Republican Rep. Peter King Annihilates ‘Delusional Wing’ of GOP (Video)

peter-king-gopThe Republican party is an absolute joke. I know that might sound biased and partisan coming from me, but it’s true. We’re not even two full months into the GOP having control of both houses of Congress and their “leadership” has been an absolute embarrassment.


They’ve essentially done two things since seizing control of Congress:

First, there was the abortion bill they tried to shove through Congress that caused a full-on revolt by female members of the Republican party. Now we’re looking at what equates to nothing more than a battle between Republicans in the House and Senate to fund the Department of Homeland Security.

The only reason this has even been an issue is because House Republicans continue to try to piggyback an unrelated measure to roll back President Obama’s executive order on immigration to a bill that would fund the DHS.

There’s absolutely zero chance that this measure clears the Senate, and Republicans in the Senate know this – which is why they came together with Senate Democrats to pass a clean funding bill that would put an end to all of this DHS funding nonsense.

But, as expected, House Republicans failed to approve that measure. Instead what we ended up with is a week-long measure that’s only delaying the inevitable. This is almost exactly what we saw with the government shutdown a few years ago. Either House Republicans are going to ultimately cave on this issue and approve the clean funding bill the Senate has passed (and the president would sign), or they’re going to continue reject it and eventually the DHS is going to run out of funding and close.

But make no mistake about it, if the DHS closes due to a lack of funding, the fault lies completely on the shoulders of House Republicans.

And it seems Rep. Peter King (R-NY) has had just about enough of these House Republicans who continue to play petty partisan games with our government.

“This madness has to end soon. We can’t keep doing this,” King said during an interview with MSNBC.

“We should not put American lives at risk to win an immigration battle with the president,” he continued. “I’ve had it with this self-righteous, delusional wing of the party.”

And that’s the bottom line to all of this. It doesn’t really matter what King or any other Republican thinks of what the president has done on immigration, there’s no way they’re going to win this battle – and King knows that. I might disagree with him on a lot of his politics, but at least he’s sensible enough in some aspects to realize that it’s foolish to try to pick a fight that you have zero chance at winning.

But King wasn’t finished.

“Many of these people are elected from parts of the country that live in an echo chamber,” King said. “All they hear is everything is anti-Obama.”

Exactly!

It’s like the joke many liberals use, if President Obama came out in support of oxygen, many conservatives would suffocate. While that’s clearly an exaggeration, the point is still valid. Most conservatives I’ve met will literally oppose anything President Obama supports. They really don’t even know what it is that they’re opposing, all they know is that it’s something the president wants passed.


The Affordable Care Act is a prime example. There are literally tens of thousands, if not millions, of conservatives who are benefitting from the law – who still want to see it repealed.

It makes absolutely no sense.

So it’s nice to hear Rep. King basically acknowledge how his party has made a conscious effort since 2008 to do everything it possibly can to make people irrationally loathe and hate this president. And what we’re seeing now – blind opposition to anything and everything he supports – is the result of those blatant and calculated campaigns of lies and misinformation levied against President Obama by the GOP.

Watch his comments below via MSNBC:





Allen Clifton

Allen Clifton is a native Texan who now lives in the Austin area. He has a degree in Political Science from Sam Houston State University. Allen is a co-founder of Forward Progressives and creator of the popular Right Off A Cliff column and Facebook page. Be sure to follow Allen on Twitter and Facebook, and subscribe to his channel on YouTube as well.

Comments

Facebook comments

  • Melania Gulley

    they hated the man before he actually even won the office. Made it a point to let their simple minded constituents know they would do whatever to make him a one term president. I have never in my life seen so many people do exactly everything they can to hurt an entire nation to get back at one man. That is all they know how to do. And then there is all that Koch Money. Billionaires without a single decent bone in their bodies

    • cardiaccards

      EXACTLY! Bigotry is at the root of it all!

      • Guest

        I started working from home, by working various basic jobs which only require a computer and access to internet and it is a lifesaver for me… 6 months have passed since i started this and i earned in total $36,000… Basicly i make 80 dollars/h and work for 3-4 h on daily basis.Best part to whole this thing is that you can manage time when you work and for how long as you like and the payments are weekly. Find out more here
        –>>>

  • I-RIGHT-I

    I’ve suspected it for twenty years but now I’m certain that the Republicans and Democrats are following each other down a mutually predetermined path to America’s destruction. The primary target is the White middle class for whom neither party holds any love or loyalty. Actually they are very much afraid of us now. I don’t blame them.
    Ladies and gentlemen these kinds of antics by both sides are part of the smoke and mirror show. The fact is Bollywood could not cast such a group of imbeciles and morons for a political comedy. I think it would take the Marx Brothers to do that.
    The current administration has blown through 7 trillion in added debt and I can’t seem to find that downward trickle. Our enemies are stronger, our country is more divided, our privacy destroyed, our businesses are struggling, our health care is upside down and now the internet?
    I think we’ve got better things to do than play grab-azz with each other.

    • Ryan Caudle

      That is… a very interesting word soup. Any chance you could distill that down to something succinct and coherent?

      • I-RIGHT-I

        Sorry about that. Being public school educated my English isn’t that good. The best I can do is break it down in paragraphs the best I know how. Feel free to point out grammatical errors or points that seem to contradict each other or reality.

    • Johnl.102

      You conveniently blame both parties for what one party is doing, there is no debating that both parties have their faults. They do. Most people didn’t even know what the debt or deficit was till Obama was elected.

      Of the $7 trillion you say the administration has ” blown through” $3.5 trillion has been spent just on war. And will continue to grow as more vets need more help .so now what is the number. Almost $2 trillion of that $7 trillion has gone into the economy as stimulus. That Republicans tried to block at every opportunity.

      Republicans campaigned in November on creating jobs and not liking anything the president does. Guess which one is the only one you still hear about.

