Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Tuesday, February 19, 2019

A federal judge Tuesday gave the green light to a parks-advocacy group's lawsuit that aims to stop for good the delayed construction of former President Barack Obama's $500 million presidential center in a Chicago park beside Lake Michigan.

More

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

i·ro·ny

/ˈīrənē/

noun

...

2. A state of affairs or an event that seems deliberately contrary to what one expects and is often amusing as a result.

#1 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2019-02-19 05:24 PM | Reply

Look this judge is a racist ----- just like FakeLawyer is.

#2 | Posted by aborted_monson at 2019-02-19 06:38 PM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 1

Only took two comments for some idiot to play the race card.

#3 | Posted by Spork at 2019-02-19 11:37 PM | Reply | Funny: 3 | Newsworthy 2

Them lawyers and Judges can churn this milk.

#4 | Posted by bayviking at 2019-02-20 12:17 AM | Reply

at least we can be assured...there won't be a trump library unless mexico pays for it. Oh yeah..-- #3

#5 | Posted by 1947steamer at 2019-02-20 12:28 AM | Reply

The town of Cairo, Illinois would be a wonderful location for the Obama Center.

#6 | Posted by LesWit at 2019-02-20 01:17 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

I sincerely hope this gets resolved in a manner in which all parties are satisfied.

I thought Obama had great potential to be a Uniter as POTUS. He failed. He's still relatively young and is talented. My hope is he can channel that and become a great elder statesman. This turf-war is a bad start.

#7 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-02-20 01:34 AM | Reply | Funny: 1

#7
Obama failed to get the haters to stop hating.

#8 | Posted by squinch at 2019-02-20 02:41 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 4

"I thought Obama had great potential to be a Uniter as POTUS. He failed."

He failed? Garbage. Merrick Garland. Now I ask you who failed? Clue, it wasn't Obama.

#9 | Posted by danni at 2019-02-20 07:37 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 4

#10,

Face it Danni, he did fail. He never came to the other side for a give and take. He was always on the liberal side of things. That's why he failed. He told alot of people he was going to be middle of the road. He wasnt. And he failed.

Own it.

#10 | Posted by boaz at 2019-02-20 07:59 AM | Reply | Funny: 2

It was always pretty obvious from the photos of people mock-lynching Obama that nothing he did would ever be enough for a certain segment of our society. Boaz the racist still spouts birtherism nonsense to this day.

#11 | Posted by JOE at 2019-02-20 08:21 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 4

#7 Being a "uniter" is clearly not something you value; you defend and deflect on behalf of the most divisive POS ever to set foot in American politics on a daily basis.

#12 | Posted by JOE at 2019-02-20 08:26 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

JeffJ, maybe you should open another Kavanaugh thread so you can speak more on date rape, being accused of date rape, and defending the date rapists. That seems to be where your expertise lies. Leave the Obama threads to non birthers. I mean do you even recall how many date rape defending threads you created? Sounds like somebody has themselves a little secret.

#13 | Posted by blackheartsun at 2019-02-20 08:40 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

"Face it Danni, he did fail. He never came to the other side for a give and take."

That is entirely untrue. I remember watching the committee hearings as they planned Obamacare and Republican ideas were definitely included. BTW, Obamacare is still going strong despite Republican and Trump efforts to undermine it. When healthcare legislation like that endures Republican majorities in both houses of Congress, a Republican President and a right wing leaning SC it is laughable to say he failed.

#14 | Posted by danni at 2019-02-20 08:46 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

Obamacare is still going strong

Any giveaway is going to go "strong". It's easy when you are giving away someone else's money.

#15 | Posted by boaz at 2019-02-20 08:52 AM | Reply

"He never came to the other side for a give and take. He was always on the liberal side of things. That's why he failed. He told alot of people he was going to be middle of the road."

Partisan nonsense. I agree that Obama veered hard left on a couple of things towards the end of his terms and didn't seem to care about the fallout of it (which arguably helped get Trump elected), but for the most part he was middle of the road. The Republicans did not want to come to the middle on anything.

