Democrats walk out of Holder contempt vote

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

The Dems walked out not b/c they thought they were going to lose but b/c they recognized that it was a political vote. You seem to be saying the Repubs never walked out on a vote - Is that correct? Was the vote really an "important public debate"? Do the Repubs really want to have important public debate when their leaders say that isn't the most important thing?

I know that teabagger thing gets you all worked up. I save it for your posts. I'm just responding to the hate you demonstrate in the vast majority of your posts.

"The Dems walked out not b/c they thought they were going to lose..."

Paul, how do you know this, exactly?

" but b/c they recognized that it was a political vote."

Oh, I see. So if it was purely political, why did 15+ Democrats decide to vote to hold Holder in contempt?

"Was the vote really an "important public debate"?"

If the attorney general lied under oath? Yes, I'd call that important. How about a president who promised "transparency", invoking executive priviledge about something that clearly is a domestic matter, not something with national security implications?

"I'm just responding to the hate you demonstrate in the vast majority of your posts"

You keep saying that. Paul, you are confusing hate with common sense. Every time you (or any liberal) backs themself into an intellectual corner from which there is no escape, you call me a hate-monger. I point out one of the many irrefutable facts that makes your side's platform look absurd, and you go back to "racist tea baggers".

You don't fall back on that "teabag" line when I spew hate, you do it when you are in a no-win situation, which is almost every single time. And like so many liberals, instead of admitting your position is indefensible, you lash out. You do it again and again and again. Everyone knows it.

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

"The Dems walked out not b/c they thought they were going to lose..."

Paul, how do you know this, exactly?And how do you know that wasn't the case - I heard the Dems say that. They compared it to Meirs where there was no rush to a vote and they continued to negot. for I believe a year. Why a vote after like a week? What is the hurry

" but b/c they recognized that it was a political vote."

Oh, I see. So if it was purely political, why did 15+ Democrats decide to vote to hold Holder in contempt?Are both parties suppose to vote in lock step w/their leaders? Didn't a few repub vote not to hold him in contempt? I know some of the 1st term Repubs. say they shouldn't compromise on anything and should vote in lock step. I disagree w/that and apparently some Repubs. like Lugar and Snow do also.

"Was the vote really an "important public debate"?"

If the attorney general lied under oath? Do we know that? Why not continue down the path of negotiating? I thought more docs. where given to the Issa that morning.
"I'm just responding to the hate you demonstrate in the vast majority of your posts"

You keep saying that. Paul, you are confusing hate with common sense. Every time you (or any liberal) backs themself into an intellectual corner from which there is no escape, you call me a hate-mongerNo, it is when your tone lacks civility - which has been lacking more and more in this forum for the last 2 years or so. Redsox makes an obvious joke and you say that he's upset - ignore it and go on.. I point out one the many irrefutable facts that makes your side's My side? I voted for both Bushs 1st time they ran. The repub. left me a long time ago. platform look absurd, and you go back to "racist tea baggers". Did I do that? I save it for you to point out how absurd some of your statement are - usually when you give the example of something you don't like from a Dem and assign it to all Dems.

You don't fall back on that "teabag" line when I spew hate, you do it when you are in a no-win situationwrong again. I've told you when I do it. , which is almost every single time. yup, your always right And like so many liberals, instead of admitting your position is indefensible, you lash out. You do it again and again and again. As I've said I only do it when you make assign something you don't like to all Dems. Everyone knows it.Someday I'll tell you what people say about you in conversations.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

Paul S -

"Are both parties suppose to vote in lock step w/their leaders? Didn't a few repub vote not to hold him in contempt? "

I don't know if any Republicans voted not to hold him in contempt. I do know that more than 15 Democrats did vote to hold him in contempt. To me, that seems like irrefutable evidence that something more than partisan politics is at play.

" Do we know that (that Holder lied under oath)?"

No, we don't. According to the congressional, committee, the only reason why we don't know whether or not he lied, is because Holder/Obama refuse to hand over the documents. If those documents showed conculsively that there was no wrongdoing, why not release them? To me, it seems extremely likely that if Holder and Obama are going to such great lengths to keep some documents hidden, that there must be a reason . All they have to do is hand them over (which would be the transparency we were promised by Obama, by the way, but you don't care about that), and it would be out in the open. All this effort is necessary only because the Democrats won't cooperate.

"I thought more docs. where given to the Issa that morning."

I don't know what was offered. What I know is this...despite what Holder offered, 15+ Democrats voted to hold Holder in contempt.

"your always right "

I never said I was always right. I just admitted this week how wroing I was about the Supreme Court and ObamaCare. But I'm right a hell of a lot more often than you and your liberal ilk.

"Someday I'll tell you what people say about you in conversations. "

I'll try to soldier on, somehow. During the Civil Rights battles in the segregated south, Civil Rights leaders used to have a saying..."as long as the Klan is shooting at us, that means we must me doing something right".

Same thing holds here. If liberals (who support the slaughter of 4,000 unborn babies a day, who call everyone else a racist to stop the discussion, who say that conservatives hate old people and poor people, who have spent all of my generation's future tax payments and are now borrowing against my kids' futures) say less-than-flattering things about me, I know I'm on the right side. I mean, common sense makes it obvious that I'm on the right side of these issues, but if I'm getting under your skin at the same time, that's the icing on the cake.

I'm sure it's frustrating to be revealed time and time again as the hatemonger you try to paint me as.

I don't "hate" you or anyone on this forum. But your practice of calling me a teabagging racist and then lecturing me about civility, is beneath contempt. The fact that you have concluded that tea partiers are racist, simply because you have seen a few signs, is laughable. To your liberal ilk, all Catholics are pedophiles, all tea partiers are racist. You desperately try to paint us in this way, specifically because you know you cannot begin to debate us on the merits of our positions.

[PaulS]