Whining & obstruction works

NOVA said:
Democrats are the ones who broke the process in the first place, and if they don't like that the GOP is holding up the process, they're just just reaping what they sowed.
Click to expand...

That you have to go back more than 30 years to get an opinion from a right-wing medium doesn't help your argument.
 
Last edited:
Thing1 said:
This is naive, and show's little understanding of Congress. Most bills that get introduced are non-controversial & pass easily. It would be idiotic for either party to obstruct on those.

You're spamming my thread like desh does. Spare us all your hackery.
Click to expand...



So you can't deny the facts again, just a personal attack at usual...

98 percent of them passed with bipartisan support -- Republicans and Democrats working together to pass legislation. non-controversial & pass easily

"50 percent of the bills passed unanimously, with no opposition. non-controversial & pass easily

"70 percent of the bills passed with two-thirds support in the House. non-controversial & pass easily

"And over 55 bills were introduced by Democrats. even by his own party, blocked

And Harry would NOT let them come to a vote in his Senate.....obstruction at its finest, then blame the Republicans.....
Your history lesson for today is over, you're dismissed.
 
"Easy, and with facts too.

Democrats are the ones who broke the process in the first place" N #34
Click to expand...
a) To my knowledge that is not a fact. Instead it appears to be an unsubstantiated opinion.

b) If it were a fact you could substantiate, you're invited to do so.

I won't hold my breath.
 
Thing1 said:
Obama campaigned every day in 2008 on universal healthcare. Once the economy crashed, he campaigned vocally about passing a stimulus. And he won by a much bigger margin than Trump.

So, your argument about "not wanting Obama's agenda enacted" is pure partisan hackery.
Click to expand...

It would be more accurate to say selfish, greedy Righties didn't want Obama's agenda enacted.
 
NOVA said:
So you can't deny the facts again, just a personal attack at usual...

98 percent of them passed with bipartisan support -- Republicans and Democrats working together to pass legislation. non-controversial & pass easily

"50 percent of the bills passed unanimously, with no opposition. non-controversial & pass easily

"70 percent of the bills passed with two-thirds support in the House. non-controversial & pass easily

"And over 55 bills were introduced by Democrats. even by his own party, blocked

And Harry would NOT let them come to a vote in his Senate.....obstruction at its finest, then blame the Republicans.....
Your history lesson for today is over, you're dismissed.
Click to expand...

Gee, professor - did it occur to you to actually read the rest of the Politifact entry that you linked?

"First, a technical problem. It’s an oversimplification to say that these bills are "sitting on Harry Reid’s desk." Many have been assigned to committees, where they would need to be approved before being taken up on the floor. While Reid has influence over what committee chairs do, a chair can -- using their own powers -- decide to either fast-track or stall a bill coming over from the House.

Another complication: In at least some cases, the Senate is working on a bill on the same topic, but without using the House bill as a starting point. "The disposition of a House bill is not particularly relevant to measuring Senate legislative activity," said Steven Smith, political scientist and Senate specialist at Washington University in St. Louis.

We should also note that in the Senate, one member -- either from the majority or the minority -- can stop a bill in its tracks by threatening to filibuster -- a delay that requires 60 votes to break. Reasonable people can disagree about whether Reid or Senate Republicans are the biggest offenders -- we previously addressed some of those issues -- but the experts we checked with said both parties share at least some of the blame.

"There's plenty of blame to go around," said Donald Wolfensberger, a former Republican House aide now studying Congress at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars.

Wolfensberger sees Reid as the bigger offender by blocking bills and amendments "to protect his vulnerable members who are up for re-election in November. You can blame the threat of filibusters and politically sensitive amendments from Republicans, but politics ain't bean bag. Senators were sent there to cast the tough votes, not to be pampered, protected and coddled by their leaders."

Others see Republican threats as the bigger problem.