#16 | Posted by sentinel at 2019-02-20 09:10 AM | Reply

I clearly touched some nerves with #7 which was mostly positive of Obama and I wished for a positive outcome to all of this.

Obama supporters have incredibly thin skin.

#17 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-02-20 09:36 AM | Reply

"Face it Danni, he did fail. He never came to the other side for a give and take."

Obama? The great compromiser? The man who did anything he could to get bipartisan support for things despite McConnell's insistence he'd never work with a black president?

Obama was the best Republican President we've had in my lifetime. You're too much of a hyper partisan to notice.

Boaz. You never cease to astound me with your utter stupidity.

I've said it before. I'll say it again. You're dumb, as in unintelligent, dim, dense, dull, ignorant, brainless, mindless, foolish, witless, slow, dunce-like, simpleminded, empty-headed, vacuous, vapid, halfwitted, idiotic, moronic, imbecilic, imbecile, obtuse...

#18 | Posted by ClownShack at 2019-02-20 10:10 AM | Reply

Clown,

Serious question - Is everything OK?

You've seemed really off the last couple of months.

#19 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-02-20 10:14 AM | Reply

I thought Obama had great potential to be a Uniter as POTUS. He failed. He's still relatively young and is talented. My hope is he can channel that and become a great elder statesman. This turf-war is a bad start.

#7 | Posted by JeffJ

Dream on teenage buttercup.

#20 | Posted by Sniper at 2019-02-20 10:19 AM | Reply

It's Chicago the corruption capital of the USA. You have to make pay offs to get anything done. Just pay them off and it will proceed. You would think Obama would know whom to pay and who he could stiff.

#21 | Posted by visitor_ at 2019-02-20 10:22 AM | Reply

"Any giveaway is going to go "strong". It's easy when you are giving away someone else's money."

I guess you don't remember "Repeal and replace."

Short memory is an affliction which seems to affect many Republicans. Treatment of that pre-existing condition is made available for you because of Obamacare.

#22 | Posted by danni at 2019-02-20 10:34 AM | Reply

"It's Chicago the corruption capital of the USA. "

But Moscow is the corruption capital of your nation.

#23 | Posted by danni at 2019-02-20 10:35 AM | Reply

Clear distinction between Obama and Trump. Trump knows that if pay off the community activists they will go away. Obama, as a former community activist, doesn't seem to grasp that he's now the payer and not the payee.

#24 | Posted by visitor_ at 2019-02-20 10:55 AM | Reply

I don't think there was really ever any possibility of being a "uniter", regardless of who was elected. Republicans were just starting to realize that every policy and cultural goal of theirs was going to fail. The "america" they knew no longer existed, and was getting further and further away. The country had become much more liberal, tolerant, and empathetic without them even realizing it.

So the Republican base started to panic. And due to that panic arising from their sense that they were losing more and more each year, they fought tooth and nail against EVERYTHING that liberals tried to do. They even fought tooth and nail against the healthcare reform THAT THEY SUGGESTED (Obamacare was based upon the Republican model created by the Heritage Foundation and supported by, among others, Newt Gingrich).

That is why Trump's "winner and loser" language resonates with them. Liberals can accept a give and take (compromise) because they know that anything they lose now has a good likelihood of being gotten back in the future. For conservatives any loss is a shot to the heart because they know that this was their last chance. Anything they lose they will never (at least not in the foreseeable future) get back. That is why conservatives are STILL so angry ("screaming at the sky") even when they won all three branches of government. Because even with that they STILL can't accomplish their policy or cultural goals. And because they know that the next president will be a democrat. And after that? In 8 years the demographics of the country (old white people dying, more minorities, and the younger generations being turned off by Republican intolerance) will probably have gone completely against them. Either the Republican party will have to change to become more liberal, or it won't be able to compete nationally.

