|
|
On November 05 2012 02:11 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +On November 05 2012 02:06 BluePanther wrote:On November 05 2012 02:01 kwizach wrote:On November 05 2012 01:34 BluePanther wrote:On November 05 2012 01:26 Risen wrote:On November 05 2012 01:22 BluePanther wrote:On November 05 2012 01:18 Feartheguru wrote:On November 05 2012 00:30 BluePanther wrote:On November 05 2012 00:01 Wombat_NI wrote:On November 04 2012 23:30 WniO wrote:
[quote]
who cares as long as the economy is doing well. its like in sports Winning is all that matters
and the dems were just as dicks to bush since they had control, not allowing shit to pass, just like the republicans trying to deny as much as obama can put through right now.
the real question is once obama wins AND has control of the the senate/house will we see real change? The Democrats obstruction of Bush was many magnitudes below the ridiculous behaviour of some of the GoP to Obama. That said, politically it's been a smart strategy to filibuster the Democrat-sponsored legislation at record rates, provided that the Dems get blamed for a lack of progress, which it appears in many quarters they are. IT IS THE SAME EXACT STRATEGY THAT DEMS USED WHEN THEY WERE THE MINORITY. I cannot for the life of me understand how some of you can say things like this with a straight face.... It is so incredibly intellectually dishonest it makes it hard for me to take you seriously. These same people talk about how conservatives are intellectually dishonest on tax and budget matters. The hypocrisy is too much... Tell me something here, do you: 1) Not know that Republicans have set a record many times the previous one for the number of fillibusters 2) Think it's irrelevant that Republicans have set a record many times the previous one for the number of filibusters 3) Ignore that fact because it doesn't suit your point 4) Actually think you're the one that's intellectually honest Sigh. You Democrats love that number, don't you? It's the only argument you have. Yet none of you understand how laws are made at all. I'm not a Democrat. I'm a RINO, I guess, but mind explaining what else there is to it? I look at the filibuster number and see a bunch of Republican babies in Congress who didn't get their way so their going to block everything they don't want. If it's different, I would like to know how. I'm not the only one who feels this way. The minority party since the Newt Speaker era has engaged in obvious obstructionism. They haven't always done it with filibusters. It's usually done in committee during votes of various sorts. You forget that the chair usually has a lot of subject-related power. You didn't answer me. Let's settle the matter of filibustering before we move to the next indicator. Do you agree Republicans have been way more obstructionists than Democrats when it comes to filibustering? I stand by my original point that obstructionism has been continually growing and is not the "fault" of a single party. I'm not sure if that counts as a yes or no for your question. This was not your original point. If this was your original point, then you would have agreed immediately the Republicans have been more obstructionist than the Democrats under Bush. You said it was the same or similar. Now you're saying that obstructionism is growing. If anything this is a reversal of position.
No, read what I responded to. He was talking about obstructionism as a Republican strategy and insinuating that Democrats were above that type of behavior.
My only reason for jumping in was to correct that misrepresentation -- both parties engage in it. Also, I didn't argue that one was "better" than the other, I said that it was dumb to use filibuster numbers as "proof" of why Democrats were less obstructionist than Republicans.
|
On November 05 2012 02:08 FeUerFlieGe wrote:
Why doesn't anyone ever talk about the third party candidates?
I voted Johnson. He obviously won't win though... I just hope he gets anywhere near 5%. So I talk about the election like I talk about a superbowl that my team didn't make. It's purely a competitive sport I watch. I don't have much of a vested interest in who wins. And I believe that whoever wins, America loses more liberty and more money, so I really don't care.
|
On November 05 2012 02:06 BluePanther wrote:Show nested quote +On November 05 2012 02:01 kwizach wrote:On November 05 2012 01:34 BluePanther wrote:On November 05 2012 01:26 Risen wrote:On November 05 2012 01:22 BluePanther wrote:On November 05 2012 01:18 Feartheguru wrote:On November 05 2012 00:30 BluePanther wrote:On November 05 2012 00:01 Wombat_NI wrote:On November 04 2012 23:30 WniO wrote:On November 04 2012 23:17 Feartheguru wrote:
[quote]
Except if the people are dumb even to buy that Obama is the reason for the poor economy, despite more jobs now than 4 years ago when jobs were decreasing at 500k/month, if Republicans win they'll get credit for the incoming recovery, and profit from their obstructionism.