"It is true that some bills, including some of substance, are being blocked by Reid from action because he wants to avoid Republican amendments of the ‘gotcha’ variety that could work against some of his endangered incumbents up this fall," said Norm Ornstein, a congressional scholar at the American Enterprise Institute. "You can make a case that the role of the majority is to suck it up and do votes, even if some are uncomfortable. But on the balance sheet, the bigger reality is that very few of the bills passed by the House were aimed at compromise or agreement with the Senate."

A spokesman for Jenkins, Thomas W. Brandt, told PolitiFact, "Only Sen. Reid can bring these bills up for a vote, and if he did, it would go a long way in ending the legislative gridlock currently plaguing Washington."
 
Thing1 said:
Gee, professor - did it occur to you to actually read the rest of the Politifact entry that you linked?

"First, a technical problem. It’s an oversimplification to say that these bills are "sitting on Harry Reid’s desk." Many have been assigned to committees, where they would need to be approved before being taken up on the floor. While Reid has influence over what committee chairs do, a chair can -- using their own powers -- decide to either fast-track or stall a bill coming over from the House.

Another complication: In at least some cases, the Senate is working on a bill on the same topic, but without using the House bill as a starting point. "The disposition of a House bill is not particularly relevant to measuring Senate legislative activity," said Steven Smith, political scientist and Senate specialist at Washington University in St. Louis.

We should also note that in the Senate, one member -- either from the majority or the minority -- can stop a bill in its tracks by threatening to filibuster -- a delay that requires 60 votes to break. Reasonable people can disagree about whether Reid or Senate Republicans are the biggest offenders -- we previously addressed some of those issues -- but the experts we checked with said both parties share at least some of the blame.

"There's plenty of blame to go around," said Donald Wolfensberger, a former Republican House aide now studying Congress at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars.

Wolfensberger sees Reid as the bigger offender by blocking bills and amendments "to protect his vulnerable members who are up for re-election in November. You can blame the threat of filibusters and politically sensitive amendments from Republicans, but politics ain't bean bag. Senators were sent there to cast the tough votes, not to be pampered, protected and coddled by their leaders."

Others see Republican threats as the bigger problem.

"It is true that some bills, including some of substance, are being blocked by Reid from action because he wants to avoid Republican amendments of the ‘gotcha’ variety that could work against some of his endangered incumbents up this fall," said Norm Ornstein, a congressional scholar at the American Enterprise Institute. "You can make a case that the role of the majority is to suck it up and do votes, even if some are uncomfortable. But on the balance sheet, the bigger reality is that very few of the bills passed by the House were aimed at compromise or agreement with the Senate."

A spokesman for Jenkins, Thomas W. Brandt, told PolitiFact, "Only Sen. Reid can bring these bills up for a vote, and if he did, it would go a long way in ending the legislative gridlock currently plaguing Washington."
Click to expand...

A cluster fuck of simpletons
 
Thing1 said:
Gee, professor - did it occur to you to actually read the rest of the Politifact entry that you linked?

"First, a technical problem. It’s an oversimplification to say that these bills are "sitting on Harry Reid’s desk." Many have been assigned to committees, where they would need to be approved before being taken up on the floor. While Reid has influence over what committee chairs do, a chair can -- using their own powers -- decide to either fast-track or stall a bill coming over from the House.

Another complication: In at least some cases, the Senate is working on a bill on the same topic, but without using the House bill as a starting point. "The disposition of a House bill is not particularly relevant to measuring Senate legislative activity," said Steven Smith, political scientist and Senate specialist at Washington University in St. Louis.

We should also note that in the Senate, one member -- either from the majority or the minority -- can stop a bill in its tracks by threatening to filibuster -- a delay that requires 60 votes to break. Reasonable people can disagree about whether Reid or Senate Republicans are the biggest offenders -- we previously addressed some of those issues -- but the experts we checked with said both parties share at least some of the blame.

"There's plenty of blame to go around," said Donald Wolfensberger, a former Republican House aide now studying Congress at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars.