Obama's big problem was that he tried too hard to be a uniter, when it was doomed to failure from the start. He pissed off liberals by going center of the road, and all for nothing because conservatives were never going to reward him for it.

#25 | Posted by gtbritishskull at 2019-02-20 11:02 AM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 2

#25 | POSTED BY GTBRITISHSKULL

Your narratives are unmoored from reality but they are interesting.

#26 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-02-20 11:11 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Your narratives are unmoored from reality but they are interesting.

#26 | POSTED BY JEFFJ

Lol.

Just trying to find a theory that fits the data. Republicans elected Trump. And have since abandoned just about every single ideological position that they claim to hold dear. They have shredded the constitution. Attacked and damaged our countries institutions (FBI, Supreme Court). Ballooned the deficit. Abandoned all sense of "personal responsibility".

As far as I can tell the only thing that the Republican party stands for now is "winning". There is no ideological foundation that limits them from doing long term damage that prevents them from achieving their goals in the long term. Because there are no goals in the long term. Only the short term goals of "winning" and "pissing off liberals".

How do you explain Republicans picking Trump to lead your party?

He is not a fluke. He has not changed. The Republican party was not "tricked" into nominating him. Everything that he is now was obvious when the Republican party voted for him. And they had a diverse field of other options before them. They did not vote for him in spite of his flaws. They voted for him BECAUSE of his flaws. They are features, not bugs.

If you want to know who a person really is, know what they hold dear, then you look at their actions, not their words. And the ACTIONS of Republicans were to vote to raise someone of Donald Trump's character up to lead their party, and to consistently fall in line behind him as he shreds their supposed ideology.

#27 | Posted by gtbritishskull at 2019-02-20 12:33 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

"Republicans elected Trump. And have since abandoned just about every single ideological position that they claim to hold dear."

They still think blacks are poor because they're lazy, women get abortions because they're whores, and poverty petsists because the rich pay too much taxes.

Those are the true core Republican beliefs, and they will never change.

#28 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-02-20 12:44 PM | Reply

You left off the one about guns.

#29 | Posted by visitor_ at 2019-02-20 01:42 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

Jeff - in what way was Obama so liberal in your mind? Was it including a public option when beginning the negotiations on Obamacare? Oh yeah, he took it off the table.

Perhaps the reason he was not successful is because the GOP was never going to allow it. Somehow, declaring that your number one policy goal was making Obama a one term President doesn't lead to comity or compromise.

#30 | Posted by mOntecOre at 2019-02-20 06:55 PM | Reply

Monte,

He went about as far left as the Overton Window could take him and then went beyond that later in his presidency with his executive actions.

That's not what I was talking about though. I was talking about him as a unifying presence. As POTUS, he wasn't. Not even close. He gets a second chance in his post-presidency and I honestly hope he succeeds.

#31 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-02-20 08:17 PM | Reply

Somehow, declaring that your number one policy goal was making Obama a one term President doesn't lead to comity or compromise.

#30 | Posted by mOntecOre

Republican leadership met the night of his inauguration and decided to be against anything Obama was for, even if it was their own idea. When our economy was on the brink of collapse and millions were losing their homes and jobs.

That is f**king un-American.

#32 | Posted by AMERICANUNITY at 2019-02-21 06:33 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

declaring that your number one policy goal was making Obama a one term President doesn't lead to comity or compromise.

#30 | POSTED BY MONTECORE

I guarantee you that is the number one goal every single time when the opposition party loses the WH.

What you described sounds like #TheResistance.

My expectation is for opposition parties to behave like opposition parties.

#33 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-02-21 09:03 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Jeff, I think his point was that "unity" requires a willing populace. You cannot "unite" when one side is content to stand facing the wall and stomping its feet for 8 years. That goes for any minority party, but it certainly cannot be laid at Obama's feet.

The right's reaction to Obama was to nominate and elect a birther. Think about that, and tell me it's Obama's fault we don't have unity.