who cares as long as the economy is doing well. its like in sports Winning is all that matters and the dems were just as dicks to bush since they had control, not allowing shit to pass, just like the republicans trying to deny as much as obama can put through right now. the real question is once obama wins AND has control of the the senate/house will we see real change? The Democrats obstruction of Bush was many magnitudes below the ridiculous behaviour of some of the GoP to Obama. That said, politically it's been a smart strategy to filibuster the Democrat-sponsored legislation at record rates, provided that the Dems get blamed for a lack of progress, which it appears in many quarters they are. IT IS THE SAME EXACT STRATEGY THAT DEMS USED WHEN THEY WERE THE MINORITY. I cannot for the life of me understand how some of you can say things like this with a straight face.... It is so incredibly intellectually dishonest it makes it hard for me to take you seriously. These same people talk about how conservatives are intellectually dishonest on tax and budget matters. The hypocrisy is too much... Tell me something here, do you: 1) Not know that Republicans have set a record many times the previous one for the number of fillibusters 2) Think it's irrelevant that Republicans have set a record many times the previous one for the number of filibusters 3) Ignore that fact because it doesn't suit your point 4) Actually think you're the one that's intellectually honest Sigh. You Democrats love that number, don't you? It's the only argument you have. Yet none of you understand how laws are made at all. I'm not a Democrat. I'm a RINO, I guess, but mind explaining what else there is to it? I look at the filibuster number and see a bunch of Republican babies in Congress who didn't get their way so their going to block everything they don't want. If it's different, I would like to know how. I'm not the only one who feels this way. The minority party since the Newt Speaker era has engaged in obvious obstructionism. They haven't always done it with filibusters. It's usually done in committee during votes of various sorts. You forget that the chair usually has a lot of subject-related power. You didn't answer me. Let's settle the matter of filibustering before we move to the next indicator. Do you agree Republicans have been way more obstructionists than Democrats when it comes to filibustering? I stand by my original point that obstructionism has been continually growing and is not the "fault" of a single party. I'm not sure if that counts as a yes or no for your question.
So you agree that Republicans have been way more obstructionists than Democrats when it comes to filibustering?
|
On November 05 2012 02:01 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On November 05 2012 01:34 BluePanther wrote:On November 05 2012 01:26 Risen wrote:On November 05 2012 01:22 BluePanther wrote:On November 05 2012 01:18 Feartheguru wrote:On November 05 2012 00:30 BluePanther wrote:On November 05 2012 00:01 Wombat_NI wrote:On November 04 2012 23:30 WniO wrote:On November 04 2012 23:17 Feartheguru wrote:On November 04 2012 23:08 Gorsameth wrote:
[quote]
In every other country i would say the people. in the US im not so sure. i guess we will have the answer next time the congress gets up for re-election.
Except if the people are dumb even to buy that Obama is the reason for the poor economy, despite more jobs now than 4 years ago when jobs were decreasing at 500k/month, if Republicans win they'll get credit for the incoming recovery, and profit from their obstructionism. who cares as long as the economy is doing well. its like in sports Winning is all that matters and the dems were just as dicks to bush since they had control, not allowing shit to pass, just like the republicans trying to deny as much as obama can put through right now. the real question is once obama wins AND has control of the the senate/house will we see real change? The Democrats obstruction of Bush was many magnitudes below the ridiculous behaviour of some of the GoP to Obama. That said, politically it's been a smart strategy to filibuster the Democrat-sponsored legislation at record rates, provided that the Dems get blamed for a lack of progress, which it appears in many quarters they are. IT IS THE SAME EXACT STRATEGY THAT DEMS USED WHEN THEY WERE THE MINORITY. I cannot for the life of me understand how some of you can say things like this with a straight face.... It is so incredibly intellectually dishonest it makes it hard for me to take you seriously. These same people talk about how conservatives are intellectually dishonest on tax and budget matters. The hypocrisy is too much... Tell me something here, do you: 1) Not know that Republicans have set a record many times the previous one for the number of fillibusters 2) Think it's irrelevant that Republicans have set a record many times the previous one for the number of filibusters 3) Ignore that fact because it doesn't suit your point 4) Actually think you're the one that's intellectually honest Sigh. You Democrats love that number, don't you? It's the only argument you have. Yet none of you understand how laws are made at all. I'm not a Democrat. I'm a RINO, I guess, but mind explaining what else there is to it? I look at the filibuster number and see a bunch of Republican babies in Congress who didn't get their way so their going to block everything they don't want. If it's different, I would like to know how. I'm not the only one who feels this way. The minority party since the Newt Speaker era has engaged in obvious obstructionism. They haven't always done it with filibusters. It's usually done in committee during votes of various sorts. You forget that the chair usually has a lot of subject-related power. You didn't answer me. Let's settle the matter of filibustering before we move to the next indicator. Do you agree Republicans have been way more obstructionists than Democrats when it comes to filibustering?
I don't want to step too far into this, but Wikipedia says something a little different from the way you're measuring filibusters:
In the 2007–08 session of Congress, there were 112 cloture votes[23] and some have used this number to argue an increase in the number of filibusters occurring in recent times. However, the Senate leadership has increasingly utilized cloture as a routine tool to manage the flow of business, even in the absence of any apparent filibuster. For these reasons, the presence or absence of cloture attempts cannot be taken as a reliable guide to the presence or absence of a filibuster. Inasmuch as filibustering does not depend on the use of any specific rules, whether a filibuster is present is always a matter of judgment.
