And that is mostly the problem of the last what two decades.... no matter who sits with majority, they simply do not want to work for the common good. Only their slice of the power... and money.
We are doomed at some point if we cannot overcome the rhetoric and work toward the common good for the country as a whole. We just continue to slip further into the darkness of the two party partisan politics that serve themselves.
The nonsense around the Supreme Court appointee in the Obama and now this Administration illustrates it perfectly. Block.. try to block, change the rules to avoid the block. Grease meet slope.
And to all.... Barfarn in this thread especially, if you can't make a point without checking your emotions and lashing out at others... it is nothing more than trickle down nonsense from the garbage being generated out East. Hold court without the mud slinging please.
Originally Posted by: Pack93z
Pack93, I am not you. LOL
When you see me type that Rodgers is a sociopath; you look at and realize you cant write that unless it is "emotional." But, I am not you. I would never say Rodgers is a sociopath with doing a clinical analysis based on information that supports the conclusion. The opinion is generated not from emotion, but from scholarly judgment. I assure that over a number of weeks after sorting out the facts and watching hours of tape, comparing it to past similar plays, referencing the playbook, communicating with some who know stuff, the emotions elicited watching him purposefully failing to execute the game plan are long gone.
Some of the things I post were written over weeks or months! My Rodgers is a sociopath post was written over at least 6 months.
Then 99% of the time, I will provide about 60-70 to 100% of the basis for the scholarly judgement. If the, for example 60-70%, doesn't support the conclusion; then I wont write or write in a way that doesn't offer conclusions only elucidating the issue.
Now, scholarly judgments are not always correct and/or than can be room for disagreement. Then this is where the intellectual debate should start. Are there contrary facts, can the facts be rebutted as facts, do the facts left support the conclusion, etc?
Most ignorant argument, especially about the Packers can be ignored. But, some ideas espoused here are formed thru propaganda and possess propaganda value. It is propaganda that will end our Democracy. The People will punish the infighting and congressmen working for tips, IF THE PEOPLE KNOW. Where redeeming quality can be found in argument its uplifted and NEVER have I lashed out at anyone. I might attack or "lash out" if that floats your boat against an idea; but that is 100% different than attacking a person.
The statement about the SC nominee being a by product of mutual party malfeasance is outrageous poppycock, posing as being reasonable. It's pure propaganda, though both parties need an ass kicking. Being reasonable over an outrageous issue is not being reasonable, it is enabling. You might be a great guy; I'm not lashing out at you; but this statement is deceptive propaganda that if proliferated will prevent the People from effectively exercising their essential function and duty. And if you try to support such an argument; i'll probably need a calculator to count the logic errors. You should try to determine how you came to this idea and work to adjust the way you arrive at these outrageous positions.
The issue is actually simple, the FACTS are uncomplicated. The Congressional Rules are flawed: there are rules that require greater than 50% vote; but the rules can be changed by a more than 50% vote. For a very long time both parties respected the requirement that SC judges obtain 60% approval. When Garland, a moderate/stellar jurist, was up for nomination last year debate or vote was filibustered and to justify their position Republican leadership created a new concept that a lame duck President cant appoint a SC nominee. The Dems respected the spirit and word of the longstanding 60% Rule and did not go nuclear. For Gorsuch, instead of trying to present a more moderate candidate; Ryan, McConnell, Pence and Trump shoved their guy down congress' and the country's throat and ended the filibuster by changing the Rules and sodomizing an important 60% Rule.
If the People are correctly informed they will punish these Repubs for their despicable self-serving insolence and undermining of our Senate Rules and the integrity and independence of our democracy's most important feature: it's courts.
Outrageous behavior by one party must be protested vigorously, not covered-up by portending that both sides are at fault, that is, if you want America to remain America.