At What Point Did You Decide That You Were Against Obama No Matter What?

[Dubya]

I attended the University of Massachusetts at Amherst. If you are claiming that there are no "unexceptional" people teaching in colleges then quite frankly, I wonder if you were in college. I have many interests besides our present President but I'm curious as to whether your taking exception to my talking about Barack Obama has more to do with "always talking about a person" or the fact that I don't buy into the Obama "narrative" that has been created by both Mr. Obama and a fawning main stream media?

Consider the commandment about bearing false witness against your neighbor and questions about who is your neighbor!

First off, it's boring to be around somebody who is compulsive about one interest. It's also stupid to constantly nitpick a politician over things easily seen as being nonsense, because if that politician ever did something really wrong, who would give you the time of day? You cried wolf constantly, so what happens if a wolf comes? You've already lost credibility.

The subject of any person isn't that important or large enough to generate much interest to people are interested in complex subjects.

In this particular case, you want to argue that such an exceptional life of a person isn't exceptional in your opinion or the position you choose to debate. That's a nothing is what it is argument. What you are suggesting is somehow Obama was given some sort of favoritism to accomplish what he accomplished, but Obama's life wasn't a priviledged life and the details of his life proves that to be the case. Again, that's a nothing is what it is argument.

What we are left with is dealing with your OCD ways. Who cares why you are obsessed with Obama, it's your problem! It's a lot easier to post a bunch of nonsense than to refute every word of it. When there is someone like you who can't understand how ridiculous your argument is, the best thing to do is just ignore the idiot. I don't care if the reasons you do what you do involve racism, political ideology or just taking a position to debate. I'm not your shrink and I don't care what you choose to believe is my reality. All I do is point out the obvious inconsistencies of another internet person making statements that are obviously false.

I lived since the days of Truman being President and have studied all of them and more. They all had to be exceptional in some way to become President, but Dubya was the least of that group and was a fortunate son in the way he was exceptional. Nixon isn't liked very much, but Nixon was a very intelligent man and someone's opinion of him doesn't change that fact. Clinton, Carter and Obama were also very intelligent Presidents. Truman, Ike, Ford, Bush, Reagan, Kennedy and Johnson weren't as intelligent, but they were all exceptional in other ways. I understand Clinton had a way of engaging someone when he met them that was remarkable.

When I spend time studying a figure in history, I use historians who will tell the good, bad and ugly of that person and aren't using bias to form an opinion. Sometimes the events have to make the person, so would Lincoln stand out as a President, if the Civil War was avoided? It doesn't take much time to study a person or a moment in history and unless you are an expert specializing in that one aspect of history, a normal person is only going to give it so much of their time.

Without some great event happening during Obama's or any President's watch, they aren't going to be a great President. Dubya did have a chance to go down in history as one of the better Presidents because he had significant events happen, but he blew it. Historians are going to record this present history with the details a partisan avoids. My interest is the truth of these and other times and it isn't your interest.

You don't lecture a law school without being exceptional, because who wants to hear a lecture from someone below your level? The professors that taught me the intro courses for Chemistry and Physics went on to head the departments at the university and my Chemistry professor had the most brilliant teaching skills, I've seen in a professor. The man was truly a genius at teaching, as if he could instantly recognize what a student was lacking in their understanding and guide them to what they needed to know. The intro course that he taught was a high level course for students majoring in Chemistry and Chemical Engineering. They called it baby P Chem after the Junior year Physical Chemistry course, which required Calculus for Mathematics majors to pass.

First of all...I never said there were no exceptional people teaching at the college level...there are tens of thousands of them! My point was that simply being a professor or lecturer at the college level does not mean that everyone is exceptional...a fact that anyone who attended college can attest to. There are good and there are mediocre in the college ranks, just as in most professions. You said that you did research on Barack Obama? Would you like to point out to me the evidence that HE was one of the good teachers and not simply mediocre? Some scholarly work of his that he published during the 12 years that he was lecturing on constitutional law? Read the following article by The New York Times written back in 2008 before Obama was elected. Only THIS time read it with the eye of a REAL historian and note how the author's preexisting viewpoint of the man she is writing about flavors the entire piece.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/30/us/politics/30law.html?pagewanted=all

