a default position. When someone's statements are contradicted by reality they are either lying or (less likely in this case) they don't know what they're talking about.

[Comish]

 

Sorry that your world view is so negative that the default position is that he must be lying or spinning half truths.

It's not a default position. When someone's statements are contradicted by reality they are either lying or (less likely in this case) they don't know what they're talking about.

 

Just so I fully understand your position.....

A United States Senator (in responding to a specific question) is more likely to either not know what he is talking about and/or is lying....................than giving an honest answer....?

In essence, the opinion of any random blogger on an internet thread (based on responses to this thread) is more likely to be trusted than an elected official to the infamous....."World's Most Exclusive Club".

Exactly what in Sen. Barrasso's history gives you that gut response?

[carlfense]

A United States Senator (in responding to a specific question) is more likely to either not know what he is talking about and/or is lying....................than giving an honest answer....?

I don't know that it would extrapolate but in this specific instance the answer is yes.

 

In essence, the opinion of any random blogger on an internet thread (based on responses to this thread) is more likely to be trusted than an elected official to the infamous....."World's Most Exclusive Club".

I've never blogged a day in my life.

 

Exactly what in Sen. Barrasso's history gives you that gut response?

I don't (and you don't) need to know his history. Sen. Barrasso is entirely irrelevant to the question of whether what you're claiming is accurate.

 

There is an entire world of knowledge outside of Sen. Barrasso's history. I'm not sure why you're so fixated on him?

[Comish]

 

A United States Senator (in responding to a specific question) is more likely to either not know what he is talking about and/or is lying....................than giving an honest answer....?

I don't know that it would extrapolate but in this specific instance the answer is yes.

 

In essence, the opinion of any random blogger on an internet thread (based on responses to this thread) is more likely to be trusted than an elected official to the infamous....."World's Most Exclusive Club".

I've never blogged a day in my life.

 

Exactly what in Sen. Barrasso's history gives you that gut response?

I don't (and you don't) need to know his history. Sen. Barrasso is entirely irrelevant to the question of whether what you're claiming is accurate.

 

There is an entire world of knowledge outside of Sen. Barrasso's history. I'm not sure why you're so fixated on him?

 

I'm really not fixated on him specifically.

As I questioned another poster earlier...who exactly IS an unimpeachable source? Either side is suspicious of either Fox or Msnbc or Huffpo or most any source not agreeing with a particular stance.

I offered (as an alternative source), an encounter with a sitting Senator responding to a specific question, and you categorically state that he is either lying or spinning. To which I ask.......Who or What or Where is a source that both sides of a discussion can agree is legitimate?

Actually, this discussion becomes a proxy for the larger question of why so many on here (recognizing, of course that the majority of posters are liberal and probably unhappy with the results) immediately interpreted the outcome of the election with certitude that ......the Repubs will do this, or they will do that, or whatever negative charge justified impugning them. And I ask again.........why not wait and see what they actually DO ? Is it simply not possible that some politicians are actually honorable men and women actually trying to solve some issues? Why is that such a foreign concept?

IF, after being given an opportunity, they fail to meet expectations........certainly throw them out and castigate at will.

But to assume their failures before they are given a shot is not only fatalistic and unfair, it probably discourages others from seeking office.

Remember there is a difference between a politician and a statesman.

We shouldn't reflexively assume there are no statesman left.

[BigRedBuster]

 

 

A United States Senator (in responding to a specific question) is more likely to either not know what he is talking about and/or is lying....................than giving an honest answer....?

I don't know that it would extrapolate but in this specific instance the answer is yes.

 

In essence, the opinion of any random blogger on an internet thread (based on responses to this thread) is more likely to be trusted than an elected official to the infamous....."World's Most Exclusive Club".

I've never blogged a day in my life.

 

Exactly what in Sen. Barrasso's history gives you that gut response?

I don't (and you don't) need to know his history. Sen. Barrasso is entirely irrelevant to the question of whether what you're claiming is accurate.