      • I-RIGHT-I

        The two parties have been in lockstep in “fundamentally changing America since 1965”
        They just took over the internet. They’re not even trying to pretend anymore. Enjoy the Decline.

      • Johnl.102

        They took over the internet? All the FCC did was make sure that the internet is not under total control of the monopoly cable company’s that want to give you less service and charge you more for it. Look at it like the water that comes into your home. Do you really think it would be cheaper if a privet company owned it.

      • I-RIGHT-I

        “All the FCC did was make sure that the internet is not under total control of the monopoly cable company'”

        It saddens me to know you really believe that. You’ll see soon enough but too late. Thanks for your support.

      • Johnl.102

        You like many , now seem to want to pretend you don’t like either party , yet you have the same word for word opinion as one of the parties you claim not to like . there is only one place you got the opinion you have. Your opinions are not the least bit original.

    • Johnl.102

      And make no mistake, that ” downward trickle ” you speak of , that is a 35 year old republican idea that has never worked. But that is a nice try , trying to pin that one this administration, like its some sort of new idea.

      • I-RIGHT-I

        White guys used to get a little of that trickle I can testify to that. I’ve been around for awhile. What this administration has done is more akin to wealth transfer. We can trace some of the money.

      • Johnl.102

        Wealth transfer? Other then the same people getting rich , who has the wealth transfered to?

      • I-RIGHT-I

        Mostly them (they don’t call Obama Mr. Goldman Sachs for nothing) but there are instances of finely targeted transfers to those deemed spiritually pure.

      • Johnl.102

        Who is ” they ” that call the president Goldman Sachs? Although I do agree he’s doing much of the same old same old when it comes to Wall Street. Can’t say I have heard anyone call him that .

      • I-RIGHT-I
    • rowdy13

      You say businesses are struggling, which ones? because big oil is making record money and that’s due to republicans’ stance on the environment and the danger presented by global warming/climate change being less important than Koch industries profits.

      Healthcare is upside down? You mean now that over 15 million previously uninsured folks now have insurance and that number is only going to go up as the states that rejected medicaid expansion thanks to their republican leadership start playing ball.

      The trickle down model is all GOP, you can’t put that on this administration. Bush junior lowered the taxes on the wealthy as soon as he got in office the same way his daddy did after his democratic predecessor built up a nice surplus by taxing those that can afford it, more.

      And what about the internet? Net neutrality is a good thing. It keeps things as they have been and doesn’t allow big telecom to hold your speed hostage for more money, or allow giant entities like facebook or google to spend more money to get faster speeds for their users while some tiny little site gets bogged down with unnecessary limitations.

      So how is it you feel that both sides are somehow to blame when it seems pretty consistent that the left is attempting to fix things that need fixing and build up the middle class while the right keeps playing up the culture war nonsense to stoke division and shouting matches over things that should be settled (women’s rights, separation of church and state, marriage equality) while ignoring big relevant problems like the failed war on drugs and it’s effect on our justice system, fixing our crumbling infrastructure and making sure our kids education is meaningful and beneficial to our future economy. Not by banning AP history because it doesn’t have enough “American exceptionalism” and talks too much about the horrible shit we did as a country, or banning teaching evolution in favor of complete nonsense like creationism. Hell the republicans made James Inhofe chairman of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works and this dude thinks snowballs are proof that climate change is false…

      One party certainly seems out of touch and seems to have it’s priorities helplessly fucked up to the point you cant, with a straight face, say that the GOP is trying to better America. When they are about to let the DHS go unfunded for a pipeline that will only create maybe 50 permanent jobs and wont save us a penny on oil since it is a globally traded commodity. And since we absolutely without a shadow of doubt know that fossil fuels will not last and we know that solar and wind and hydro and nuclear power are the way of the future why are we continuing to allow these massive corporations to deface our planet??? Because there is money to be made. And you can ask Mitt Romney’s accountant… Money>America in the mind of republican elected officials, and they know how to cater to their base.

      • I-RIGHT-I

        lol

      • Johnl.102

        That is quite the debate rebuttal, ” lol” .

      • I-RIGHT-I

        I thought I’d give rowdy13yearsold a thrill. It’s better than ignoring him I think. I could be wrong.

      • Johnl.102

        This is the problem with you freaks on the right. You pretend you you are not on the right at all , as you have the same opinion as everyone on the right. Yet have no answer to anything.its laughable. You’re an embarrassment to the country.

      • Charles Vincent

        “You mean now that over 15 million previously uninsured folks now have insurance” this is a joke they stretched the deadline and a large portion are non paying medicaid enrolls.

        the Clinton surplus was due to cooked books and the transfer of funds out of the SS fund to make it look like a surplus check the balance sheet in the treasury and you can see it.
        That’s just two inconsistencies.

      • rowdy13

        I said nothing of a time frame in regards to people getting insured. I also did not say anything about paying vs non-paying. I said those 15 mil that were previously uninsured are now not uninsured. If you can refute that, do it.

        For point 2 I’ll direct you here. http://www.factcheck.org/2008/02/the-budget-and-deficit-under-clinton/

      • Charles Vincent

        The CBO did talk about money and what it would take to support the system economically so it would be sustainable. That number was 7 million paying enrolls to support the scheme.
        The number I have seen is just under 12 million and 9.5 million of that are medicaid enrolls who don’t pay into the system to support it.

        http://acasignups.net/graphs#private
        Courtesy of Charles Gaba.

      • rowdy13

        Wonderful!!!! A graph put together by a blogger and your assurances (numbers you’ve seen, are anecdotal and unverifiable) are enough to persuade me… thanks man!

        Seriously?

      • Charles Vincent

        Hmmm his numbers match this site.
        http://obamacarefacts.com/sign-ups/obamacare-enrollment-numbers/

        and this one

        http://www.hhs.gov/healthcare/facts/blog/2015/02/open-enrollment-week-thirteen.html

        WHO WOULD HAVE THUNK IT….