The fact that Barack Obama is more image than substance keeps rearing it's ugly head despite the obvious desire of the author to paint him in a positive manner. Why? Because he didn't write any scholarly works...ZERO! Why? Because he never engaged in the traditional head to head discussions with other faculty members...especially those whose views were not the same as his. Reading that article only reinforces what I know about Barack Obama. He was chosen to teach because of his status as the first black President of the Harvard Law Review...not because of his outstanding scholarly work. Why do I say that? BECAUSE THERE IS NO SCHOLARLY WORK! There was zero work published and there was zero participation in an exchange of viewpoints with his colleagues. Barack Obama showed up...taught his classes on how blacks had been discriminated against in voting rights...recruited his students to work for him on his political career and diligently left as little of a paper trail behind him as possible so it wouldn't effect his political ambitions.

Why would you think such evidence would be on the internet?

The University of Chicago Law School is the graduate school of law at the University of Chicago. It was founded in 1902 by a coalition of donors led by John D. Rockefeller,[2] and is consistently one of the highest-rated law schools in the United States. The U.S. News & World Report ranks it fifth among U.S. law schools, and it is noted particularly for its influence on the economic analysis of law.[3]

Source: University of Chicago Law School - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Obama spent four years as a Lecturer and eight years as a Senior Lecturer there. Are you telling me there is no record of those Obama lectures? Don't you think they would be university property? Don't you think Harvard has records?

Give up your Obama compulsion to misrepresent the facts! You try to equate what Obama did to a professor at a community college. Playing with reality is just making you look stupid and anyone who agrees with you has to be stupid. Obama has led an exception life and that's why he is President for two terms. He earned it and it wasn't handed to him like the rich people you support through the Republican Party's agenda.

 

[JoeNormal]

Keep on focusing on the minutiae dude.

ROFL

Says the drone searching "Wiktionary" in hopes of salvaging his fellow leftist...

There's a place for it in this world. You'd probably make a fine tax accountant or legal document proofreader. Meanwhile, those of us with the proper education and enough brainpower to pull it off will design the future.

Think I could teach at a University?

Sure, in your dreams. I'll grant that there are a few intelligent cons on this site but I hate to break it to you, you're not one of them.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Sure, in your dreams. I'll grant that there are a few intelligent cons on this site but I hate to break it to you, you're not one of them.

Awww, I'm hurt. A partisan drone on the internet, lacking secondary education, impugns my intellect....

However SHALL I go on?

 

[JoeNormal]

Sure, in your dreams. I'll grant that there are a few intelligent cons on this site but I hate to break it to you, you're not one of them.

Awww, I'm hurt. A partisan drone on the internet, lacking secondary education, impugns my intellect....

However SHALL I go on?

Be brave. The world needs ditch diggers too.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Be brave. The world needs ditch diggers too.

I wasn't suggesting we do away with you.

 

[Gadawg73]

When Clinton said "I never inhaled" I KNEW he was a liar.
When Obama said "I will cut the deficit by the end of my first time IN HALF" I KNEW he was a liar.
Anyone that does not believe they both LIED are damn ignorant fools.

 

[Uncensored2008]

When Clinton said "I never inhaled" I KNEW he was a liar.
When Obama said "I will cut the deficit by the end of my first time IN HALF" I KNEW he was a liar.
Anyone that does not believe they both LIED are damn ignorant fools.

When Clinton opened his mouth, I knew he was a liar.

When Bush opened his mouth, I knew he was a liar.

When Obama opened his mouth, I knew he was a liar.

 

[Oldstyle]

Consider the commandment about bearing false witness against your neighbor and questions about who is your neighbor!

First off, it's boring to be around somebody who is compulsive about one interest. It's also stupid to constantly nitpick a politician over things easily seen as being nonsense, because if that politician ever did something really wrong, who would give you the time of day? You cried wolf constantly, so what happens if a wolf comes? You've already lost credibility.

The subject of any person isn't that important or large enough to generate much interest to people are interested in complex subjects.