I don't think there have been many bona fide filibusters since 2007, as in the Republicans take up floor time for an extended meaningless debate. They just threaten to do it and Democrats back down, or Democrats file motions for cloture and it fails and then they just drop the issue.
|
On November 05 2012 02:17 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On November 05 2012 02:06 BluePanther wrote:On November 05 2012 02:01 kwizach wrote:On November 05 2012 01:34 BluePanther wrote:On November 05 2012 01:26 Risen wrote:On November 05 2012 01:22 BluePanther wrote:On November 05 2012 01:18 Feartheguru wrote:On November 05 2012 00:30 BluePanther wrote:On November 05 2012 00:01 Wombat_NI wrote:On November 04 2012 23:30 WniO wrote:
[quote]
who cares as long as the economy is doing well. its like in sports Winning is all that matters
and the dems were just as dicks to bush since they had control, not allowing shit to pass, just like the republicans trying to deny as much as obama can put through right now.
the real question is once obama wins AND has control of the the senate/house will we see real change? The Democrats obstruction of Bush was many magnitudes below the ridiculous behaviour of some of the GoP to Obama. That said, politically it's been a smart strategy to filibuster the Democrat-sponsored legislation at record rates, provided that the Dems get blamed for a lack of progress, which it appears in many quarters they are. IT IS THE SAME EXACT STRATEGY THAT DEMS USED WHEN THEY WERE THE MINORITY. I cannot for the life of me understand how some of you can say things like this with a straight face.... It is so incredibly intellectually dishonest it makes it hard for me to take you seriously. These same people talk about how conservatives are intellectually dishonest on tax and budget matters. The hypocrisy is too much... Tell me something here, do you: 1) Not know that Republicans have set a record many times the previous one for the number of fillibusters 2) Think it's irrelevant that Republicans have set a record many times the previous one for the number of filibusters 3) Ignore that fact because it doesn't suit your point 4) Actually think you're the one that's intellectually honest Sigh. You Democrats love that number, don't you? It's the only argument you have. Yet none of you understand how laws are made at all. I'm not a Democrat. I'm a RINO, I guess, but mind explaining what else there is to it? I look at the filibuster number and see a bunch of Republican babies in Congress who didn't get their way so their going to block everything they don't want. If it's different, I would like to know how. I'm not the only one who feels this way. The minority party since the Newt Speaker era has engaged in obvious obstructionism. They haven't always done it with filibusters. It's usually done in committee during votes of various sorts. You forget that the chair usually has a lot of subject-related power. You didn't answer me. Let's settle the matter of filibustering before we move to the next indicator. Do you agree Republicans have been way more obstructionists than Democrats when it comes to filibustering? I stand by my original point that obstructionism has been continually growing and is not the "fault" of a single party. I'm not sure if that counts as a yes or no for your question. So you agree that Republicans have been way more obstructionists than Democrats when it comes to filibustering?
The numbers show that this congress has used the filibuster more than any prior congress.
PS, if you want to have an actual conversation, do so. I'm fully aware of what a leading question is.
|
|
|
On November 05 2012 02:16 BluePanther wrote:Show nested quote +On November 05 2012 02:11 DoubleReed wrote:On November 05 2012 02:06 BluePanther wrote:On November 05 2012 02:01 kwizach wrote:On November 05 2012 01:34 BluePanther wrote:On November 05 2012 01:26 Risen wrote:On November 05 2012 01:22 BluePanther wrote:On November 05 2012 01:18 Feartheguru wrote:On November 05 2012 00:30 BluePanther wrote:On November 05 2012 00:01 Wombat_NI wrote:
[quote]
The Democrats obstruction of Bush was many magnitudes below the ridiculous behaviour of some of the GoP to Obama. That said, politically it's been a smart strategy to filibuster the Democrat-sponsored legislation at record rates, provided that the Dems get blamed for a lack of progress, which it appears in many quarters they are. IT IS THE SAME EXACT STRATEGY THAT DEMS USED WHEN THEY WERE THE MINORITY. I cannot for the life of me understand how some of you can say things like this with a straight face.... It is so incredibly intellectually dishonest it makes it hard for me to take you seriously. These same people talk about how conservatives are intellectually dishonest on tax and budget matters. The hypocrisy is too much... Tell me something here, do you: 1) Not know that Republicans have set a record many times the previous one for the number of fillibusters 2) Think it's irrelevant that Republicans have set a record many times the previous one for the number of filibusters 3) Ignore that fact because it doesn't suit your point 4) Actually think you're the one that's intellectually honest Sigh. You Democrats love that number, don't you? It's the only argument you have. Yet none of you understand how laws are made at all. I'm not a Democrat. I'm a RINO, I guess, but mind explaining what else there is to it? I look at the filibuster number and see a bunch of Republican babies in Congress who didn't get their way so their going to block everything they don't want. If it's different, I would like to know how. I'm not the only one who feels this way. The minority party since the Newt Speaker era has engaged in obvious obstructionism. They haven't always done it with filibusters. It's usually done in committee during votes of various sorts. You forget that the chair usually has a lot of subject-related power. You didn't answer me. Let's settle the matter of filibustering before we move to the next indicator. Do you agree Republicans have been way more obstructionists than Democrats when it comes to filibustering? I stand by my original point that obstructionism has been continually growing and is not the "fault" of a single party. I'm not sure if that counts as a yes or no for your question. This was not your original point. If this was your original point, then you would have agreed immediately the Republicans have been more obstructionist than the Democrats under Bush. You said it was the same or similar. Now you're saying that obstructionism is growing. If anything this is a reversal of position. No, read what I responded to. He was talking about obstructionism as a Republican strategy and insinuating that Democrats were above that type of behavior. My only reason for jumping in was to correct that misrepresentation -- both parties engage in it. Also, I didn't argue that one was "better" than the other, I said that it was dumb to use filibuster numbers as "proof" of why Democrats were less obstructionist than Republicans.