#34 | Posted by JOE at 2019-02-21 09:25 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

I didn't say it was Obama's fault that we don't have unity.

What I said was Obama had the potential to be a unifying figure as POTUS and that he failed in that regard.

He came into office with a 70% approval rating and promptly squandered it.

#35 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-02-21 09:35 AM | Reply

I didn't say it was Obama's fault that we don't have unity.
What I said was Obama had the potential to be a unifying figure as POTUS and that he failed in that regard.

Care to explain the difference between those two things?

He "had the potential" to do something, he "failed," but it isn't his fault? Okay jeff...

#36 | Posted by JOE at 2019-02-21 09:45 AM | Reply

It's his fault that he failed on his end.

That we don't have unity as a whole was not completely in his control - outside factors also contributed.

I hope that makes sense.

#37 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-02-21 09:52 AM | Reply

Republican leadership met the night of his inauguration and decided to be against anything Obama was for, even if it was their own idea. When our economy was on the brink of collapse and millions were losing their homes and jobs.
That is f**king un-American.
#32 | Posted by AMERICANUNITY at 2019-02-21 06:33 AM

That is a lie.
They agreed to oppose Obama's economic policies, not anything he was for. There's no need for you to lie and try to rewrite history.
"The Republicans had agreed on a way forward: ...Show united and unyielding opposition to the president's economic policies. "

#38 | Posted by Avigdore at 2019-02-21 10:08 AM | Reply

No Jeff Obama didn't fail to unite. It's people like You and fellow right wingers refusal to work with him is the one's responsible for failing to unite with him. He offered to work with Repuvlicans but their racist bigotry prevented that.

#39 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2019-02-21 10:11 AM | Reply

#38 BS.

On the night of Barack Obama's inauguration, a group of top GOP luminaries quietly gathered in a Washington steakhouse to lick their wounds and ultimately create the outline of a plan for how to deal with the incoming administration.

"The room was filled. It was a who's who of ranking members who had at one point been committee chairmen, or in the majority, who now wondered out loud whether they were in the permanent minority," Frank Luntz, who organized the event, told FRONTLINE.

Among them were Senate power brokers Jim DeMint, Jon Kyl and Tom Coburn, and conservative congressmen Eric Cantor, Kevin McCarthy and Paul Ryan.

After three hours of strategizing, they decided they needed to fight Obama on EVERYTHING. The new president had no idea what the Republicans were planning.

www.pbs.org

"Anything he was for" meant regarding his policies and agendas which Obama believed to be in the nation's best interests and those for which he was elected. The GOP opposed them even if they were actually ideas they had supported before.

Learn to read.

#40 | Posted by tonyroma at 2019-02-21 10:25 AM | Reply

He offered to work with Repuvlicans but their racist bigotry prevented that.

This is all Liberals have left ...

People have legitimate reasons to be against most of what Obama did during his Presidency.

To label it as a racist is how 5yo deal with disagreements.

#41 | Posted by AndreaMackris at 2019-02-21 10:27 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

they decided they needed to fight Obama on EVERYTHING

So? Liberals decided to fight Bush and Trump on EVERYTHING.

Its politics.... I don't expect you not to FIGHT for what you believe in.

Doesn't mean anyone is a racist ...

#42 | Posted by AndreaMackris at 2019-02-21 10:29 AM | Reply

they decided they needed to fight Obama on EVERYTHING

Sounds like #TheResistance.

#43 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-02-21 10:35 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

This is all Liberals have left ...
People have legitimate reasons to be against most of what Obama did during his Presidency.
To label it as a racist is how 5yo deal with disagreements.

#41 | POSTED BY ANDREAMACKRIS

Sadly I can only give one NW for this post.

#44 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-02-21 10:36 AM | Reply

The GOP opposition was wildly successful. Look at the '10 midterms for proof. Obama and the Democrats pursued a highly divisive agenda when they had control. '10 was the result.

#45 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-02-21 10:37 AM | Reply

He "had the potential" to do something, he "failed,"....