        So much for “anecdotal and unverifiable” chief

      • rowdy13

        Thank you!!! Was that so fucking difficult??? Multiple sources. Impressive.

        Dude, you brought up the CBO numbers and $tuff right? That wasn’t me. Correct, chief? I said 15 million uninsured people got insured. And per the same site you just used as a source…

        “By the end of open enrollment 2014 over 15 million Americans who didn’t have health insurance before the ACA was signed into law in 2010 were covered”

        http://obamacarefacts.com/sign-ups/obamacare-enrollment-numbers/

      • Charles Vincent

        They had to adjust because 4.5 million people didn’t renew thier policies 15 million minus 4.5 million is 11.5 million the number of uninsured now insured its the very next paragraph below the one you quoted.

        During the year many dropped their plans, or didn’t yet renew them for 2015. In fact only 4.5 million actually renewed plans on HealthCare.Gov (more on state Marketplaces) by then end of 2014. As of January of 2015 the uninsured rate was 12.9% according to Gallup (average from fourth quarter of 2014). The change was on par with projections, and is expected to decrease each year.
        Enrollment Number Facts For Open Enrollment 2015
        By the end of open enrollment 2015 11.4 million were enrolled in state and federal marketplaces.

        About 87% of the 11.4 million are getting some form of cost assistance.

        In 2014 about 8 million enrolled in Medicaid, in 2015 about 10 million did.

        This doesn’t change the sustainability of the scheme there are more non paying enrolls than paying enrolls this is not and has never been economically sustainable.

      • rowdy13

        The other thing that I mentioned in my OP was how the number would go up when red states start to join in the marketplace. More paying enrolls could join if their state allowed it. That is being impeded by the GOP fighting it tooth and nail instead of trying to improve it, all so no one on the left can use it to campaign with in 2016.

      • Charles Vincent

        If you look at the tabs in the Gaba link you can see all fifty states numbers I don’t think its a red state problem, and why would you want to improve a scheme that doesn’t even address the core issue which is the high cost of healthcare? And all this is moot if SCOTUS rules that the law says only state run exchanges are eligible for subsidies.
        I don’t deny that the healthcare system needs fixed. I just don’t see the ACA as the fix because of the things it doesn’t do.

      • rowdy13

        I would encourage you to encourage your party’s leadership to present an alternative.

      • Charles Vincent

        I am not republican I am an independent. The pubs had a plan that predated Hillary care in the early 1990’s it came out of the heritage foundation. and from my understanding the individual mandate in the aca basically was taken from that research. There were other details but I don’t recall them.

        circa 1989
        http://www.heritage.org/research/lecture/assuring-affordable-health-care-for-all-americans

      • rowdy13

        Well in that case I’m glad I didn’t call you a republican. I do have a bit of animosity toward the lunatic fringe of the right wing for the obstructionist mess, but you and I had a decent back and forth without too much malice and that’s pretty rare. Thanks man. Sincerely, good talk.

      • Charles Vincent

        I see the political scheme as an illusion of choice mostly because its tow sides of the same coin when dealing with dems or repubs.
        Re the obstructionist mess; The left has had its hand in that cookie jar as well.
        I enjoy good conversations sadly most aren’t like this. I believe this is so, because people take things personally when they shouldn’t.

      • steeltown65

        ABSOFUCKINGLUTELY!

    • Devin D.

      It warms my heart to see another frustrated citizen preaching intelligence, rather than ignorance.
      You have my respect sir.

  • Devin D.

    Hmm, it appears you once again are lacking conviction (and common sense) in your statements Mr. Clifton. In this article, you essentially state no more than three points (again, COMPLETELY vaguely overgeneralizing a good deal of the population) in regards to republicans taking Legislature.

    You first point, is the squabble within the Legislature.
    You horrendously accuse the Republican party of bigotry, ignorance, and stupidity in general. So I ask, why is squabble with little action bad? If the GOP is truly as idiotic as you say, are you asserting you want them passing bills? This is an utter, and absolute contradiction, and further highlights the insanity you spew. That is simply the unjudicial disposition of your own character; not counting the disrespectful overgeneralizations you parade around as absolute certainty. The troubles you illuminate in regards to the house, you immediately answer with the following statement.

    The house passes bills with “no chance” to be signed by Obama. Well, sincerest appreciation for deprecating an action you immediately utilize to contradict yourself…. AGAIN. This is a classic example of a circular argument, and an egregious political flaw in action. You cant convey the lack of progress the Legislature neglects because Obama wont sign it; furthermore, can state they propose bills that he wont sign. Let me put it in context for you in the simplest terms I can Mr.Clifton in the form of a hypothetical argument.

    “God exists because the Bible says so.
    The Bible explicitly states God exists.
    So it stands to reason, God must exist.” (Vaughn, “Doing Ethics”)

    Legitimate text-book example. You can fluff up your feathers, and manipulate your diction to hide the ignorance you preach to others Mr. Clifton, but I can see right through your lies.
    Now that those have been rebutted and (by the universal laws of argument) unequivocally proven false, I will now analyze your last statement: Republicans oppose Obamacare in spite of the fact they benefit from it.

    Now, I wouldn’t deny a scenario in which this would actually happen; however, you have still managed to mess this simplistic claim up. The first, and only issue (a critical issue at that) of this claim; being your resource. A poll…… really? Let me once again assist you in comprehending the error in your reasoning. Lets say we were to take a poll of 10 individuals in regard to their religious preference (in America). A full 10/10 of the individuals claim they believe in the “flying spaghetti monster” is the ultimate creator. Would this mean EVERYONE in the United States of America believes in this religion? I hope I don’t need to answer that for you Mr. Clifton. Again, another overgeneralization, and nothing more than incomprehensible gibberish. Not saying this doesn’t occur, however, you quite simply fail in the delivery. Let’s take a look at the charges, shall we?