The complaint against Republicans is that they are setting a record for obstructionism. Technically Democrats haven't had the opportunity to be even more obstructionist, because Republicans are setting the record. So... I don't understand. There's no evidence to suggest that Democrats are *just as* obstructionist, but there is evidence that Republicans are more obstructionist.
Shrug. Either way, I don't think a single person read your post that way, including myself.
|
On November 05 2012 02:22 NeMeSiS3 wrote:
So who's winning?
Obama by a lot. Warren by a lot.
|
Holy fuck, voter lines in florida. 4+ hours to cast a vote because the governor is a piece of shit.
I've lined up for ~40-50 min or so to cast my vote in Canada, at worst, how the fuck is this acceptable in the USA?
Also, in Ohio, the SoS is apparently trying to change election rules days before the election? WTF?
|
On November 05 2012 02:22 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +On November 05 2012 02:16 BluePanther wrote:On November 05 2012 02:11 DoubleReed wrote:On November 05 2012 02:06 BluePanther wrote:On November 05 2012 02:01 kwizach wrote:On November 05 2012 01:34 BluePanther wrote:On November 05 2012 01:26 Risen wrote:On November 05 2012 01:22 BluePanther wrote:On November 05 2012 01:18 Feartheguru wrote:On November 05 2012 00:30 BluePanther wrote:
[quote]
IT IS THE SAME EXACT STRATEGY THAT DEMS USED WHEN THEY WERE THE MINORITY.
I cannot for the life of me understand how some of you can say things like this with a straight face.... It is so incredibly intellectually dishonest it makes it hard for me to take you seriously. These same people talk about how conservatives are intellectually dishonest on tax and budget matters. The hypocrisy is too much...
Tell me something here, do you: 1) Not know that Republicans have set a record many times the previous one for the number of fillibusters 2) Think it's irrelevant that Republicans have set a record many times the previous one for the number of filibusters 3) Ignore that fact because it doesn't suit your point 4) Actually think you're the one that's intellectually honest Sigh. You Democrats love that number, don't you? It's the only argument you have. Yet none of you understand how laws are made at all. I'm not a Democrat. I'm a RINO, I guess, but mind explaining what else there is to it? I look at the filibuster number and see a bunch of Republican babies in Congress who didn't get their way so their going to block everything they don't want. If it's different, I would like to know how. I'm not the only one who feels this way. The minority party since the Newt Speaker era has engaged in obvious obstructionism. They haven't always done it with filibusters. It's usually done in committee during votes of various sorts. You forget that the chair usually has a lot of subject-related power. You didn't answer me. Let's settle the matter of filibustering before we move to the next indicator. Do you agree Republicans have been way more obstructionists than Democrats when it comes to filibustering? I stand by my original point that obstructionism has been continually growing and is not the "fault" of a single party. I'm not sure if that counts as a yes or no for your question. This was not your original point. If this was your original point, then you would have agreed immediately the Republicans have been more obstructionist than the Democrats under Bush. You said it was the same or similar. Now you're saying that obstructionism is growing. If anything this is a reversal of position. No, read what I responded to. He was talking about obstructionism as a Republican strategy and insinuating that Democrats were above that type of behavior. My only reason for jumping in was to correct that misrepresentation -- both parties engage in it. Also, I didn't argue that one was "better" than the other, I said that it was dumb to use filibuster numbers as "proof" of why Democrats were less obstructionist than Republicans. The complaint against Republicans is that they are setting a record for obstructionism. Technically Democrats haven't had the opportunity to be even more obstructionist, because Republicans are setting the record. So... I don't understand. There's no evidence to suggest that Democrats are *just as* obstructionist, but there is evidence that Republicans are more obstructionist. Shrug. Either way, I don't think a single person read your post that way, including myself.