 

There is an entire world of knowledge outside of Sen. Barrasso's history. I'm not sure why you're so fixated on him?

 

I'm really not fixated on him specifically.

As I questioned another poster earlier...who exactly IS an unimpeachable source? Either side is suspicious of either Fox or Msnbc or Huffpo or most any source not agreeing with a particular stance.

I offered (as an alternative source), an encounter with a sitting Senator responding to a specific question, and you categorically state that he is either lying or spinning. To which I ask.......Who or What or Where is a source that both sides of a discussion can agree is legitimate?

Actually, this discussion becomes a proxy for the larger question of why so many on here (recognizing, of course that the majority of posters are liberal and probably unhappy with the results) immediately interpreted the outcome of the election with certitude that ......the Repubs will do this, or they will do that, or whatever negative charge justified impugning them. And I ask again.........why not wait and see what they actually DO ? Is it simply not possible that some politicians are actually honorable men and women actually trying to solve some issues? Why is that such a foreign concept?

IF, after being given an opportunity, they fail to meet expectations........certainly throw them out and castigate at will.

But to assume their failures before they are given a shot is not only fatalistic and unfair, it probably discourages others from seeking office.

Remember there is a difference between a politician and a statesman.

We shouldn't reflexively assume there are no statesman left.

 

I have been searching for this for years now. I can't say it enough. The media in this country is more dangerous to our futures than anything any one man or woman or party can do in Washington.

[carlfense]

I'm really not fixated on him specifically.

Sure seems like you are . . . since you've referenced him about a half-dozen times and seem offended that his honesty would be questioned.

 

As I questioned another poster earlier...who exactly IS an unimpeachable source? . . . Where is a source that both sides of a discussion can agree is legitimate?

There is no such thing as a single unimpeachable source but some can be easily discarded because of the totality of their body of work.

 

And I ask again.........why not wait and see what they actually DO ? Is it simply not possible that some politicians are actually honorable men and women actually trying to solve some issues? Why is that such a foreign concept?

IF, after being given an opportunity, they fail to meet expectations........certainly throw them out and castigate at will.

But to assume their failures before they are given a shot is not only fatalistic and unfair, it probably discourages others from seeking office.

You can hope for whatever you'd like. We'll see who was right and who was wrong over the next two years.

[Comish]

Just to put this so called "fixation" to bed...........the ONLY reason I've utilized him is because he was the singular opportunity I had to ask the question. Nothing more/ Nothing less.

(If I'd had the opportunity to question all 100 Senators, I would have been interested to do that as well).

 

 

You can hope for whatever you'd like. We'll see who was right and who was wrong over the next two years.

 

Cheers back at you..............lets hope in two years the country is in a better place and we won't worry about who was right or wrong......

[tschu]

Nothing whatsoever is going to happen in the next two years.

[carlfense]

Nothing whatsoever is going to happen in the next two years.

BENGHAZI!(!!!) hearings and at least one impeachment vote.

[TGHusker]

 

Nothing whatsoever is going to happen in the next two years.

BENGHAZI!(!!!) hearings and at least one impeachment vote.

 

The repubs don't have the guts to impeach. They have shown that they can talk tough but always fold. They campaigned on milk toast (lack of a specific agenda) so as to not upset anyone prior to the midterms. Now they'll do the accommodation thing again so that they can keep their gains and gain the presidency.

[carlfense]

The repubs don't have the guts to impeach. They have shown that they can talk tough but always fold. They campaigned on milk toast (lack of a specific agenda) so as to not upset anyone prior to the midterms. Now they'll do the accommodation thing again so that they can keep their gains and gain the presidency.

Yes . . . the GOP seems quite concerned about upsetting people . . .

 

I'll be surprised if articles of impeachment aren't passed in the House. Most likely over executive action on immigration. It won't get the necessary supermajority in the Senate but the GOP is going to want that asterisk on Obama just like on Clinton. Frankly, they don't care how ridiculous it makes them look.