    1 count of idiotic usage of “begging the question”.
    4> counts of unjustly “overgeneralizing.”
    1 count of “appeal to authority.”
    1 count of “appeal to common practice.”
    3> counts of the “strawman” fallacy.

    Verdict: Obliterated beyond comprehension.

    FOR THOSE SEEKING A RESPECTFUL ARGUMENT:
    – This comment’s sole intention is pointing out this mans bigotry.
    – I respect your views, please respect mine.
    – If you attempt to argue a point without reading MY argument prior to doing so, I will take this as a sign of disrespect. As such, I will disregard you statement altogether.
    – Ponder the likes of Mr. Clifton’s character, and honestly question his methods of logic; because it is clear as to how pathetic this mans knowledge of politics is. Look past the hate infested rants, and see the illogical points he presents.

    • Charles Vincent

      Too bad you missed his jinky stats and other lunacy. yuou could have had a field day pointing out all the logical fallacies he used.

    • steeltown65

      Shut up dick head. There’s no arguing the fact that you are a dickhead. Just read your own article. You’ll agree with me.

      • Charles Vincent

        Ahh so it’s being a dick to point out obvious fallacies in the Clifton article???? Hmm I would offer you more koolaid but you have had enough already.

      • steeltown65

        you point out nothing. you theoretically explain what you believe the writer means by what he has written. you do it in a way that you seem to think will lead people to believe you by writing your theory really well. but i can see exactly who you are. and this is how. you disagreed with everything he said. even if you were right on all of it. ( you’re not) you give your true agenda away by being completely on the other side of EVERYTHING he says. you read the piece and after every paragraph you probably made notes of what to write in order to contradict him. you’re not open minded to the other side of politics or government. you want what your party wants. and just like all closed minded mouth pieces. your response is the same as everybody who sides with your political beliefs. you said you’d offer me more koolaid . who’s serving koolaid that brain washes me to believe that you’re a dick? that’s what your statement implies. you see dick. i’m not part of a group who is out to prove how wrong the other side is. i’m a guy who only wants to know the truth. and until i know the truth i don’t throw up theories based on what the people who vote like i do have said. i’m 50 years old. so i’ve seen a few administrations in the white house. i work in construction, i always have. i work hard. i earn my money. i’ve never put my hand out to anybody. so i can say this to you. the united states of america has always been built up when and standing strong when the democrats are in charge. and we’ve always been struggling and just getting by when the republicans are in charge. wars are started when the repubs are in charge. peace is the goal of the dems. that can’t be argued. the disgraceful behavior of repubs in both houses is way over the line. to treat the POTUS the way these repubs have should not be tolerated. you deny or defend their behavior and i consider you an enemy to my country. it’s just hard for me to believe that people vote for and stand for what these repubs are doing. i came to the conclusion that you are a dick because you got online and read this article while salivating about how you would destroy the authors credibility when you were done. and you did that simply because he votes differently than you. only a dick hopes to trash the writing of another person in order to win the ” we’re right and you’re wrong” piss fight that will not pay off for any of us. so i guess, if they’re serving koolaid that makes people think you’re a dick. i must have had a big fucking glass!

      • Charles Vincent

        Where to start…
        I didn’t theorize anything the author quite regularly uses all manner of logical fallacy arguments to prop up his ideology

      • steeltown65

        Charles I draw my conclusions from results. And judging by the results of this administration. And the one before this one and the one before that and before that and before that. This country suffers under republican leadership. And we succeed under a democratic run government. I’m not saying which side you’re on. But the facts can’t be argued in my statement. And that’s all that matters to Mr. RESULTS. SO YOU CAN BASH the author. I’m not familiar with a lot of his work. But if he is on the side of this president. Yes on the right side of history.

      • Charles Vincent

        Obama and his administration are anything but a success Chief. To date they have ballooned the debt by ~7 trillion dollars according to the CBO that’s anything but a fiscal; success. His Foreign policy is not a success either even in his own party there is a consensus on that.

        RE ” I’m not familiar with a lot of his work. But if he is on the side of this president. Yes on the right side of history.”

        So you are teaming up with a liar and a charlatan then? So much for the truth you claim to be interested in. Also please point out these “facts” in your statements?

      • steeltown65

        charles, do you not read anything before you disagree with it? i have said many times in my posts that i base my comments on facts. you can’t read facts and know them to be true. you can’t hear facts and know them to be true. and i mean facts in politics. for example, scientific facts are run through the ringer by the scientific community. after they have exhausted all theories. they come to a scientific conclusion based on all data available and present it with their findings an d how they came to be. now political facts are different. depending on what news you watch or what website you click on. the facts can be and usually are at both ends of the spectrum. but then again these facts are actually agenda pushing talking points that shore up the left or right parties policies. that is why i base what i know to be true on what i see happening. in this weeks news the 47 republicans who signed that letter are now criminals. that’s a fact. will they ever be held accountable? probably not. but none the less. they did break the law as it is written. once again that’s a fact! let’s go to the other side. obama’s immigration executive order. it’s not unconstitutional. that’s a fact. is the law itself unlawful? that’s a slippery slope. but i believe it more than likely is. that’s not yet a fact. but will be soon enough if what i know turn s out to be true. was obama born in the united states and is he a US citizen? yes. that’s a fact. has the republican party been obstructing this administration from the day of the presidents inauguration? yes. and that is a fact. the hammered the last nail in that coffin when they wrote that letter informing iran that any treaty will be shot down by congress. they don’t even know what the treaty will or will not allow. but they’ve decided already that they will not support it. that is a fact and that is blind obstruction of our presidents lawful dealings with an enemy of the USA. everybody calls obama a liar. yep he’s lied. the whole keep your doctor thing. that was a lie. and the email to hilary thing that was another one. now can i live with these lies compared to past presidents lies. all fucking day i can! all politicians lie. you find one who doesn’t. and you’ll soon see that person anchoring a news spinoff of some policy they introduced. so this has been my whole point to you and devin (as he strolls through puberty). i believe what’s happening in front of me. and the fallout or the celebration afterward caused by these happenings. you can tell me obama is horrible. i’ll tell you he’s not and that bush was pure evil. based on what? based on the quality of life that people all around this country are living while the man in charge was in charge. it’s a no brainer. we can succeed if obama were president for 8 years starting today. we wouldn’t last 2 years with bush at the wheel. and i’m from texas. i’ve seen his work first hand for a long time. we’ll never agree on these things. but i base my opinions on real life, real people and real time. the two of you are breaking down the way things are written and deciding that because some punctuation is incorrect. the person writing the piece has no idea what they’re talking about. i learned when i was really young. if you want to know about our history. find somebody who lived through it. we’ve all heard the story of pearl harbor. well you have no idea what went on there until you’ve fished with a ship gunner who fought the japs and survived tell you how it all went down! nothing tells the truth like an honest person with the facts!