In this particular case, you want to argue that such an exceptional life of a person isn't exceptional in your opinion or the position you choose to debate. That's a nothing is what it is argument. What you are suggesting is somehow Obama was given some sort of favoritism to accomplish what he accomplished, but Obama's life wasn't a priviledged life and the details of his life proves that to be the case. Again, that's a nothing is what it is argument.

What we are left with is dealing with your OCD ways. Who cares why you are obsessed with Obama, it's your problem! It's a lot easier to post a bunch of nonsense than to refute every word of it. When there is someone like you who can't understand how ridiculous your argument is, the best thing to do is just ignore the idiot. I don't care if the reasons you do what you do involve racism, political ideology or just taking a position to debate. I'm not your shrink and I don't care what you choose to believe is my reality. All I do is point out the obvious inconsistencies of another internet person making statements that are obviously false.

I lived since the days of Truman being President and have studied all of them and more. They all had to be exceptional in some way to become President, but Dubya was the least of that group and was a fortunate son in the way he was exceptional. Nixon isn't liked very much, but Nixon was a very intelligent man and someone's opinion of him doesn't change that fact. Clinton, Carter and Obama were also very intelligent Presidents. Truman, Ike, Ford, Bush, Reagan, Kennedy and Johnson weren't as intelligent, but they were all exceptional in other ways. I understand Clinton had a way of engaging someone when he met them that was remarkable.

When I spend time studying a figure in history, I use historians who will tell the good, bad and ugly of that person and aren't using bias to form an opinion. Sometimes the events have to make the person, so would Lincoln stand out as a President, if the Civil War was avoided? It doesn't take much time to study a person or a moment in history and unless you are an expert specializing in that one aspect of history, a normal person is only going to give it so much of their time.

Without some great event happening during Obama's or any President's watch, they aren't going to be a great President. Dubya did have a chance to go down in history as one of the better Presidents because he had significant events happen, but he blew it. Historians are going to record this present history with the details a partisan avoids. My interest is the truth of these and other times and it isn't your interest.

You don't lecture a law school without being exceptional, because who wants to hear a lecture from someone below your level? The professors that taught me the intro courses for Chemistry and Physics went on to head the departments at the university and my Chemistry professor had the most brilliant teaching skills, I've seen in a professor. The man was truly a genius at teaching, as if he could instantly recognize what a student was lacking in their understanding and guide them to what they needed to know. The intro course that he taught was a high level course for students majoring in Chemistry and Chemical Engineering. They called it baby P Chem after the Junior year Physical Chemistry course, which required Calculus for Mathematics majors to pass.

First of all...I never said there were no exceptional people teaching at the college level...there are tens of thousands of them! My point was that simply being a professor or lecturer at the college level does not mean that everyone is exceptional...a fact that anyone who attended college can attest to. There are good and there are mediocre in the college ranks, just as in most professions. You said that you did research on Barack Obama? Would you like to point out to me the evidence that HE was one of the good teachers and not simply mediocre? Some scholarly work of his that he published during the 12 years that he was lecturing on constitutional law? Read the following article by The New York Times written back in 2008 before Obama was elected. Only THIS time read it with the eye of a REAL historian and note how the author's preexisting viewpoint of the man she is writing about flavors the entire piece.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/30/us/politics/30law.html?pagewanted=all

The fact that Barack Obama is more image than substance keeps rearing it's ugly head despite the obvious desire of the author to paint him in a positive manner. Why? Because he didn't write any scholarly works...ZERO! Why? Because he never engaged in the traditional head to head discussions with other faculty members...especially those whose views were not the same as his. Reading that article only reinforces what I know about Barack Obama. He was chosen to teach because of his status as the first black President of the Harvard Law Review...not because of his outstanding scholarly work. Why do I say that? BECAUSE THERE IS NO SCHOLARLY WORK! There was zero work published and there was zero participation in an exchange of viewpoints with his colleagues. Barack Obama showed up...taught his classes on how blacks had been discriminated against in voting rights...recruited his students to work for him on his political career and diligently left as little of a paper trail behind him as possible so it wouldn't effect his political ambitions.

Why would you think such evidence would be on the internet?

