mysteryman
 
  2  
Reply Wed 8 Jun, 2011 12:54 pm
@cicerone imposter,
Aside from the fact that your insults are not needed, I do understand politics. I said nothing about the dens voting their conscious, something that I applaud by the way.
The fact remains that Obama was unable to get what he wanted when he had the majority votes to do it.
Now the repubs, as the minority party, are doing what the minority is supposed to do.
Now while I don't approve of some of their tactics, they have done nothing that isn't allowed by the rules of the House.

Its up to the majority party to come up with the votes they need, its not up to the minority party to cooperate.
Even when we think they should cooperate, it is up to the majority to get the votes.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Wed 8 Jun, 2011 02:01 pm
@mysteryman,
Who ever said anything about the GOP actions being illegal? It's not ethical, but it's legal. It's not ethical, because they are hurting the American people to gain political ones-upsmanship.

You deserve the insults when you insult my intelligence.

Your wrote,
Quote:
The fact remains that Obama was unable to get what he wanted when he had the majority votes to do it.

Go back and read what I said about the democratic votes in congress.
H2O MAN
 
  -1  
Reply Wed 8 Jun, 2011 02:03 pm
@mysteryman,
Wait for it . . . he's going to blame Bush, just wait for it.
0 Replies
 
mysteryman
 
  3  
Reply Thu 9 Jun, 2011 02:19 pm
@cicerone imposter,
Are you not understanding me on purpose???

Let me break this down even more for you.
While I readily admit that dems seem to vote their conscious more then follow party line, that is not the point here.

Obama and the dems controlled the White House AND both houses of Congress.
Yet Obama was unable to get some things thru.
Now I admit that part of that is the repubs using legal tactics to block them, but part of it is also that Obama and the dem leadership couldnt get enough of their own people on board.
So if the dems in Congress didnt think something was important enough to vote on, WHEN THEY HAD THE MAJORITY, why are you now blaming the repubs?

Yes, they deserve part of the blame, but you seem to want to put all of the blame on them.

As for the repubs using the rules to block what they dont like, so what?
The dems were guilty of using the same tactics when they were in the minority.
Thats the job of the minority party, to block bills they dont like.
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Thu 9 Jun, 2011 02:45 pm
@mysteryman,
Quote:
Thats the job of the minority party, to block bills they dont like.


I think it's fair to say that the minority party has a responsibility to use discretion in blocking bills - not reflexively block EVERY bill and hold up EVERY nomination, every single time. Which is essentially what the Republicans did from 09-11.

It destroys our gov'ts ability to function effectively when a minority can bring the entire country's business to a halt, and does so at every opportunity.

Cycloptichorn
georgeob1
 
  2  
Reply Thu 9 Jun, 2011 02:46 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Perrhaps so. However, that was also how the Democrats behaved when they were the minority.
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Thu 9 Jun, 2011 02:54 pm
@georgeob1,
georgeob1 wrote:

Perrhaps so. However, that was also how the Democrats behaved when they were the minority.


I think that's factually untrue, given that the vast majority of Bush's nominations were confirmed in the Senate, and many bills that the Dems' didn't like were passed between 2001-2006. The two are simply not comparable in scope.

I'd be happy to provide numbers if you like, showing just how much more obstinate the Republicans have been. But I think you already know.

Cycloptichorn
georgeob1
 
  0  
Reply Thu 9 Jun, 2011 05:01 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Well the Democrats still control the senate and the Republicans got control of the House only six months ago, so I think you will have a great deal of difficulty in providing us comparable data. You will also have to provide a clearler definition of legislation Democrats "didn't like" that was passed in the Bush era - usually with the assistance of many democrat votes in the Congress.

That said, go ahead, provide us the comparatrive data.
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Thu 9 Jun, 2011 05:16 pm
@georgeob1,
georgeob1 wrote:

Well the Democrats still control the senate and the Republicans got control of the House only six months ago, so I think you will have a great deal of difficulty in providing us comparable data.


Ah, but the Senate is where the real action is, and it's where the Republicans have been using such crappy and dishonorable tactics constantly since they lost the majority there. The House is immaterial to this discussion. Nice dodge though.

Quote:
You will also have to provide a clearler definition of legislation Democrats "didn't like" that was passed in the Bush era - usually with the assistance of many democrat votes in the Congress.


That would be things like the Bush tax cuts, both of which were passed under Reconciliation rules, to prevent Dem filibusters. Or the large number of war supplemental bills which Bush pushed through each year, b/c he didn't want the cost of the wars on his regular budgets. Or maybe the PATRIOT act re-authorizations, which were strong-armed though Congress each year.

Yes, some Dems vote for those things - but that's because the Dems simply don't vote in lockstep like the Republicans do. We have actual freedom of opinion within the party, something that you simply can't say is true for your side.