      • Charles Vincent

        ” i have said many times in my posts that i base my comments on facts.”
        Saying you base them on facts isn’t proof you did where is the proof of what you say cause I can provide proof of every thing I said here from well vetted sources.

        ” in this weeks news the 47 republicans who signed that letter are now criminals.”

        Signed what letter? One to their mom or Obama’s mom? telling me they signs a letter is vague and ambiguous and smacks of sophistry.

        “the two of you are breaking down the way things are written and deciding that because some punctuation is incorrect.”
        No we are looking at the flat out contradictions in his sources and seeing the logical contradictions that’s how the scientific method works.

      • steeltown65

        there you go now. you’ve put your head all the way up your ass and you can’t recognize simple right to the point comments. you know exactly what letter, but your guys are the bad guys here so you play the ollie north or condleeza rice card. i told you i don’t have sources. i watch life play out and that’s how i determine who is a pile of shit. and who has to shovel them out! now what comments that i have made can you prove to be false? i am my fact checker. you will not get the truth from any media outlet or reliable vetted source. they don’t exist. if you believe differently. then every point you try to make is worthless. the truth is in your neighbors suffering or success and also your own . if you’re putting in the work to be successful. and the national economy is keeping you from achieving that success. no matter what your sources say about how good things are. life tells you they are not. now in the case of our economy right now. as a nation we are getting stronger. of course in your world obama gets none of the credit. just like bush wasn’t to blame for the downfall while he was in charge. well your way of thinking is idiotic! and that’s your upside. you’re not a part of any solution charles. you are the problem. if they vote differently than you. they must be wrong. that is pure ignorance. are you still waiting on puberty to kick in like devin. because you both act like children.

      • Charles Vincent

        So before you said you rely on the scientific method to govern how you believe now you’re saying the opposite. Make up your mind and stop positing ad lapidem nonsense.

      • steeltown65

        I never said . You show me where I said that and I’ll vote republican.

      • Charles Vincent

        steeltown65–>Charles Vincent • 2 days ago
        charles, do you not read anything before you disagree with it? i have said many times in my posts that i base my comments on facts. you can’t read facts and know them to be true. you can’t hear facts and know them to be true. and i mean facts in politics. for example, scientific facts are run through the ringer by the scientific community. after they have exhausted all theories. they come to a scientific conclusion based on all data available and present it with their findings an d how they came to be.
        ^^^^^^^^^^^right here you said it^^^^^^^^^^^^^

      • steeltown65

        You’re Fucking stupid. I have you examples of how facts are gathered. And the difference between a proven fact. And what you call facts simply because you have the same opinion as the dick who wrote it. Ya see dumbass. You can’t even read anything that isn’t in the language of you shitbags. You just disagree out of party loyalty. What a total asswipe you just made yourself out to be!

      • Charles Vincent

        And you clearly stated you go with science as provable fact you’re the moron for saying you didn’t say it and then you get butt hurt and call me stupid for pointing out your own stupidity GG assclown.

      • steeltown65

        Where did I say that I rely on scientific methods to determine what the facts are? You see this all started with you two dickheads trashing a writer’s piece. And then you started jerking each other off about how good you were at it. Well our discussion about what I said. Proves you don’t know shit about shit! You chose the words to quote me by. So I’ll say again. I never said that. Not even close. But you play your republican game where if you say it enough. Who cares if it’s true. Never let a little thing like facts get in the way of. Good lie. YA DICKHEAD! Devin will probably break up with you for exposing your Fucking stupidity!

      • Charles Vincent

        Ahhh there’s the rage. I quoted you verbatim Chief, learn to not stuff your feet in your mouth.

        New example incoming;

        “steeltown65-> Charles Vincent • 3 days ago
        Charles I draw my conclusions from results.”

        ^^^^ this is you talking again Science goes by result i.e. conducting an experiment and noting the “results”. Then repeating the experiment
        to see if the previous results can be duplicated.

      • steeltown65

        There you go again. I say what I say. Then you do the old I.e. so you’re telling me that I implied that I use the scientific method. That’s not me saying Jack ass! And there is no rage. How can I be mad at you for going full circle to prove my point about you breaking down what people say. In order to try and justify your inability to accept reality as it’s happening. I’m as happy as I could be while I’m debating with the blindest person to the truth I’ve ever communicated with. You misquoted me junior. And now that we’ve determined who the alpha male here is ( that be me). You may now refer to me as chief again. Because now when you say it. It will be out of the defeat you are choking on!

      • Charles Vincent

        ” Then you do the old I.e. so you’re telling me that I implied that I use the scientific method.”
        sci·en·tif·ic meth·od
        noun
        noun: scientific method; plural noun: scientific methods
        a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

        I.e. means ‘that is’ (to say). E.g. means ‘for example’. I.e. is an abbreviation for Latin id est, ‘that is’. E.g. stands for exempli gratia, ‘for the sake of example’.
        Not sure were that i .e. means imply.