UGH
You really don't listen do you?
They set a record for FILIBUSTERS.
THIS IS NOT THE ONLY MEASURE FOR OBSTRUCTIONISM!!!!!!!! It's a number that some Democratic researcher found and decided to put it into fancy graphs to lull people who don't understand the legislative process into assuming that Republicans are obstructionist assholes and the innocent Democrats are the victims.
Filibuster is merely a part of obstructionism. It is not a measure of it. THAT IS MY POINT.
|
On November 05 2012 02:26 Lmui wrote:
Holy fuck, voter lines in florida. 4+ hours to cast a vote because the governor is a piece of shit.
I've lined up for ~40-50 min or so to cast my vote in Canada, at worst, how the fuck is this acceptable in the USA?
Also, in Ohio, the SoS is apparently trying to change election rules days before the election? WTF?
You have a source? Not sure what you're referring to.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
filibusters also not the only evidence for obstruction. hands are too cold to type anything more than this oh god
|
On November 05 2012 02:26 Lmui wrote:
Holy fuck, voter lines in florida. 4+ hours to cast a vote because the governor is a piece of shit.
I've lined up for ~40-50 min or so to cast my vote in Canada, at worst, how the fuck is this acceptable in the USA?
Also, in Ohio, the SoS is apparently trying to change election rules days before the election? WTF?
I'm not too concerned; there is a high probability of John Husted running into legal trouble if he continues on the path he's on at the moment. One thing is for sure; he is giving the Ohio governor's seat to the next Democratic challenger and pulling it out right from underneath Kasich.
|
On November 05 2012 02:27 BluePanther wrote:Show nested quote +On November 05 2012 02:22 DoubleReed wrote:On November 05 2012 02:16 BluePanther wrote:On November 05 2012 02:11 DoubleReed wrote:On November 05 2012 02:06 BluePanther wrote:On November 05 2012 02:01 kwizach wrote:On November 05 2012 01:34 BluePanther wrote:On November 05 2012 01:26 Risen wrote:On November 05 2012 01:22 BluePanther wrote:On November 05 2012 01:18 Feartheguru wrote:
[quote]
Tell me something here, do you:
1) Not know that Republicans have set a record many times the previous one for the number of fillibusters
2) Think it's irrelevant that Republicans have set a record many times the previous one for the number of filibusters
3) Ignore that fact because it doesn't suit your point
4) Actually think you're the one that's intellectually honest
Sigh. You Democrats love that number, don't you? It's the only argument you have. Yet none of you understand how laws are made at all. I'm not a Democrat. I'm a RINO, I guess, but mind explaining what else there is to it? I look at the filibuster number and see a bunch of Republican babies in Congress who didn't get their way so their going to block everything they don't want. If it's different, I would like to know how. I'm not the only one who feels this way. The minority party since the Newt Speaker era has engaged in obvious obstructionism. They haven't always done it with filibusters. It's usually done in committee during votes of various sorts. You forget that the chair usually has a lot of subject-related power. You didn't answer me. Let's settle the matter of filibustering before we move to the next indicator. Do you agree Republicans have been way more obstructionists than Democrats when it comes to filibustering? I stand by my original point that obstructionism has been continually growing and is not the "fault" of a single party. I'm not sure if that counts as a yes or no for your question. This was not your original point. If this was your original point, then you would have agreed immediately the Republicans have been more obstructionist than the Democrats under Bush. You said it was the same or similar. Now you're saying that obstructionism is growing. If anything this is a reversal of position. No, read what I responded to. He was talking about obstructionism as a Republican strategy and insinuating that Democrats were above that type of behavior. My only reason for jumping in was to correct that misrepresentation -- both parties engage in it. Also, I didn't argue that one was "better" than the other, I said that it was dumb to use filibuster numbers as "proof" of why Democrats were less obstructionist than Republicans. The complaint against Republicans is that they are setting a record for obstructionism. Technically Democrats haven't had the opportunity to be even more obstructionist, because Republicans are setting the record. So... I don't understand. There's no evidence to suggest that Democrats are *just as* obstructionist, but there is evidence that Republicans are more obstructionist. Shrug. Either way, I don't think a single person read your post that way, including myself. UGH You really don't listen do you? They set a record for FILIBUSTERS. THIS IS NOT THE ONLY MEASURE FOR OBSTRUCTIONISM!!!!!!!! It's a number that some Democratic researcher found and decided to put it into fancy graphs to lull people who don't understand the legislative process into assuming that Republicans are obstructionist assholes and the innocent Democrats are the victims. THAT IS MY POINT.