Quote:
That said, go ahead, provide us the comparatrive data.


http://www.afj.org/judicial-selection/obama-judicial-nominations-obstruction-vs-recent-presidents.pdf

http://leahy.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Press-Nominations-JustTheFacts.pdf

http://www.senate.gov/pagelayout/reference/cloture_motions/clotureCounts.htm

The Republicans have used every stalling tactic and trick possible to obstruct the majority; so much so, that it's downright unseemly. And trying to compare it to the Dems is, George, farcical. How much so? The Republicans have used the filibuster (forcing a cloture vote showdown) more times since January 2009 than in the ENTIRE HISTORY of the Senate before that, combined.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  2  
Reply Thu 9 Jun, 2011 05:22 pm
@mysteryman,
mm wrote,
Quote:
Yet Obama was unable to get some things thru.


ROFLMAO

Heck, I would have voted down some of Obama's initiatives. That's the way government is supposed to work, believe it not!
0 Replies
 
Renaldo Dubois
 
  0  
Reply Thu 9 Jun, 2011 05:44 pm
This has to be really embarrassing.
http://www.fox19.com/Global/story.asp?S=14872850
H2O MAN
 
  -1  
Reply Thu 9 Jun, 2011 07:08 pm
Who's paying for Obama's war in Libya?

Obama struggles to defend military effort in Libya as Senate calls for congressional
permission to remain in country and costs reportedly hit $60 million a month.
0 Replies
 
Gargamel
 
  1  
Reply Fri 10 Jun, 2011 07:59 am
@Renaldo Dubois,
Renaldo Dubois wrote:

This has to be really embarrassing.
http://www.fox19.com/Global/story.asp?S=14872850


No. It doesn't.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Fri 10 Jun, 2011 08:43 am
@georgeob1,
Quote:

That said, go ahead, provide us the comparatrive data.


In this same vein,

The Dems passed a new financial reform law in the wake of the financial crisis last year, part of which authorized the creation of a Consumer Financial Protection bureau, who would be tasked with watching banks and investment houses to make sure they aren't actively trying to screw their customers by lying to them.

The GOP hates this, because their Wall Street buddies make a lot of money by actively trying to screw their clients and customers. A lot of money. So what have they decided to do? They won't allow anyone to be confirmed to the directorship of this new position. They literally will use every means they have available to keep the law from being enacted as it's written.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/gops-mitch-mcconnell-senate-minority-leader-stands-by-vow-to-block-cfpb-nominees/2011/06/09/AG3LcjNH_story.html?hpid=z8

Can you remember a similar situation, in which the minority Democrats blocked ANY appointees to head an agency? In which they were actively subverting the rule of law by using their power to keep the president from filling his cabinet positions - not just with an unqualified candidate, but anyone?

Cycloptichorn
Renaldo Dubois
 
  0  
Reply Fri 10 Jun, 2011 09:29 am
Do you remember when BO began appointing his cabinet after he was elected? How come so many of them were tax cheats?
H2O MAN
 
  -1  
Reply Fri 10 Jun, 2011 11:07 am
@Renaldo Dubois,


The liberal democrat Chicago Machine is all about thugs, thieves, cheats, liars and unions.
0 Replies
 
MontereyJack
 
  1  
Reply Fri 10 Jun, 2011 11:21 am
Yeah, yeah, yeah, we know, H2Oboy, union thugs in their black helicopters and jackboots are infiltrating your neighborhood and coming to brainwash you. It's all a democratic plot.
H2O MAN
 
  -2  
Reply Fri 10 Jun, 2011 12:17 pm
@MontereyJack,


MJackoff, you are a brainless Obamabot that knows nothing about reality.
0 Replies
 
mysteryman
 
  2  
Reply Fri 10 Jun, 2011 08:56 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Quote:
In which they were actively subverting the rule of law by using their power to keep the president from filling his cabinet positions


First of all, its not a cabinet position.
Nobody is being appointed Secretary of this agency. Its another watchdog agency.
The Senate is also not "subverting the rule of law" because the law gives the Senate the power to block ANY appointment.
If it is an appointment that needs to be confirmed, then the Senate has complete authority to block the appointment.

Also, you are misstating WHY they are blocking the appointment.
Since people might not read your link, let me quote from part of it...
Quote:

Republicans want the bureau to be run by a five-member commission rather than a single director. They also called for tougher oversight of the bureau by existing banking regulators and said the new agency should be funded by congressional appropriations. Under the current structure, the bureau’s budget is carved from the Federal Reserve


Those seem to be some pretty serious differences, not just stuff being used to block anyone.
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Sat 11 Jun, 2011 12:33 am
@mysteryman,
Excellent reply MM.

In addition, the notion that only Republicans curry the money and favor of Wall Street indicates how out of touch and reliant upon left wing memes Cyclo is.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

So....Will Biden Be VP? - Question by blueveinedthrobber
My view on Obama - Discussion by McGentrix
Obama/ Love Him or Hate Him, We've Got Him - Discussion by Phoenix32890
Obama fumbles at Faith Forum - Discussion by slkshock7
Expert: Obama is not the antichrist - Discussion by joefromchicago
Obama's State of the Union - Discussion by maxdancona
Demand a plan - Discussion by H2O MAN
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Obama '08?
  3. » Page 2062
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.17 seconds on 09/25/2021 at 01:03:19