Obama's first 100 days are well documented, with both sides working on numerous issues for the charismatic Obama. He came in with alot of goodwill, but Obama threw the stimulus bill to the Democrats to stuff, and left out Republicans, along with the shoving of ObamaCare down not just Republicans, but also some Democrats as well.

The basics of uniting, You can't unite when you don't invite.

But I understand most Progressives think he wasn't partisan enough, he certainly ran the middle of the left.

#46 | Posted by AndreaMackris at 2019-02-21 10:38 AM | Reply

So? Liberals decided to fight Bush and Trump on EVERYTHING.

Again, reading comprehension appears to fail you. Democrats have never opposed Bush or Trump on everything. They were willing to and did compromise on myriad legislation and policies as do most Congressional delegations. What the GOP did in 2009 was decide to oppose EVERYTHING regardless of its actual need or merits as AU pointed out in his post. They opposed the bailout which helped change the economy's trajectory into the one we still are enjoying today until the recession likely hits later this year or early next because Trump is a fool and idiot sabotaging his own economy.

That was the difference: Democrats have never decided to place the party's political goals before the needs of the country they're sworn to defend and protect. The Republicans did it with glee and were immediately rewarded for doing so in 2010 and 2012 due to the effectiveness of the right wing media propaganda machine. This is why so many others blindly ignorant of the root causation themselves joined the chorus because they abhorred the newly elected black President, and that reeked of prejudice and/or racial animus. And yes, those people existed and still exist. I don't find such a fact even arguable. To what numbers is another story that likely isn't quantifiable.

Want proof? The TEA party protests began in February 2009 barely a month after Obama was inaugurated. Just what had he done other than propose the same measures used by every 20th Century administration before when faced with an economic collapse on a global scale? How was he such a reviled person in less than 30 days when he did precisely what he was elected to do and promised to do in his landslide victory?

#47 | Posted by tonyroma at 2019-02-21 10:52 AM | Reply

Tony,

I expect opposition parties to act like opposition parties.

We saw it in '09 and we have seen it via #TheResistance.

#48 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-02-21 10:57 AM | Reply

#40 | Posted by tonyroma at 2019-02-21 10:25 AM
Hmm...my direct quote from a passage from the book, or your quote of Azmat Khan's opinion on the book.
That's really a tough call. What the author SAID or how someone in the media FELT about what the author said.
Learn to read understand the difference between a direct passage from a book and an opinion piece.

#49 | Posted by Avigdore at 2019-02-21 10:58 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

I was commenting on your idiocy, not the author's. Again, you cannot even understand your own words so stop trying to school me on my own, moron.

Read my last paragraph again and see if you can figure it out. I spelled it out for you.

#50 | Posted by tonyroma at 2019-02-21 12:51 PM | Reply

Read my last paragraph again and see if you can figure it out. I spelled it out for you. #50 | Posted by tonyroma at 2019-02-21 12:51 PM

Your post to me: "Anything he was for" meant regarding his policies and agendas which Obama believed to be in the nation's best interests and those for which he was elected. The GOP opposed them even if they were actually ideas they had supported before.
Learn to read."
Your last paragraph was 'Learn to read'.
It was a weak attempt to demean me while you were in midst of displaying your own ignorance of comparing a primary source with an opinion piece.
I am not surprised by your inability to admit to the truth when it is pointed out to you.

On the off chance that you wanted me to look at the last paragraph of your response to JeffJ I'll add this:
The premise of the lie that you are defending remains this : "Republican leadership met the night of his inauguration and decided to be against anything Obama was for".
The TEA party on the night of Obama's inauguration most assuredly was not the Republican leadership. If you are pointing to this paragraph as some evidence to back the lie that you are defending, then you have a conceptual problem in addition to your honesty problem and your inability to differentiate between the validity of sources problem.

#51 | Posted by Avigdore at 2019-02-21 01:09 PM | Reply

Democrats have never decided to place the party's political goals before the needs of the country they're sworn to defend and protect.