The University of Chicago Law School is the graduate school of law at the University of Chicago. It was founded in 1902 by a coalition of donors led by John D. Rockefeller,[2] and is consistently one of the highest-rated law schools in the United States. The U.S. News & World Report ranks it fifth among U.S. law schools, and it is noted particularly for its influence on the economic analysis of law.[3]

Source: University of Chicago Law School - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Obama spent four years as a Lecturer and eight years as a Senior Lecturer there. Are you telling me there is no record of those Obama lectures? Don't you think they would be university property? Don't you think Harvard has records?

Give up your Obama compulsion to misrepresent the facts! You try to equate what Obama did to a professor at a community college. Playing with reality is just making you look stupid and anyone who agrees with you has to be stupid. Obama has led an exception life and that's why he is President for two terms. He earned it and it wasn't handed to him like the rich people you support through the Republican Party's agenda.

I'm not disputing the fact that Obama was a lecturer at the University of Chicago nor am I disputing the fact that it's a fine institution of higher learning. What I've pointed out is that Barack Obama's "career" there has little to show in the way of scholarly work. He didn't write and he didn't take part in intellectual debates (as was the common practice) with other Professors. In a field whose mantra is "publish or perish", Barack Obama never even attempted to publish. I'm sorry if you feel my pointing that fact out somehow "misrepresents" his time spent at the University of Chicago but I take note that you have provided nothing to refute my contentions.

To be quite frank, Barack Obama seems to have been brought onto the faculty to address a perceived need for more people of color in an institution that was seen as lacking in that regard. It mirrors why he was chosen to be President of the Harvard Law Review. The University of Chicago was taking heat for not having more minority lecturers despite being located in the South Side of Chicago just as Harvard had been taking heat earlier for it's treatment of minority faculty. What I'm saying is that the selection of Barack Obama was the means to an end by both Harvard and the University of Chicago. It was NOT because of his intellectual body of work because to be quite blunt...he HAS no intellectual body of work. The fact that he was offered tenure if he remained at Chicago despite never producing ANY scholarly work simply shows that he was being "graded on the curve".

 

[thereisnospoon]

You idiots have claimed there are less jobs now than in 2007, but I posted the stats from the BLS proving there were around 12.5 million more jobs now and you can get the exact figure.

http://www.bls.gov/web/empsit/cpseea01.pdf

The economy was in a freefall that Republicans created during their watch, so I don't care what was needed to stop that and keep us out of a depression. You can bitch all you want about the cure, but you assholes created the desease. No one buys your bullshit.

Having control of the House didn't give Obama a super-majority in the Senate and as I recall having posted the data, the Democrats had a super-majority for less than 6 months, but it was on the order of 5 days less. You can only get so much done when the Repubicans are intentionally obstructing Congress. They should have solved our economic problems long ago, but the Republicans work to destroy and not create good economies. That's why they need to cease to exist in America.

You are changing the story to fit the liberal narrative.
The GOP was not obstructing Congress. The GOP Reps and Sens were doing what their constituents sent them to do. That is to block the liberal agenda of the democrat party. That's how our government works.
Your premise presupposes having to kowtow to the whims of the majority.
That's pure democracy. This is a Representative Republic. NOT a democracy.
Now democrats are busily creating dependency upon government for as many people as possible. The goal is to provide the public dole to as many as possible to create in lockstep voters for democrats.
The liberal democrats care not for the people or the nation. They are fixated on the acquisition and retention of political power.
Today Obama repeated the lib talking point HE created by saying "we cannot cut our way to prosperity"..
He believes we can tax our way to prosperity.
So, your job is to give one example of how any nation has been able to tax itself into prosperity.

Nothing is what it is, right?

What is the sense for me to discuss something with a person who denies the obvious? We have been having a record number of filibuster and that is obstruction of the Senate by a minority of at least 40%. It takes more than words to prove your case and you can't change facts. Having a 40% representation in the Senate can shut it down from passing legislation and some of that legislation is necessary daily business. The act of doing so is called obstruction of government. When you drag out passing a bill that you totally support, that is obstruction of government.

