Juror#8

Yea, so, I have a tendency to be a little dogged in my responses. I type the **** stream of conscious when I'm annoyed and then post. Then I read it and I'm like "wow...ok, kind of classless Jason." It may not be "harsh" for you. In fact, my unsophisitcated insults are probably a little "lightweight" insulting given your enjoyment for the discipline. But I try to redeem the civility when possible.

You know what, language was a bit harsh. Edited. Happy Friday.

Loud and wrong. Republicans set a record for filibustering in a session. They filibustered his legislative agenda and did so at record pace. That filibustering gridlocked the legislative process. What, when, where, how are those "opinions"? Is this what we can expect from you? You attacked a post both loudly and wrongly. You literally attacked the sky for being blue. Do you want to backtrack even a little? Or is there something there for you to parse? Maybe? Something? Edit: Reading your exchange with Tom from the District, it appears as if you're fixated on my use of "obstructioninst" vis-a-vis "fact" language. Even though one could argue, very well, that it is a fact that the Rs actions were textbook "obstructionist": "Definition of OBSTRUCTIONISM : deliberate interference with the progress or business especially of a legislative body" I was actually referring to their record filibustering. Just some food for thought for ya.

Thank you for getting the time stamp correct. 4 1/2 months. Have some of these dolts here tell it, he was ruling by fiat for 2 full years and could do what he wanted. I have to wonder, have they even read a short summary on legislative process? Just like the cliff's notes ****? And let's remember for that 4 1/2 months, his 60th vote was Joe Lieberman...the same man that campaigned and voted for the republican, John McCain. Anyway, the president was filibustered...a lot. It was obstructionist by the republicans to do that. It was politically smart, but it was obstructionist. That way nothing gets done and they can blame it on the president. If the Ds had done it, it would have been obstructionist by them too. They did it to Bush's judicial appointments in early 04. Guess what, it was obstructionist. Why is that so hard for folks here to admit? Does a "fact" become an "excuse" if you don't like the person? It's just a fact. It's not a partisan fact. It's just a fact. The Republicans doubled the record for filibusters by a single Congress. The Dems had the record in 1999-2000 with like 55 filibusters. The republicans filibustered like 120 times in 09-10. Is that not significant because you (not "you" Doc) don't like the president? And is it "progressive" to mention the truth of a political circumstance that undermines a GOP talking point?

I'd also be interested to know if ANYONE has met either candidate? And if not, how could you not, but be so ardent in your support? One would think that actually personally hearing someone articulate a view (campaign event, etc.) would inform your views on the candidates. I've never met the president, but I know 4 or 5 people who have...some have met him on a few occassions. I've met Mitt Romney on two occassions - both unmemorable. I met him twice in VA in 2007. I even have his autograph on the back of a Dream Theater cd booklet. I didn't dislike him then and he still came off as a glad-handing, unprincipled, egoist. I've also met H.W. Bush and Gerald Ford. It would be interesting to get a perspective from someone else who has met these folks...even casually. Mitt Romney just gives off an unsettling, aloof, vibe that is COMPLETELY manufactured. If you have a conversation with H.W. Bush, and then immediately speak with Mitt Romney, it is night and day. I'm not talking about simple personality differences; I'm talking about the sincerity of their presence. It is VERY difficult to explain. But if you could juxtapose the two, you'd know what I was saying. I'm not trying to convince anyone here of anything. I'm not trying to be persuasive. Everyone here has their mind made up. I just want to give some more layers to my dislike for Romney.

Above post edited.

I can dig that. I don't profess do be an expert in sci-fi flics but I know enough to get by. I did finally figure out "Primer" after the fourth viewing, ya know. Anyway, outside of the sci fi stuffs, the whole "if you opine, and if the opinion doesn't entirely criticize Obama, you're a Progressive," or "if you dislike Romney personally, and feel that his shortcomings and lack of personal ethic will color his leadership capabilities, you're a progressive," is profoundly, profoundly, myopic. I'm glad that the myopia articulated by some here is not reflected amongst the GOP at large. Otherwise, independents would be ostracized wholesale. Believe it or not, there are some who feel that the President is a nice person, but don't agree with his policies. There are also those who align more closely with the generic GOP platform, but feel that Romney is an insufferable lout. Not everyone will abandon their principles at nomination time. I also understand that not everyone feels that a vote for Romney constitutes "abandoning their principles." I voted republican in 2004 and libertarian in 2008. I won't vote the ticket in 2012. I'm going to write in my candidate. If there are an appreciable number of voters who feel like me, who consider their vote inviolate, who won't vote for a smug two-faced poser, or an unskilled, unprepared, and "at-best," local politician with lofty ideals, there are a lot of Ds and Rs who are in trouble. Some of you don't get that. You'd rather get ass !@#$ed but act like you're eating pusssssy. I call that queer; you might call it pumpkin pie. Either way, it doesn't compute. Not everyone who feels that Romney has demonstrated textbook opportunistic ethics and is a man who is personally repugnant, is willing look beyond that. You call that "progressive," I call it standing on personal principle.

It's easy to identify the individuals who don't know squat about legislative politics. They're the ones who insist that Obama had carte blanche to do whatever he wanted in 09-10 because he had a majority in Congress. They're the ones who feel that innaction or watered down legislation then and since was the result of poorly conceived initiatives or just a general lack of effort. The matrix has them. They want to be re-inserted wealthy, as an actor, to enjoy the medium-rare steak, and enjoy the harp at the scene's transition. The same dolts on the other side couldn't understand why Bush couldn't get a judicial appointment through in 2004. But carry on thinking that the filibuster is just an excuse. The rest of us will appreciate the reality of legislative gridlock and obstructionist politics. Who is gonna be the first dolt to mention "60 senators," Joe Lieberman, and/or filibuster-proof majorities. Who is gonna be the first to !@#$ up the time stamp?