And you don't get it either, do you?
You just said that obstructionism is continually growing regardless of party. That means you think that the republicans have been more obstructionists than the democrats under Bush.
I didn't even mention filibusters. But filibusters are at least evidence of obstructionism. This is just a complete logical breakdown you're having. I'm only going by what YOU have said. You're not even listening to yourself.
You cannot have the position that obstructionism is continually growing AND have the position that the republicans have not been incredibly obstructionist in comparison to the democrats. These are contradictory positions and you keep flipping between the one you want. Pick one.
|
On November 05 2012 02:27 BluePanther wrote:Show nested quote +On November 05 2012 02:22 DoubleReed wrote:On November 05 2012 02:16 BluePanther wrote:On November 05 2012 02:11 DoubleReed wrote:On November 05 2012 02:06 BluePanther wrote:On November 05 2012 02:01 kwizach wrote:On November 05 2012 01:34 BluePanther wrote:On November 05 2012 01:26 Risen wrote:On November 05 2012 01:22 BluePanther wrote:On November 05 2012 01:18 Feartheguru wrote:
[quote]
Tell me something here, do you:
1) Not know that Republicans have set a record many times the previous one for the number of fillibusters
2) Think it's irrelevant that Republicans have set a record many times the previous one for the number of filibusters
3) Ignore that fact because it doesn't suit your point
4) Actually think you're the one that's intellectually honest
Sigh. You Democrats love that number, don't you? It's the only argument you have. Yet none of you understand how laws are made at all. I'm not a Democrat. I'm a RINO, I guess, but mind explaining what else there is to it? I look at the filibuster number and see a bunch of Republican babies in Congress who didn't get their way so their going to block everything they don't want. If it's different, I would like to know how. I'm not the only one who feels this way. The minority party since the Newt Speaker era has engaged in obvious obstructionism. They haven't always done it with filibusters. It's usually done in committee during votes of various sorts. You forget that the chair usually has a lot of subject-related power. You didn't answer me. Let's settle the matter of filibustering before we move to the next indicator. Do you agree Republicans have been way more obstructionists than Democrats when it comes to filibustering? I stand by my original point that obstructionism has been continually growing and is not the "fault" of a single party. I'm not sure if that counts as a yes or no for your question. This was not your original point. If this was your original point, then you would have agreed immediately the Republicans have been more obstructionist than the Democrats under Bush. You said it was the same or similar. Now you're saying that obstructionism is growing. If anything this is a reversal of position. No, read what I responded to. He was talking about obstructionism as a Republican strategy and insinuating that Democrats were above that type of behavior. My only reason for jumping in was to correct that misrepresentation -- both parties engage in it. Also, I didn't argue that one was "better" than the other, I said that it was dumb to use filibuster numbers as "proof" of why Democrats were less obstructionist than Republicans. The complaint against Republicans is that they are setting a record for obstructionism. Technically Democrats haven't had the opportunity to be even more obstructionist, because Republicans are setting the record. So... I don't understand. There's no evidence to suggest that Democrats are *just as* obstructionist, but there is evidence that Republicans are more obstructionist. Shrug. Either way, I don't think a single person read your post that way, including myself. UGH You really don't listen do you? They set a record for FILIBUSTERS. THIS IS NOT THE ONLY MEASURE FOR OBSTRUCTIONISM!!!!!!!! It's a number that some Democratic researcher found and decided to put it into fancy graphs to lull people who don't understand the legislative process into assuming that Republicans are obstructionist assholes and the innocent Democrats are the victims. THAT IS MY POINT.
He is saying Republicans have set a record for filibusters --> Evidence that Republicans are more obstructionist while no evidence has been brought up that Democrats are equally obstructionist.
That was such a close paraphrase it might as well have been word for word.
Either learn to read or stop using arguments that are not mutually exclusive with what you are trying to refute. TYVM
|
On November 05 2012 02:30 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +On November 05 2012 02:27 BluePanther wrote:On November 05 2012 02:22 DoubleReed wrote:On November 05 2012 02:16 BluePanther wrote:On November 05 2012 02:11 DoubleReed wrote:On November 05 2012 02:06 BluePanther wrote:On November 05 2012 02:01 kwizach wrote:On November 05 2012 01:34 BluePanther wrote:On November 05 2012 01:26 Risen wrote:On November 05 2012 01:22 BluePanther wrote:
[quote]
Sigh.
You Democrats love that number, don't you? It's the only argument you have.