        “That’s not me saying” so you didnt type

        “steeltown65-> Charles Vincent • 3 days ago
        Charles I draw my conclusions from results.”

        or

        steeltown65–>Charles Vincent • 2 days ago
        charles, do you not
        read anything before you disagree with it? i have said many times in my posts that i base my comments on facts. you can’t read facts and know them to be true. you can’t hear facts and know them to be true. and i mean facts in politics. for example, scientific facts are run through the ringer by the scientific community. after they have exhausted all theories. they come to a scientific conclusion based on all data available and present it with their findings an d how they came to be.

        Amazing you must be upset since someone is posting under your screen name.

        And what about these blatant lies?

        “You chose the words to quote me by. So I’ll say again. I never said that. Not even close.”
        The two quotes above are verbatim
        Verbatim
        adverb
        1. in exactly the same words; word for word:
        to repeat something verbatim.
        adjective
        2. corresponding word for word to the original source or text:
        a verbatim record of the proceedings.

        Lets talk about logical fallacies you’ve entertained here;
        “A fallacy is incorrect argument in logic and rhetoric resulting in a lack of validity, or more generally, a lack of soundness. Fallacies are either formal fallacies or informal fallacies.”

        Ad hominem, Mind projection fallacy, argument from ignorance, argument from incredulity, confirmation bias, equivocation, strawman, argument from repetition, argument ad nauseum, poisoning the well, moving the goal posts, etcetera.

        Way to go champ you must be the smartest kid with down syndrome.

      • steeltown65

        See there Chuck. When you’re cornered you don’t come out and fight the fight in front of you. You’re the guy who suddenly doesn’t know how it got to this point and you try to double talk. You’re a coward who may be able to break down a sentence. But you do it to avoid taking responsibility for your ignorance. There’s no doubt you’ve read a book or two. But that’s who you are. The guy who can tell you everything about the book. And nothing about what it’s like to be the guy in the book. You did not quote me verbatim. If you did. it would show in my comments. And as far as whatever the shit you’re talking about somebody posting in my name. Well that two people who will school you on the facts!

      • Charles Vincent

        “You did not quote me verbatim. If you did. it would show in my comments.”

        Hello you denied that you said the things I copy pasted from this page that you posted moron. You see you dont even know what you wrote I pasted your replies to me verbatim. GG moron.

      • steeltown65

        Hey shitbag these are your words ” you said before you rely on the scientific method to govern how you believe”. Now you show me anywhere in my comments where I said those words. Verbatim or otherwise. It’s not even close dictionary boy. It must suck tho be the dumbest smart guy in your Friday night book group. As a true republican ( and that’s what you are) you will stick to your lie. I expect that out you fucktards. So lets see what you got loser.

      • Charles Vincent

        “Now you show me anywhere in my comments where I said those words. Verbatim or otherwise”

        Right here dumb ass

        “steeltown65–>Charles Vincent•3 days ago

        charles, do you not read anything before you disagree with it? i have
        said many times in my posts that i base my comments on facts. you can’t read facts and know them to be true. you can’t hear facts and know them to be true. and i mean facts in politics. for example, scientific facts are run through the ringer by the scientific community. after they have exhausted all theories. they come to a scientific conclusion based on all data available and present it with their findings an d how they came to be.”

        And here

        “steeltown65–>Charles Vincent•4 days ago

        Charles I draw my conclusions from results.”

        You base your conclusions on fact from results thats the scientific method. Game set match your lose assclown

      • steeltown65

        You still are full of shit Fuck head. Whoever told you that getting really smart in a controlled environment was going to serve you well in the real world, did a Fucking number on you. You should stop crticizing other peoples work. At least until you learn to comprehend whY is being said.You are obe sad and delusional little creepy guY. You really will be in deep shit when Devin. Reads this. He prices himself on not getting caught in his lie.he sucks as bad as you at it. But then again.you’re both republicans.it doesn’t bother you at all to tell a lie over and over again. You ladies hsvd a sweet kiss tonite. Devin, be easy on him. He got in the ring with the truth. And the truthnevrr changes. I just keep winning!

      • steeltown65

        These are the 14 words in question. Because these are the 14 words you said I used in my comments. I believe you also said you copied and pasted verbatim from my comments. ( The 14 words will be in quotation marks.
        “SO BEFORE YOU SAID YOU RELY ON THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD TO GOVERN HIW YOU BELIEVE”.

        NOW CHUCK, THESE 14 WORDS ARE NOT ANYWHERE IN MY COMMENTS. REMEMBER CHUCK. , YOU SAID, YOU HAD QUOTED ME. VERBATIM. YOULL JuST BE TELLING ANOTHER LIE IF YOU STICK TO THIS KIND OF SHIT.

      • Charles Vincent

        You’re a special kind of stupid aren’t you. you flatly claimed you followed the scientific method here in this statement by you;
        “steeltown65–>Charles Vincent•3 days ago

        i have said many times in my posts that i base my comments on facts.”
        and

        “steeltown65–>Charles Vincent•4 days ago

        Charles I draw my conclusions from results.”

        and
        “steeltown65–>Charles Vincent•3 days ago

        scientific facts are run through the ringer by the scientific community. after they have exhausted all theories. they come to a scientific conclusion based on all data available and present it with their findings an d how they came to be.”

        then you stated this;
        “steeltown65–>Charles Vincent•3 days ago

        you will not get the truth from any media outlet or reliable vetted source. they don’t exist.”

        Which is directly opposite your first statements about facts and results and scientific method and which prompted me to as the 14 words you paste, You sir are ignorant beyond all comprehension.

        More over your Opinion is all you have posted here:

        “i told you i don’t have sources. i watch life play out and that’s how i determine who is a pile of shit. and who has to shovel them out! now what comments that i have made can you prove to be false? i am my fact checker.