Wolfensberger sees Reid as the bigger offender by blocking bills and amendments "to protect his vulnerable members who are up for re-election in November. You can blame the threat of filibusters and politically sensitive amendments from Republicans, but politics ain't bean bag. Senators were sent there to cast the tough votes, not to be pampered, protected and coddled by their leaders."

Others see Republican threats as the bigger problem.

"It is true that some bills, including some of substance, are being blocked by Reid from action because he wants to avoid Republican amendments of the ‘gotcha’ variety that could work against some of his endangered incumbents up this fall," said Norm Ornstein, a congressional scholar at the American Enterprise Institute. "You can make a case that the role of the majority is to suck it up and do votes, even if some are uncomfortable. But on the balance sheet, the bigger reality is that very few of the bills passed by the House were aimed at compromise or agreement with the Senate."

A spokesman for Jenkins, Thomas W. Brandt, told PolitiFact, "Only Sen. Reid can bring these bills up for a vote, and if he did, it would go a long way in ending the legislative gridlock currently plaguing Washington."
Click to expand...

My Groan was an accident, sorry
 
Thing1 said:
Gee, professor - did it occur to you to actually read the rest of the Politifact entry that you linked?
A spokesman for Jenkins, Thomas W. Brandt, told PolitiFact, "Only Sen. Reid can bring these bills up for a vote, and if he did, it would go a long way in ending the legislative gridlock currently plaguing Washington."
Click to expand...

Yeah, I did.....thats why I posted this.....

With the usual left wing spin from politifact we've come to see as the norm...
 
"Clinton’s 2.3-million-popular-vote plurality over Trump depends on the votes in a single state: California. Clinton has more than a 4-million-vote plurality over Trump there. In the other 49 states plus the District of Columbia, Trump actually has a 1.7-million-popular-vote plurality over Clinton. So California single-handedly turns a Trump plurality into a Clinton plurality." #69
Click to expand...
So what?

Trump isn't the president of Washington DC.
After inauguration, Trump will the president of the United States of America.

And because of the constitution, we are a republic, not a democracy.
And because of the electoral college, we are not really a democratic republic.
“It’s not just whether your vote counts, but whether your vote counts equally. An electoral college vote in Wyoming was worth 71,000 voters. In Florida one electoral college vote was worth 238,000 voters. ... that not only violates one person, one vote; but also violates the principle of democracy ... “ law professor Lani Guinier
Click to expand...
By my math that's a 3:1 advantage.

I have never read a rational explanation that makes sense in the 3rd Millennium for why a citizen voting in Wyoming should have over three times as much say in election outcome as an ostensibly equal citizen casting a ballot in Florida. We are not hectares. We are humans. What the %$#@ does acreage have to do with it ?!?!
 
sear said:
So what?

Trump isn't the president of Washington DC.
After inauguration, Trump will the president of the United States of America.

And because of the constitution, we are a republic, not a democracy.
And because of the electoral college, we are not really a democratic republic.

By my math that's a 3:1 advantage.

I have never read a rational explanation that makes sense in the 3rd Millennium for why a citizen voting in Wyoming should have over three times as much say in election outcome as an ostensibly equal citizen casting a ballot in Florida. We are not hectares. We are humans. What the %$#@ does acreage have to do with it ?!?!
Click to expand...

Maybe because yer not 'rational', or yer brain function is poor.

The Founders wisely saw that large cities could attract lots of extra stupid people, (future dim wit Democrat voters), who may need or want gubment handouts, (that the dim wit pols would use to buy the dumb fucks' votes), and weren't smart enough ta survive out in rural areas.

They also witnessed what mob rule by Lefties did in the French revolution.

The electoral college is one of many things that keeps this Republic in a delicate balance.

The bat shit crazy TARD infected Liberal/Progressive/Marxist/Statist/Fascists love mob rule, and would love to tear this Republic apart.