Obama's political agenda is synonymous with the needs of the country?

The Republicans did it with glee and were immediately rewarded for doing so in 2010 and 2012

If the Democrats' agenda was so vital, opposing it would have had the opposite electoral effect.

due to the effectiveness of the right wing media propaganda machine

That's a rationalization, as is this:

This is why so many others blindly ignorant of the root causation themselves joined the chorus because they abhorred the newly elected black President, and that reeked of prejudice and/or racial animus. And yes, those people existed and still exist. I don't find such a fact even arguable. To what numbers is another story that likely isn't quantifiable.

He came into office with a 70% approval rating. The epic electoral fail of '10 was a referendum of Obama's and the Democratic Party's governance over the prior 2 years.

The Tea Party was a far bigger thorn in the side of the GOP than of the Democratic Party. The Democratic Party has it's own version of the Tea Party building right now - The New Socialist Party (TM).

#52 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-02-21 01:14 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

He came into office with a 70% approval rating.

So what? Every president enters office with a high approval rating and exits in the garbage when the public realizes they don't live up to their campaign rhetoric. George W. Bush had a 90% approval rating after 9/11. He left office at 34%.

#53 | Posted by JOE at 2019-02-21 01:30 PM | Reply

Obama's high was 67%. He exited office at 59%. Drop: 8%.

Bush's high was 90%. He exited office at 34%. Drop: 56%.

If this is your measure of failure, Obama looks pretty good.

#54 | Posted by JOE at 2019-02-21 01:37 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

The TEA party on the night of Obama's inauguration most assuredly was not the Republican leadership.

There WAS no tea party on the night of Obama's inauguration, idiot. They didn't form until the next month. And yes, many in the GOP leadership attended the meeting, "Attending the dinner were House members Eric Cantor, Jeb Hensarling, Pete Hoekstra, Dan Lungren, Kevin McCarthy, Paul Ryan and Pete Sessions. From the Senate were Tom Coburn, Bob Corker, Jim DeMint, John Ensign and Jon Kyl. Others present were former House Speaker and future – and failed – presidential candidate Newt Gingrich and the Republican strategist Frank Luntz, who organised the dinner and sent out the invitations."

Did these members lead the GOP into a strategy they utilized to thwart Obama? Were these members committee heads and party leaders who marshaled the other GOPers into following their example as it regarded stonewalling Obama's efforts? Of course they did nimrod, which is why they were called "leaders" in the lowercase sense. Again, your ignorance and inability to understand words and definitions is appalling.

Yet again, this is the ONLY comment I wrote my post in response too, not your insipid quotes from an insipid opinion piece, only YOUR COMMENT:

They agreed to oppose Obama's economic policies, not anything he was for.

They opposed "anything he was for" because the comment of AU's was made in the context of Obama's political agenda and policy ideas he was elected to enact, not his taste in lettuce, so YES, they opposed ANYTHING he was for.

The epic electoral fail of '10 was a referendum of Obama's and the Democratic Party's governance over the prior 2 years.

Hardly. If not for Obama's stimulus the economy would not have rebounded as quickly as it did, most every single economist agreed with that assessment. 2010 occurred because the right followed the plan largely formulated at this inaugural night meeting and implemented it to perfection which allowed the GOP to blame Obama for their own failures and stoked the latent hatred many had for him as a person often masking it as policy disagreements where the GOP refused to move one inch toward any reasonable compromises because doing so might help Americans and make Obama more popular. I'm surprised you slept through these years. Amazing things happened and an opposition party became 5th columnists against the constitutional oaths. It was quite the sight.

#55 | Posted by tonyroma at 2019-02-21 04:11 PM | Reply

If not for Obama's stimulus the economy would not have rebounded as quickly as it did,

We were told that without the stimulus unemployment would hit 8%. Well, they passed the stimulus and unemployment hit 10%.