Yet none of you understand how laws are made at all. I'm not a Democrat. I'm a RINO, I guess, but mind explaining what else there is to it? I look at the filibuster number and see a bunch of Republican babies in Congress who didn't get their way so their going to block everything they don't want. If it's different, I would like to know how. I'm not the only one who feels this way. The minority party since the Newt Speaker era has engaged in obvious obstructionism. They haven't always done it with filibusters. It's usually done in committee during votes of various sorts. You forget that the chair usually has a lot of subject-related power. You didn't answer me. Let's settle the matter of filibustering before we move to the next indicator. Do you agree Republicans have been way more obstructionists than Democrats when it comes to filibustering? I stand by my original point that obstructionism has been continually growing and is not the "fault" of a single party. I'm not sure if that counts as a yes or no for your question. This was not your original point. If this was your original point, then you would have agreed immediately the Republicans have been more obstructionist than the Democrats under Bush. You said it was the same or similar. Now you're saying that obstructionism is growing. If anything this is a reversal of position. No, read what I responded to. He was talking about obstructionism as a Republican strategy and insinuating that Democrats were above that type of behavior. My only reason for jumping in was to correct that misrepresentation -- both parties engage in it. Also, I didn't argue that one was "better" than the other, I said that it was dumb to use filibuster numbers as "proof" of why Democrats were less obstructionist than Republicans. The complaint against Republicans is that they are setting a record for obstructionism. Technically Democrats haven't had the opportunity to be even more obstructionist, because Republicans are setting the record. So... I don't understand. There's no evidence to suggest that Democrats are *just as* obstructionist, but there is evidence that Republicans are more obstructionist. Shrug. Either way, I don't think a single person read your post that way, including myself. UGH You really don't listen do you? They set a record for FILIBUSTERS. THIS IS NOT THE ONLY MEASURE FOR OBSTRUCTIONISM!!!!!!!! It's a number that some Democratic researcher found and decided to put it into fancy graphs to lull people who don't understand the legislative process into assuming that Republicans are obstructionist assholes and the innocent Democrats are the victims. THAT IS MY POINT. And you don't get it either, do you? You just said that obstructionism is continually growing regardless of party. That means you think that the republicans have been more obstructionists than the democrats under Bush. I didn't even mention filibusters. This is just a complete logical breakdown you're having. I'm only going by what YOU have said. You're not even listening to yourself.
It's not that simple. Your statement assumes that only a minority party can act as an obstructionist, and that's not the case. I honestly don't know who is "more obstructionist", nor does it really matter. All I know is that the problem is getting worse and much more obvious (they don't even try to hide it anymore) and it needs to be fixed.
|
On November 05 2012 02:23 DoubleReed wrote:Obama by a lot. Warren by a lot.
faith restored in America.
|
On November 05 2012 02:11 StarStrider wrote:Based on all the research I've done and all the polls I've looked at objectively (I didn't vote for Romney or Obama).... It looks neck and neck at the moment, with Obama with the slightest of a lead in some polls. If the trending from Romney continues however it might be enough to take it by Tuesday.
There is no trending for Romney anymore. Obama has a slight but consistent lead in the vast majority of state polls. Prediction markets have him at an almost 70% chance to win. If Romney wins, it will definitely be an upset.
|
On November 05 2012 02:34 BluePanther wrote:Show nested quote +On November 05 2012 02:30 DoubleReed wrote:On November 05 2012 02:27 BluePanther wrote:On November 05 2012 02:22 DoubleReed wrote:On November 05 2012 02:16 BluePanther wrote:On November 05 2012 02:11 DoubleReed wrote:On November 05 2012 02:06 BluePanther wrote:On November 05 2012 02:01 kwizach wrote:On November 05 2012 01:34 BluePanther wrote:On November 05 2012 01:26 Risen wrote:
[quote]
I'm not a Democrat. I'm a RINO, I guess, but mind explaining what else there is to it? I look at the filibuster number and see a bunch of Republican babies in Congress who didn't get their way so their going to block everything they don't want. If it's different, I would like to know how. I'm not the only one who feels this way. The minority party since the Newt Speaker era has engaged in obvious obstructionism. They haven't always done it with filibusters. It's usually done in committee during votes of various sorts. You forget that the chair usually has a lot of subject-related power. You didn't answer me. Let's settle the matter of filibustering before we move to the next indicator. Do you agree Republicans have been way more obstructionists than Democrats when it comes to filibustering? I stand by my original point that obstructionism has been continually growing and is not the "fault" of a single party. I'm not sure if that counts as a yes or no for your question. This was not your original point. If this was your original point, then you would have agreed immediately the Republicans have been more obstructionist than the Democrats under Bush. You said it was the same or similar. Now you're saying that obstructionism is growing. If anything this is a reversal of position. No, read what I responded to. He was talking about obstructionism as a Republican strategy and insinuating that Democrats were above that type of behavior. My only reason for jumping in was to correct that misrepresentation -- both parties engage in it. Also, I didn't argue that one was "better" than the other, I said that it was dumb to use filibuster numbers as "proof" of why Democrats were less obstructionist than Republicans. The complaint against Republicans is that they are setting a record for obstructionism. Technically Democrats haven't had the opportunity to be even more obstructionist, because Republicans are setting the record. So... I don't understand. There's no evidence to suggest that Democrats are *just as* obstructionist, but there is evidence that Republicans are more obstructionist. Shrug. Either way, I don't think a single person read your post that way, including myself. UGH You really don't listen do you? They set a record for FILIBUSTERS. THIS IS NOT THE ONLY MEASURE FOR OBSTRUCTIONISM!!!!!!!! It's a number that some Democratic researcher found and decided to put it into fancy graphs to lull people who don't understand the legislative process into assuming that Republicans are obstructionist assholes and the innocent Democrats are the victims. THAT IS MY POINT. And you don't get it either, do you? You just said that obstructionism is continually growing regardless of party. That means you think that the republicans have been more obstructionists than the democrats under Bush. I didn't even mention filibusters. This is just a complete logical breakdown you're having. I'm only going by what YOU have said. You're not even listening to yourself. It's not that simple. Your statement assumes that only a minority party can act as an obstructionist, and that's not the case. I honestly don't know how is "more obstructionist". All i know is that the problem is getting worse and much more obvious (they don't even try to hide it anymore).