Thank God for the Constitution, as the crooked Queen would have packed the Supreme Court with Jurists who would have undone many of the Constitutional protections in favor of the Statism that is destroying this Country.
 
"Maybe because yer not 'rational', or yer brain function is poor." OR 372
Click to expand...
That could explain a poorly reasoned conclusion. But that obviously doesn't apply in my case here.
"The Founders wisely saw that large cities could attract lots of extra stupid people"
Click to expand...
The Federalist Papers doesn't to my knowledge include the phrase "extra stupid people", or any similar allusion.

The historians whose opinion I've read of it reported one of the main reasons for E.C. was to draw candidates to less densely populated regions of voters.
But that was a centuries before the automobile, and passenger aircraft, radio, television, the Internet, and the "portable device".

Not only is the E.C. obsolete. The E.C. is an affront to the most fundamental principles of democracy, chiefly including equality under law.
"Maybe because yer not 'rational', or yer brain function is poor." OR 372
Click to expand...
44a259045d6bc18697b7bc4ddaaf002acfc7ea0.gif

You really thought that anvil was gunna fly? Would you like to buy a bridge?
 
Murky; said:
"Maybe because yer not 'rational', or yer brain function is poor." OR 372
Click to expand...

sear said:
That could explain a poorly reasoned conclusion. But that obviously doesn't apply in my case here.
Click to expand...

Hard to measure total brain function over the interweb, butt: it appears yer brain function has slipped... burp...
Murky; said:
"The Founders wisely saw that large cities could attract lots of extra stupid people"
Click to expand...

sear said:
The Federalist Papers doesn't to my knowledge include the phrase "extra stupid people", or any similar allusion.
The historians whose opinion I've read of it reported one of the main reasons for E.C. was to draw candidates to less densely populated regions of voters. But that was a centuries before the automobile, and passenger aircraft, radio, television, the Internet, and the "portable device".

Not only is the E.C. obsolete. The E.C. is an affront to the most fundamental principles of democracy, chiefly including equality under law.
Click to expand...

Democracy is a selection process, the principals that matter are the Constitutional principals of the Republic, those are fundamental. Yer not too bright are ya?

Regardless of communication and transportation technology improvements a mob rule style democratic election you favor without the Constitutionally required Electoral College would have every candidate in just the corrupt major cities with political machines, the rural areas would never see them.

Fortunately: the Constitution is not easy to change. A bunch of poor loser TARD infected whiners aren't gonna change shit when it get right down to it.

Elimination of the EC would totally change this Republic which Marxists would really like. BTW: are you Marxist?

Murky; said:
"Maybe because yer not 'rational', or yer brain function is poor." OR 372
Click to expand...

sear said:
You really thought that anvil was gunna fly? Would you like to buy a bridge?
Click to expand...

It flies alrighty. Nope, unless you agree to deliver a section of the old 520 floating bridge to the lake where me island is, (fer the right price).
 
Thing1 said:
Oh, golly professor - is that ever a poor attempt to save face.

Reading lesson #1...you're dismissed.
Click to expand...

What's interesting to me is you believing that you are the end-all be-all on every subject and when someone doesn't acquiesce to your self-perceived superiority, you go all pouty and petulant and start figuratively stomping your feet and issuing orders.

It's so boring.
 
Midas Whale67 said:
What's interesting to me is you believing that you are the end-all be-all on every subject and when someone doesn't acquiesce to your self-perceived superiority, you go all pouty and petulant and start figuratively stomping your feet and issuing orders.

It's so boring.
Click to expand...

Where did you come from? DC Junkies?

Was everyone this stupid over there?
 
Micawber said:
Truism. If the left is always conciliatory and the right is always recalcitrant, the right always wins. There is a paradox at work.

Getting along with recidivist criminals is not a principal worth spit. I prefer not negotiating with terrorists. Dems must take the power back and next time choke Republicans out, knee on neck.
Click to expand...
Yep, good ol liberal ideology on display.

WAR
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top