2010 occurred because the right followed the plan largely formulated at this inaugural night meeting and implemented it to perfection which allowed the GOP to blame Obama for their own failures and stoked the latent hatred many had for him as a person often masking it as policy disagreements where the GOP refused to move one inch toward any reasonable compromises because doing so might help Americans and make Obama more popular.

2010 occurred largely because Democrats rammed through a massive healthcare law that the public did not want and they paid a huge price as a result of their hubris.

Amazing things happened and an opposition party became 5th columnists against the constitutional oaths.

They violated their constitutional oaths because they refused to rubber stamp Obama's agenda? Risible.

#56 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-02-21 04:21 PM | Reply

We were told that without the stimulus unemployment would hit 8%. Well, they passed the stimulus and unemployment hit 10%.

And then what happened and continued to happen to the economy for the next 8+ years? Good lord, you sound like Sniper.

They violated their constitutional oaths because they refused to rubber stamp Obama's agenda?

Hardly. They acted as 5th columnists because they refused to compromise on legislation and issues needed to correct the damage done by 8 years of GOP profligate spending and war mongering in the name of terror, not to mention their willingness to raise taxes at a time when the GDP had a huge hole in it from the deregulatory market crash fostered by Congress's decisionmaking.

2010 occurred largely because Democrats rammed through a massive healthcare law that the public did not want and they paid a huge price as a result of their hubris.

Yeah, tens of millions were able to receive health insurance and healthcare cost-related bankruptcies decreased as health outcomes improved and costs actually rose far less than they were before the ACA. And this is where the GOP has continued to fail their constitutional duty to citizens. No one had to be force-fed the ACA without amendments and tweaks of which the GOP included 150 or so in the finished legislation yet failed to register a single vote toward. And they did this while declaring they would formulate a better plan that would fare better than the ACA. Where is that plan Jeff after a decade? So yes, the GOP still hasn't given a tinker's damn about Americans struggling with health insurance and health care and that indeed was a pillar of Obama's campaign to which he provided that which could be passed over GOP obstinance and abject lying and fearmongering.

#57 | Posted by tonyroma at 2019-02-21 04:37 PM | Reply

Tony,

Historically the bigger the recession the bigger the economic bounce back. Yet, not one year of the Obama administration saw 3% growth.

They refused to compromise? Oh the horror!

That big, evil sinister plot has a name: politics. Well, Democrats call it The Resistance but it's the same thing. You act like Obama was entitled to their approval of his agenda.

#58 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-02-21 05:03 PM | Reply

After all of the fearmongering and lying by Obama and the Democrats when selling ACA and you are going to bitch about the GOP lying?

Wow.

#59 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-02-21 05:20 PM | Reply

"My expectation is for opposition parties to behave like opposition parties.
#33 | POSTED BY JEFFJ"

Is voting against things simply because someone from the other party suggested it "behaving like an opposition party"? Is it OK with you? Is there any room at all anymore for putting party over country? Clearly not in your head.

#60 | Posted by mOntecOre at 2019-02-21 07:24 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#55 | Posted by tonyroma at 2019-02-21 04:11 PM

You could have saved us all a lot of trouble if you'd just begun your tirade with the fact that you were unable to follow the conversation.
I know the TEA party beginning wasn't republican leadership, that's why I said so.
I also know that the rep leaders agreed to oppose Obama's economic policy, not " ANYTHING he was for" no matter how many times you lie about it. I've shown you the documentation where that was revealed, yet reading still seems beyond your comprehension. All you can do is get flustered, lose track of your own points, and call people names when they make you look bad. Watching you fail so badly was enjoyable for a while, but your histrionics have grown wearisome.
You have been, and continue to be, wrong. I'm not sure if your inability to make a valid point, your childish name calling, or your lack of reading comprehension is the most humorous. I'll continue to point them out and let others make their own decision.