On December 6, 2012, another milestone in filibuster history was reached when Senator Mitch McConnell (R-KY), Senate Minority Leader, became the first senator to filibuster his own proposal,

January 2013 filibuster reform

Negotiations between the two parties resulted in two packages of amendments to the rules on filibusters being approved by the Senate on January 24, 2013.[43] Changes to the standing orders affecting just the 2013-14 Congress were passed by a vote of 78 to 16, eliminating the minority party's right to filibuster a bill as long as each party has been permitted to present at least two amendments to the bill.[43] Changes to the permanent Senate rules were passed by a vote of 86 to 9.[43]

The series of changes to the filibuster rules announced represented a compromise between the major reforms put forward by some Democratic senators and the changes preferred by Republican senators.[44] Those seeking reform, including Democrats and liberal interest groups, had originally proposed a variety of strong reforms including: ending the filibuster completely; banning the use of filibusters on the motion to proceed; re-introducing the "talking filibuster" where the minority would have to remain on the Senate floor and speak in order to impede passage of a vote; banning the use of filibusters on House-Senate conferences; and forcing the minority to produce 41 votes in order to block cloture.[45][46] These more extensive reforms of the filibuster could only have been implemented by the nuclear option.[43]

Source: Filibuster in the United States Senate - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

That's how government works? You propose legislation and endlessly debate your own proposal to waste the time of the Senate. Why isn't that obstruction of government? The Senate rules allows a minority to use legislation that even the minority supports and cause an endless debate to waste the Senate's time.

If it wasn't obstruction of government, why were the rules changed and don't you think the Republicans helped to change the rules, because they didn't want to risk having the same thing done to them? They were hoping they could get power in the Senate, but didn't and that's why they supported changing the rules they've been abusing. They had a shot at controlling the Senate, but they didn't have a chance to get close to a super-majority that is able to prevent a filibuster. Under the old rules, 60 Senators are needed to pass legislation. Legislation isn't usually anything new and is usually slight changes to present law. The law still exists whether new law is made. Our government functions under plenty of previous Republican laws, so it isn't a wonder that things are often fucked up.

You call it obstruction. I call it representation of the wishes of the people that sent these House members and Senators to Washington.
In conclusion you cannot get around the fact that you believe in unconditional majority rule without debate or dissent.
Obstruction is a term YOU use.
Here's the rub. A house or senate member sponsors a bill. The bill is presented to the floor for amendments. Too often, amendments are added to which the sponsor would be opposed. This happens all the time. It's called a "poison pill". Both parties do it. When a member or members see a piece of legislation they don't like, they will add amendments to the bill that essentially scuttle any chance of passage. BTW, the libs who proposed ending Filibuster rules entirely should be careful what they wish for. Because in doing this, they open the door for the poison pill to be used en masse. You think the wheels of government turn slowly now? Just wait.
Suppose we eliminate the filibuster. SO what. All a Senator has to do is enter an amendment or use other parliamentary procedures to keep a bill off the Floor.
Anyway, your whine is just that. You are just pissed off because Obama and the democrat party have been denied unfettered control of Capitol Hill.
Once again, the US is NOT a democracy. It is a representative republic. Which means you libs cannot disenfranchise half the country just because you feel as though you have power.
The Founding Fathers were aware of and feared the tyranny of democracy. SO they built a system to control government. A system where checks and balances were put into place. Not only to ensure equal power among the three branches of government but to ensure the rights of the minority party and their constituents would not be trampled.
You call it obstruction because you have been expecting goodies from the government at the expense of the producers and they haven't arrived at your door in that unmarked discreet package.
Instead of looking to government to do things for you, you should try doing something for yourself...

 

[thereisnospoon]

Did you actually hear his speech or just the recontextualized version that the Republicans fed the masses?

WTF is 'recontextualized'? Do you fucking libtards make up new words by the hour, or do you get commissions for doozies like this?

con·tex·tu·al·ize (kn-tksch--lz)
tr.v. con·tex·tu·al·ized, con·tex·tu·al·iz·ing, con·tex·tu·al·iz·es
To place (a word or idea, for example) in a particular context.

con·textu·al·i·zation (--l-zshn) n.

Source: contextualized - definition of contextualized by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

1. Again; anew: rebuild.

Source: re- - definition of re- by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

Dictionaries can be your friends.

Consider: taken out of context to purposely change the original meaning.