For the love of god, stop contradicting yourself. WHAT problem is getting worse? Obstructionism? Because in the previous sentence you just said you don't know what that means.
There is evidence for Republican obstructionism. Filibusters. That is, at the very least, evidence. It's not direct proof, but it's something. And you have demonstrated nothing to the contrary.
|
On November 05 2012 02:37 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +On November 05 2012 02:34 BluePanther wrote:On November 05 2012 02:30 DoubleReed wrote:On November 05 2012 02:27 BluePanther wrote:On November 05 2012 02:22 DoubleReed wrote:On November 05 2012 02:16 BluePanther wrote:On November 05 2012 02:11 DoubleReed wrote:On November 05 2012 02:06 BluePanther wrote:On November 05 2012 02:01 kwizach wrote:On November 05 2012 01:34 BluePanther wrote:
[quote]
The minority party since the Newt Speaker era has engaged in obvious obstructionism. They haven't always done it with filibusters. It's usually done in committee during votes of various sorts. You forget that the chair usually has a lot of subject-related power. You didn't answer me. Let's settle the matter of filibustering before we move to the next indicator. Do you agree Republicans have been way more obstructionists than Democrats when it comes to filibustering? I stand by my original point that obstructionism has been continually growing and is not the "fault" of a single party. I'm not sure if that counts as a yes or no for your question. This was not your original point. If this was your original point, then you would have agreed immediately the Republicans have been more obstructionist than the Democrats under Bush. You said it was the same or similar. Now you're saying that obstructionism is growing. If anything this is a reversal of position. No, read what I responded to. He was talking about obstructionism as a Republican strategy and insinuating that Democrats were above that type of behavior. My only reason for jumping in was to correct that misrepresentation -- both parties engage in it. Also, I didn't argue that one was "better" than the other, I said that it was dumb to use filibuster numbers as "proof" of why Democrats were less obstructionist than Republicans. The complaint against Republicans is that they are setting a record for obstructionism. Technically Democrats haven't had the opportunity to be even more obstructionist, because Republicans are setting the record. So... I don't understand. There's no evidence to suggest that Democrats are *just as* obstructionist, but there is evidence that Republicans are more obstructionist. Shrug. Either way, I don't think a single person read your post that way, including myself. UGH You really don't listen do you? They set a record for FILIBUSTERS. THIS IS NOT THE ONLY MEASURE FOR OBSTRUCTIONISM!!!!!!!! It's a number that some Democratic researcher found and decided to put it into fancy graphs to lull people who don't understand the legislative process into assuming that Republicans are obstructionist assholes and the innocent Democrats are the victims. THAT IS MY POINT. And you don't get it either, do you? You just said that obstructionism is continually growing regardless of party. That means you think that the republicans have been more obstructionists than the democrats under Bush. I didn't even mention filibusters. This is just a complete logical breakdown you're having. I'm only going by what YOU have said. You're not even listening to yourself. It's not that simple. Your statement assumes that only a minority party can act as an obstructionist, and that's not the case. I honestly don't know how is "more obstructionist". All i know is that the problem is getting worse and much more obvious (they don't even try to hide it anymore). For the love of god, stop contradicting yourself. WHAT problem is getting worse? Obstructionism? Because in the previous sentence you just said you don't know what that means. There is evidence for Republican obstructionism. Filibusters. That is, at the very least, evidence. It's not direct proof, but it's something. And you have demonstrated nothing to the contrary.
Obstructionism is getting worse, in my opinion.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