PIIHB. If she's cool with it, at least you've confirmed that she's a keeper.

This is true. I'm still registered to vote in DC - that is why I'm writing in. DC, MD, and DE will never go Republican. Ever. If I was registering in VA, then I'd vote for Paul Ryan. If there happened to be another name on Paul Ryan's ticket...so be it. But I'd be voting for Paul Ryan.

I'm not bitching about it...it's just interesting cause I know slightly more about him that some others. He was a bit of a target for Media matters during the Bush Administration: 'Matthews weighed in on the filibuster debate in May, declaring: "I think the Democrats started this fight. I think they did. ... You know, I think Democrats should win more elections. That will solve their problem." Days later, in discussing the Senate compromise agreement to avert the "nuclear option" to ban judicial filibusters, Matthews repeatedly espoused Republican talking points, claiming, among other things, that because of the recent bipartisan agreement aimed at averting the "nuclear option," Democrats can stop "pouting and bitching ... [and] actually participate in legislation now"; that Republicans might "get double-crossed or screwed by the Democrats"; and that the Republican position that every judicial nominee deserves an up-or-down vote "sounds great to me."' [Hardball, 5/18/05] http://mediamatters....the-year/134530 He was their "Misinformer of the Year in 2005. This comports more with the Chris Matthews that you can speak with in-person - a very enigmatic political personality. I don't know...I just see it a bit differently. I guess his political depth admits itself over a longer period of time than some people's attention spans are willing to spare.

Assuming that you believe me that he voted for George W. Bush (which I GUARANTEE you he did in 2000 cause he told me so), how do you reconcile the ideology with the voting history? Maybe people ebb and flow and one person's concept of political alignment or ideology won't necessarily fit anothers...

Unless you're Alan Keyes.

Why does everyone feel that Chris Matthews is super liberal? I know, for a fact, that he voted for W.Bush in 2000 and I'm 90% sure that he voted for him in 2004. His older brother and many in his family are very ideologically conservative. Is it cause he worked for Tip O'Neil? Is it because he was very partial to Obama in 2008? Or it because he bashes the current crop of GOP'ers? I've always looked at him as an anomaly. I wouldn't consider him a "friend" or even an "associate," but I've talked politics with him on several occassions while waiting for a table at Tony Chengs in D.C. or on one of his visits to Georgetown (he'll be there again in October if anyone is interested). He is very willing to talk politics and he is not as transparent or static as you might think. You'd be surprised at how much more depth these folks have if you're willing to not pigeon-hole them based on t.v. personality "in the moment" soundbytes or based on your predilection for certain cable news networks.

This comment made me laugh at first, but then I realized...who better to try to convince someone that they should vote for a man who they're not, in fact, voting for - as a sort of recruitment tool - than an Obama supporter like you? LA, I'm glad that you've decided who you're voting for and that you're sticking with the incumbent. It fits with your overall quality of being unmemorable, chicken-schit, and lacking. I, on the other hand, am going to maximize my vote, and will likely write-in Buddy Roemer or Jeb Bush. I've largely stuck to that for last 6 months now. In closing, despite your odd efforts to convince me to vote for your candidate, incumbent Obama, and despite those in the choir who feel that slamming Mitt is tacitly endorsing Obama, I'm going to stick to my civic principle and write-in the candidate who I feel is the best qualified to lead this great country that I love - the U.S.A. Signed, Happy Unapologetic Nationalist

Most of the stuff that I hear about Bush came from his second term. His susceptibility to influence during his first term is a mystery to me outside of what was reported on tranditional news outlets. Have the media tell it, Paul Wolfowitz, Robert Kagan, and Kenneth Adelman single-handedly drove policy from 2000-2004. I don't believe that though. I think Bush was a VERY intelligent person who got "it" more than many (mostly progressives) gave him credit for. I was disaapointed with how his last 2 years went. But I supported him twice, even when our international interests and involvement were looking muddled in 2004. In fact, even knowing what I know now, I'd support him over Obama and Romney if given the choice. I haven't heard much about him delegating a lot of the *big* things early on. Have you heard differently?

If you're Team Pathetic, posting on internet sites to facilitate casual sexual encounters, try attending a University of Iowa or WVU keg party. http://www.latimes.com/news/nation/nationnow/la-na-nn-princeton-review-party-schools-20120820,0,7743390.story Sweet dreams.

4. Eugenics.

Dubya understood how to priortize and, by all accounts, didn't kowtow to every interest group and activist. He used his political capital on a few items that he very principally believed needed to be accomplished and didn't distract himself with the legislation-of-morality periphery. People joke that Cheney was running the country. Nope. Not at all. I've heard anecdotes from people who have good enough access that on MANY occassions, W. Bush VERY firmly reminded the assembled politicians (to include Cheney) and advisors that he was the President and he would make the call. Apparently, the decision to nominate Harriet Myers involved quite a few of those reminders. In contrast, there is Romney - who has no spine. His penchant for yellow-bellied capitulation and situational ethics is unparalled in the annals of political history.

Y'all are funny.

There are a lot of things you can criticize him about. This just makes you appear trivial. Every president has done some *thing* that appears insensitive to some laudable group, for some weak sauce reason. It's par for the course. But to make a post about it?

Why would I be in denial? Oh, you must think that I want BO to win... Maybe you're one of the ones who are satiated by one candidate or the other such that if you hear someone criticize one, they must be for the other. Either way, your assumptions stink and you're wrong.

When was I "pretending" to be conservative? What was said that seemed "conservative" to you...sincere or otherwise?

You feel that this describes/characterizes Romney or are you contextualizing?