There is no such word as "REcontextualize".....Same as there is no such word as "bigerer"....
A word can only be contextualized once. It's an absolute.
I suppose you use terms such as "hot water heater"...Or "ATM Machine"...."Complete 360". "Irregardless".

 

[thereisnospoon]

The Republicans passed legislation when Clinton was President, the GBLA and the CFMA. Bush had the agenda of not using regulation, like the SEC. Legislation didn't crash the economy during Bush, it was prior legislation that allowed this shit to happen, while Bush didn't allow government to do it's job. There is no good reason why those toxic asset bonds were allowed to be traded as triple A securities. Thanks to Republicans, we don't have a triple A bond rate anymore.

People who study economics know what happened to crash the economy and they know people like you are liars trying to cover up who was involved.

Plucked out of thin air, your theories are.

Taken from encyclopedias, fool! That is history and it is and will be taught in colleges around the world.

Not the facts, dummy. Your intepretation of them...
Theoryeople who study economics know what happened to crash the economy and they know people like you are liars trying to cover up who was involved.
Now, to which people do you refer?
Which encylopedias(sic)? There is no such word as encyclopedias....There is no (s) in the plural of this term.
Now for the facts. Anyone not caught up in partisan politics knows damned well the economic meltdown was caused primarily by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
And who protected them? Barney Frank, Chris Dodd Mel Watt and Maxine Watters.
The federal government mandated the banks expand lending. The government demanded the banks relaxed their lending standards. The government in return told the banks it would guarantee the loans. The federal government made up a list of rules for lending, for borrowing, for investments, for the sale of the loans, for the repackaging of the loans, etc.
But for the federal government meddling in the housing market, NONE of this would have happened.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Did you actually hear his speech or just the recontextualized version that the Republicans fed the masses?

WTF is 'recontextualized'? Do you fucking libtards make up new words by the hour, or do you get commissions for doozies like this?

Really? This is beyond your verbal comprehension? You guys actually are retarded aren't you. Oh well, nobody on the right thinks that intelligence or education are important anyway. Revel in your ignorance!

Hey puddin...It's NOT a word.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Source: contextualized - definition of contextualized by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.



Source: re- - definition of re- by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

Dictionaries can be your friends.

Consider: taken out of context to purposely change the original meaning.

So you couldn't find the word "recontextualized" in any dictionary, huh fraud?

Fucking leftists, making up words then trying to blow smoke to cover for their Malapropisms.

Oh, we know contextualized is a word, coined in 1978, but a past tense with "re" sure isn't.

I find these linguistic arguments to be tedious but I'll bite this time.

Recontextualize - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

recontextualized - Wiktionary

See, this is why I hate having discussions with conservatards. Every minute point has to be explained in excruciating detail. The tiniest baby steps must seem like gigantic hurdles to you.

..Recontextualize | Define Recontextualize at Dictionary.com
Now Oxford has this "word" in it. However the use of "re" creates an obvious redundancy.
The meaning of each term is identical. The use of "re" is unnecessary.
Definition of recontextualize (US English)

 

[Claudette]

You are changing the story to fit the liberal narrative.
The GOP was not obstructing Congress. The GOP Reps and Sens were doing what their constituents sent them to do. That is to block the liberal agenda of the democrat party. That's how our government works.
Your premise presupposes having to kowtow to the whims of the majority.
That's pure democracy. This is a Representative Republic. NOT a democracy.
Now democrats are busily creating dependency upon government for as many people as possible. The goal is to provide the public dole to as many as possible to create in lockstep voters for democrats.
The liberal democrats care not for the people or the nation. They are fixated on the acquisition and retention of political power.
Today Obama repeated the lib talking point HE created by saying "we cannot cut our way to prosperity"..
He believes we can tax our way to prosperity.
So, your job is to give one example of how any nation has been able to tax itself into prosperity.

Nothing is what it is, right?

What is the sense for me to discuss something with a person who denies the obvious? We have been having a record number of filibuster and that is obstruction of the Senate by a minority of at least 40%. It takes more than words to prove your case and you can't change facts. Having a 40% representation in the Senate can shut it down from passing legislation and some of that legislation is necessary daily business. The act of doing so is called obstruction of government. When you drag out passing a bill that you totally support, that is obstruction of government.