#61 | Posted by Avigdore at 2019-02-21 09:10 PM | Reply

your insipid quotes from an insipid opinion piece,
#55 | Posted by tonyroma at 2019-02-21 04:11 PM

This part was especially funny, since you were the one posting an opinion piece (your pbs link) while I was the one posting the direct passage of the book (as quoted in the Washington Post link I provided) being used to make the false claim to begin with. You're so funny tonyroma. Easy to laugh at.

#62 | Posted by Avigdore at 2019-02-21 09:31 PM | Reply

#60

Like Tony you seem to presume that the Democratic Party's agenda is putting country first. Surely, Democrats see it that way. Republicans don't.

Seriously, Monte. If you are going to bitch about how "intransigent" the GOP was during the Obama years then surely you should be bitching about #TheResistance. But you're not. Why is that?

#63 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-02-21 09:38 PM | Reply

Why is that?

#Team

#64 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2019-02-21 09:42 PM | Reply

Seriously, Monte. If you are going to bitch about how "intransigent" the GOP was during the Obama years then surely you should be bitching about #TheResistance. But you're not. Why is that?

#63 | Posted by JeffJ

THE KING (of false equivilancies) STRIKES AGAIN!

Yeah if you supported opposition to one president, how come you didn't support opposition to a different president?

All presidents are the same right?

It's really suspicious that you are opposed to a con man traitor president but not opposed to a constitutional lawyer president. Hmmmm what's the difference?

#65 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2019-02-21 09:45 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

It's politics, Speaks.

Legislating is hard. It's messy, slow and rarely does anyone get 100% of what they want.

Over the last decade Democrats have been far better at legislating than Republicans.

The steadfast opposition to the Obama agenda was no different than the Resistance.

If anything it was less rabid.

The 2 parties aren't the same but their recent behavior is.

Welcome to politics.

#66 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-02-21 09:52 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

As it is, I appear to be the only one applying a consistent standard.

#67 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-02-21 09:53 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

"I expect opposition parties to act like opposition parties."

This is nothing more than JeffJ's way of saying he's still voting GOP despite his Outrage! when the GOP didn't give Merrick Garland a chance, when the GOP poisoned Flint, when the GOP fiscally irresponsibly cut taxes, etc. etc.

We should all expect GOP voters to act like GOP voters.

#68 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-02-21 11:26 PM | Reply

I didn't think Obama's monument had a library...

The Obama Presidential Library That Isn't

But the center, which will cost an estimated $500 million, will also differ from the complexes built by Barack Obama's predecessors in another way: It won't actually be a presidential library.

In a break with precedent, there will be no research library on site, and none of Mr. Obama's official presidential records. Instead, the Obama Foundation will pay to digitize the roughly 30 million pages of unclassified paper records from the administration so they can be made available online.
www.nytimes.com

So whats the big deal?

As it is, I appear to be the only one applying a consistent standard.
#67 | POSTED BY JEFFJ

I am with you JeffJ ... I get your point, though I may give Dems a hard time, I do expect them to put up a fight.

#69 | Posted by AndreaMackris at 2019-02-21 11:38 PM | Reply

#38 | Posted by Avigdore

Economic policy was EVERYTHING when our economy was crashing.

They opposed everything Obama suggested to help right the ship. One such effort was the Jobs Bill. It would have put millions to work rebuilding our infrastructure. This while millions were losing their jobs. 750,000 a month!

#70 | Posted by AMERICANUNITY at 2019-02-22 03:05 AM | Reply

The steadfast opposition to the Obama agenda was no different than the Resistance.

If anything it was less rabid.

The 2 parties aren't the same but their recent behavior is.

Welcome to politics.

#66 | Posted by JeffJ

This is what makes you go from seemingly intelligent republican to obvious moron.

The steadfast opposition to obama was based in racism and politics.

The steadfast opposition to trump is because HE IS A CON MAN, TRAITOR, SOCIOPATH, EGOMANIAC, and WANNABE TYRANT.

Pretending these two things are equal make you look utterly stupid.

#71 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2019-02-22 01:05 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2019 World Readable

Drudge Retort