        Equivocation an Mind projection fallacies of the highest order

        I have no sources means you have no facts and you are presenting an opinion. Opinions are not facts. And because you said so isn’t proof of facts either.

      • steeltown65

        and to touch on your 7 trillion dollar debt comment. you have to spend your way out of a recession. unless your republican. they would rather cut all entitlements and kick everybody while they’re down. obama had to extend the tax cuts to the rich in order to keep the gov’t running. that was a first term mistake. he will be taking those cuts away and he will put money in the bank before he’s done. plus the first year had a 1.4 trillion dollar hit to the debt. that was the last bush budget with the stimulus combined. you guys aren’t stupid. so don’t act like you don’t realize it was borrow and spend or go under. bush took a surplus. turned it into a recession. and now we have a growing economy that is growing faster every month. fuck! be happy we’re not watching neighborhoods emptying out like we were during the bush presidency! you can’ have it both ways. you can’t defend bush and say it wasn’t his fault. and then see our country’s success and say obama had nothing to do with our success!

      • Charles Vincent

        “you have to spend your way out of a recession”
        Uhh no never does that work that’s why we have a debt that’s 17 trillion dollars. you want proof of that look at Detroit they spent and pent and spent under the democratic government since the 1950’s and guess what they are now bankrupt. moral of this story you can never spend your way out of recession or debt period.

        “he will be taking those cuts away and he will put money in the bank
        before he’s done. plus the first year had a 1.4 trillion dollar hit to
        the debt.”
        The CBO doesn’t count that against Obama nor is it part of the 7 trillion in debt Obama and his administration have run up to date. Further more the CBO analysis of the Obama budget will make his total debt when he leaves office at 10 trillion dollars. learn to read CBO budget analysis documents.

        “you can’t defend bush and say it wasn’t his fault.”

        Uhh I never mentioned bush You did he is irrelevant because he hasn’t been in office in ~7 years. Moreover Obama continued Bushes fiscal policies. You don’t seem to understand that democrats and republicans are two factions of the same party and only differ slightly on certain policy issues.

        Further more Bush didn’t cause the recession, he played a small part in it yes which was chiefly not stepping in and reigning in the democratic congress there is a good writ up on who was involved in that some 25 different people/groups.

        “borrow and spend or go under.”

        Yeah kick the can down the road so our kids get crapped on when the economy tanks brilliant strategy there.

        ” bush took a surplus. turned it into a recession.”
        Clinton cooked the books chief there wasn’t a surplus.
        http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/feb/6/clinton-gingrich-and-the-balanced-budget-myth/

      • Devin D.

        Summary: Listen to my contradictive opinion as I ignorantly assert your opinion doesn’t matter.

        You want the truth? You want a sense of security? Start with yourself.

      • steeltown65

        And Devin I know the truth about me. I’m an honest stand on my own 2 feet. American male.you answer one question for me. And I’ll know all about you. Do you believe in God?

      • Devin D.

        Yet you do not portray this adamantly asserted thirst for knowledge? You do not take any time to reply, nor take the time to research anything whatsoever. If you even briefly had skimmed my work, you would know I am very religious.

      • steeltown65

        well that tells me all i need to know. anybody who follows religion is a follower of a non-factual being. how can anybody that follows a story that has never been and never will be proven true even be considered to be a leader. being religious proves one thing about a person. it proves that they are easily manipulated and they do not require facts to be an important part of something in order to make it true. that goes for all people in both parties and even the ” independents”. when i said i’m only interested in the truth. i meant the whole truth. and a religious person has no idea what that is. as soon as you buy into the unproven, re-written, poorly translated bible. your credibility is no longer an issue. and when speaking or seeking the truth. credibility is the issue. so seeing as you are just another follower of the fathom. our conversations are done!

      • Devin D.

        “anybody who follows
        religion is a follower of a non-factual being.”

        “Appeal to Ignorance,” “Appeal to
        Rock,” “Unwarranted Assumption,” etc….

        -Care to support that claim? I
        don’t think you have the intelligence to do so. You don’t have a sliver of
        evidence in this context, and therefore cannot really even be an argument.

        “how can anybody that
        follows a story that has never been and never will be proven true even be
        considered to be a leader?”

        -“Unwarranted Assumption,” and
        not a complete argument by definition. However, I will still give you benefit
        of the doubt.

        I don’t follow your reasoning. I
        don’t understand how you came to that conclusion, but you’re lacking
        conviction. I’ll give you another shot to connect your points intelligently.
        Again, seeing as you brought up the argument, you must disprove God. Go ahead,
        I’ll be waiting.

        “being religious proves one
        thing about a person. it proves that they are easily manipulated and they do
        not require facts to be an important part of something in order to make it
        true.”

        -If you want me to use facts, I’d
        be more than happy to do so. Let’s take the “theory of argument,” and
        evaluate that statement: 1) You appear to have committed the fallacy known as
        an “Unwarranted Assumption.” You have absolutely no evidence to
        support your claim that I am “easily manipulated” due to my religion,
        and carry on to conclude that I do not hold facts as truths. 2) You also commit
        the “Fallacy of Four Terms,” which is an automatic dismissal of this
        “argument.” Let me demonstrate:

        [P1] Being religious means you are easily manipulated. (If A, then B)

        [P2] Being religious means you do not require facts. (If A, then C)

        [FC] It stands to reason Independents are all religious. (D, therefore
        A)

        I won’t continue seeing as logic
        and facts (something you claimed me incapable of holding valid) has just disproved
        your argument. Let’s move on to the next conjecture.

        “when i said i’m only interested
        in the truth. i meant the whole truth. and a religious person has no idea what
        that is.”

        -Continuing with my “incapability”
        of demonstrating logical reasoning and/or facts, ill end this one quickly. 1) “Hasty
        Generalization,” “Unwarranted Assumption,” “Argument From Ignorance,” “Confirmation
        Bias,” etc…..

