President Obama Re-Elected - Page 1186

On November 05 2012 08:19 Souma wrote:


This analogy is stupid because it's not like filibusters were the only thing they did. Ignore the judicial holds all you want, it's not going to disappear.

On November 05 2012 08:21 sc2superfan101 wrote:

yes and since Harry Reid thinks turn-about is fair play, and just announced that he and Dems won't be working with the Reps or with Romney, anyone who support Reid can go ahead and stop complaining about Reps because at this point it's starting to sound a little hollow. it is pretty hypocritical to complain about the exact same thing you plan on doing very, very soon.

On November 05 2012 08:23 Souma wrote:


Hey as long as you agree that Republicans are doing it and Democrats didn't do it first, I'm fine with that. No use trying to change the topic to a hypothetical.

Edit: Once again the problem is not filibustering, the problem is volume and the problem is judicial holds. Keep trying to change the topic because you have no way to refute me (instead you've agreed with me by saying that's what you hired your politicians to do so I don't know why you're trying to argue against it now).

On November 05 2012 08:24 sc2superfan101 wrote:

you missed my edit. Democrats are responsible for the longest filibusters in history.

On November 05 2012 08:24 sc2superfan101 wrote:

you missed my edit. Democrats are responsible for the longest filibusters in history.

On November 05 2012 08:26 Risen wrote:


I enjoy how you bring up the Dem party of the 60s in support of your argument. Rofl. Stay free Republicans.

On November 05 2012 08:24 sc2superfan101 wrote:

Dems are responsible for the longest filibusters in US history, they have blocked and branded Rep. justice nominations, they have done all the same stuff and you want to complain now that it's being done to you, despite your side planning on doing it immediately after the election.

I haven't changed the topic once. I have made two assertions: 1) Republicans were elected to "obstruct" to some degree Obama's agenda, and 2) Democrats have done the exact same thing, and will continue to do so, with or without a "mandate" from an election. that is the difference. Republicans obstruct when the American people tell us to. Democrats obstruct whenever they feel like it.

On November 05 2012 08:28 sc2superfan101 wrote:

well if you're going to act like this is something new than I'm going to prove you wrong...

sorry?

On November 05 2012 08:30 Souma wrote:


LOL what?

So when Americans elect Democrats to office it's Democrats doing whatever they want, but when Americans elect a minority of Republicans to the Senate and they have record-breaking amounts of filibusters (two Congresses in a row) and hold the judiciary hostage, that's what they were "hired" to do?

Nice. Logic.



Gee with this logic, who needs compromise, let's just beat the shit out of each other till we're satisfied because that's obviously how governance politics is supposed to work.

The lawsuit states that the three counties have “inadequate polling facilities” and have failed to meet the needs of voters. Some voters faced “prohibitively long” lines and did not finish voting until early Sunday morning.

“The extraordinarily long lines deterred or prevented voters from waiting to vote,” the lawsuit states. “Some voters left the polling sites upon learning of the expected wait, and others refused to line up altogether. These long lines and extreme delays unduly and unjustifiably burdened the right to vote.”

With complaints streaming in from angry voters, the Florida Democratic Party and the League of Women Voters asked Gov. Rick Scott and state election officials on Thursday to extend early voting. They argued that some voters were leaving without voting because they did not have all day to wait in line. The Monroe County election supervisor, Harry Sawyer, also asked Mr. Scott to use his emergency powers to extend early voting.

But the governor and state elections officials turned down the request, saying that the process was running smoothly and that the move was unnecessary.

Last year, Mr. Scott and the Republican-controlled Legislature pushed through a measure to cut early voting from 14 days to 8 days and to cancel voting on the final Sunday before Election Day. Because more Democrats cast early ballots than Republicans, the move was viewed by Democrats as an effort to blunt Democratic turnout.

On November 05 2012 08:33 sc2superfan101 wrote:

was there wide support of the Democrats in the 60s when they filibustered the Civil Rights bills? was there wide support of their racist attacks on Clarence Thomas?

we will see very soon what they were "hired" to do.

On November 05 2012 08:34 Souma wrote:


The way you grasp at straws by citing things from half a century ago is amazing. Is that how you justify all your actions when you have nothing else to work with in the current reality?

I hope the majority of Muslims never think like that. Now that would be disastrous.

On November 05 2012 08:33 sc2superfan101 wrote:

was there wide support of the Democrats in the 60s when they filibustered the Civil Rights bills? was there wide support of their racist attacks on Clarence Thomas? stop pretending like the Democrats are rosy little heroes who have never been obstructionist for ideological purposes and maybe I'll stop doing the same with Republicans. you keep it up and I'll keep it up. turn-about is fair play.

we will see very soon what they were "hired" to do.

as long as compromise means: "do everything that I want and maybe I'll toss you a bone or two" then yeah, we do without that "compromise".

wasn't it Abe Lincoln who said something about the idiocy in trying to find a middle ground between good and evil?

On November 05 2012 08:36 sc2superfan101 wrote:

Clarence Thomas was half a century ago?

On November 05 2012 08:40 Souma wrote:


The 60s was half a century ago. Clarence Thomas was 21 years ago. Not to mention this is comparing apples to bananas.

But hey! It's all good man, when you start peering way into the irrelevant past I don't even want to argue this stuff anymore. We might end up dragging Jefferson and Madison into this biz.

On November 05 2012 08:39 TheTenthDoc wrote:


I suspect Ronald Reagan and George H. W. Bush (let alone Eisenhower, Lincoln, and other visionary Republicans) would recoil at anyone characterizing the Democratic party as "evil." Just as any sane Democrat does the same when people characterize the Republican party as "evil."

Edit: That's certainly not why the Republican party is currently obstructing bills, anyway. They don't think the jobs bill was "evil", or Obama's judicial appointments were "evil."

Edit2: Well, except some of the more loony tunes reps that are going to lose their seats this election.

On November 05 2012 08:55 sc2superfan101 wrote:

you can't just arbitrarily decide which obstructionist policies and which time-periods you are going to exclude and include and then claim some kind of overarching theory based on that cherry-picked evidence. you've basically established that in one sense, these Republicans in Congress are the most obstructionist in Congress since the 2008 election! omg, great conclusion!

Dems are obstructionist when they feel like their ideology or primary goals are threatened and then they turn around and point fingers when Republicans do it to. it's hypocritical to the highest degree and no matter how much you cherry pick or argue about degrees, the fact is there that filibustering and obstructing are nothing new and they are not exclusive to Republicans.