        Ill further prod the assertion by
        asking you to prove the claim as well…

        “as soon as you buy into the
        unproven, re-written, poorly translated bible. your credibility is no longer an
        issue.”

        -I like this whole “theory of
        argument” deal. Let’s keep it rolling shall we? 1) “Slippery Slope Fallacy,” “Appeal
        to Silence,” “Appeal to Ignorance,” “Appeal From Ignorance,” “Unwarranted
        Assumption,” “cum hoc ergo propter hoct,“ (also known as “correlation proves
        causation”) “False Attribution,” etc….

        You are implying it is the
        uncertainty of the bible that disproves this theory, yet you firmly believe in
        other theories. The Theory of Gravity, Quantum Theory, and even the theory of
        reality. I will refute the theory of reality (in accordance to your logic) to
        show you how ignorant you are being.

        [P1] All of matter falls into 2 categories, matter or nothing.

        [P2] All of matter has not been seen, and therefore cannot be proven.

        [SC1] Therefore, matter is not real (based on your reasoning).

        [P3] If mankind perceives matter to be reality, then reality isn’t real
        either.

        [FC] Therefore, nothing is the
        only reality, and nothing is real.

        “when speaking or seeking the
        truth. credibility is the issue. so seeing as you are just another follower of
        the fathom. our conversations are done!”

        -We are to your final statement,
        and I could point out that you have the “Slippery Slope Fallacy,” or “Unwarranted
        Assumption,” (for the upmost time), etc… but I think I’ll follow your logic and
        make my own argument using your rules. If fish are blue, pancakes are lava,
        therefore you are wrong. Did I win?

        (Personal attack on your
        character, not meant for logical debate; as you clearly wish to partake in): You
        stress factual evidence, yet reflect none within your writing. You intend to
        prove me wrong, but with no evidence. You state you seek the truth, yet are
        more ignorant than half of the individuals I have had the displeasure of
        running into. Oh, and as a personal attack (not intended to disprove anything),
        if you want credibility, I think someone who doesn’t understand the basics of
        grammar and punctuation would be a terrible candidate. I’m not saying you must
        have perfect grammar, but at least 3rd grade level comprehension.
        You are nothing short of an absolute blithering idiot, who can’t even support a
        simple claim to the elementary level. To add insult to injury, I am only 20,
        and have a single semester of community college under my belt. You are a
        supposed “seeker of truth,” and can’t even compete with the logical reasoning
        of myself. I have clearly OBLITERATED your “argument” 100x over, and I already
        know you will reply with the same ignorant claims, and lacking “evidence.” The
        truth of the matter is, you don’t have anything to rely on but an appeal to
        emotion. Let me make a comprehensive definition so even the likes of you can
        understand: “You don’t use logic, you follow the crowd of emotional, and
        contradictive idiots whom don’t know what an argument is.” The proof is in your
        diction, as you have an extremely narrow choice of it. You cuss to rile the
        emotions of others, yet preach logic and truth? If you want logic and truth so
        bad, then do the internet (and world) a favor, and leave the politics to those
        who know what they are talking about.

      • Devin D.

        Did I strike a nerve? Haha XD

  • strayaway

    Peter King and John McCain are from the war state/police state wing of the Republican Party. No wonder they are lauded on a progressive website. Security, even if hyped and stripped of liberty, is what progressives sell. We can’t have our police state if the president isn’t allowed to act like a dictator.

    From the article, “The only reason this has even been an issue is because House Republicans continue to try to piggyback an unrelated measure to roll back President Obama’s executive order on immigration to a bill that would fund the DHS.”

    That’s right! The alternative is to award Obama a de facto enabling act allowing Obama and future presidents to legislate. You won’t like it when some future Republican president takes away your Social Security or some other goodies citing Obama’s precedents at ignoring and changing laws but you will deserve it. Consider it your karma for supporting Obama on this.

    • steeltown65

      now that’s funny. ” when some republican president takes away your social security” it’s funny that you think there will be a republican president again. and it’s also funny that the republicans know that the republicans are going after the SS. and they still vote for them.

      • strayaway

        Democrats had a 20 year lock on the presidency from 1933-1953. Some observers must have had the same opinion then. Hillary might well make it 12 or 16 but if our pale economy falters, Americans get sick of all the wars, or the visage of Hillary on TV becomes too much to handle, the middle will shift back to Republicans hoping for some sort of alternative.

        As much as you might want to believe in a permanent one party state like Venezuela controlled by the executive’s whims, you avoided the point I made about this president setting a precedent which could come back to haunt all of us.

      • steeltown65

        what precedent? and tell me the last president who didn’t set some precedent that the opposing side didn’t start screaming the sky is falling? as i said before. ALL REPUBLICANS AND INDEPENDENTS HAVE TO DO 1 OF 2 THINGS. 1) ADMIT OBAMA IS NOT A SOCIALIST, OR 2) ADMIT THAT SOCIALISM WORKS.

      • strayaway

        The precedent to which I was referring to was changing the law. Presidents do not have a constitutional power to legislate (Article 1, Section 1). Obama said so himself at least 22 times. If one president can change one law and get away with it, future presidents need only cite that precedent before changing laws more to their liking.

        What has this got to do with socialism? This is rather about the rule of law vs. dictatorial fiat. Here is a good explanation of what I’m trying to say:

        “We’ve got a government designed by the Founders so that there’d be checks and balances. You don’t want a president who’s too powerful or a Congress that’s too powerful or a court that’s too powerful. Everybody’s got their own role. Congress’s job is to pass legislation. The president can veto it or he can sign it. … I believe in the Constitution in the Constitution and I will obey the Constitution of the United States. We’re not going to use signing statements as a way of doing an end-run around Congress.” -Barack Obama before going rogue (5/19/08)

        ” I just took an action to change the law” -Barack Obama (11/16/14)