January 2013 filibuster reform

Negotiations between the two parties resulted in two packages of amendments to the rules on filibusters being approved by the Senate on January 24, 2013.[43] Changes to the standing orders affecting just the 2013-14 Congress were passed by a vote of 78 to 16, eliminating the minority party's right to filibuster a bill as long as each party has been permitted to present at least two amendments to the bill.[43] Changes to the permanent Senate rules were passed by a vote of 86 to 9.[43]

The series of changes to the filibuster rules announced represented a compromise between the major reforms put forward by some Democratic senators and the changes preferred by Republican senators.[44] Those seeking reform, including Democrats and liberal interest groups, had originally proposed a variety of strong reforms including: ending the filibuster completely; banning the use of filibusters on the motion to proceed; re-introducing the "talking filibuster" where the minority would have to remain on the Senate floor and speak in order to impede passage of a vote; banning the use of filibusters on House-Senate conferences; and forcing the minority to produce 41 votes in order to block cloture.[45][46] These more extensive reforms of the filibuster could only have been implemented by the nuclear option.[43]

Source: Filibuster in the United States Senate - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

That's how government works? You propose legislation and endlessly debate your own proposal to waste the time of the Senate. Why isn't that obstruction of government? The Senate rules allows a minority to use legislation that even the minority supports and cause an endless debate to waste the Senate's time.

If it wasn't obstruction of government, why were the rules changed and don't you think the Republicans helped to change the rules, because they didn't want to risk having the same thing done to them? They were hoping they could get power in the Senate, but didn't and that's why they supported changing the rules they've been abusing. They had a shot at controlling the Senate, but they didn't have a chance to get close to a super-majority that is able to prevent a filibuster. Under the old rules, 60 Senators are needed to pass legislation. Legislation isn't usually anything new and is usually slight changes to present law. The law still exists whether new law is made. Our government functions under plenty of previous Republican laws, so it isn't a wonder that things are often fucked up.

You call it obstruction. I call it representation of the wishes of the people that sent these House members and Senators to Washington.
In conclusion you cannot get around the fact that you believe in unconditional majority rule without debate or dissent.
Obstruction is a term YOU use.
Here's the rub. A house or senate member sponsors a bill. The bill is presented to the floor for amendments. Too often, amendments are added to which the sponsor would be opposed. This happens all the time. It's called a "poison pill". Both parties do it. When a member or members see a piece of legislation they don't like, they will add amendments to the bill that essentially scuttle any chance of passage. BTW, the libs who proposed ending Filibuster rules entirely should be careful what they wish for. Because in doing this, they open the door for the poison pill to be used en masse. You think the wheels of government turn slowly now? Just wait.
Suppose we eliminate the filibuster. SO what. All a Senator has to do is enter an amendment or use other parliamentary procedures to keep a bill off the Floor.
Anyway, your whine is just that. You are just pissed off because Obama and the democrat party have been denied unfettered control of Capitol Hill.
Once again, the US is NOT a democracy. It is a representative republic. Which means you libs cannot disenfranchise half the country just because you feel as though you have power.
The Founding Fathers were aware of and feared the tyranny of democracy. SO they built a system to control government. A system where checks and balances were put into place. Not only to ensure equal power among the three branches of government but to ensure the rights of the minority party and their constituents would not be trampled.
You call it obstruction because you have been expecting goodies from the government at the expense of the producers and they haven't arrived at your door in that unmarked discreet package.
Instead of looking to government to do things for you, you should try doing something for yourself...

Bingo.

 

[Claudette]

You are changing the story to fit the liberal narrative.
The GOP was not obstructing Congress. The GOP Reps and Sens were doing what their constituents sent them to do. That is to block the liberal agenda of the democrat party. That's how our government works.
Your premise presupposes having to kowtow to the whims of the majority.
That's pure democracy. This is a Representative Republic. NOT a democracy.
Now democrats are busily creating dependency upon government for as many people as possible. The goal is to provide the public dole to as many as possible to create in lockstep voters for democrats.
The liberal democrats care not for the people or the nation. They are fixated on the acquisition and retention of political power.
Today Obama repeated the lib talking point HE created by saying "we cannot cut our way to prosperity"..
He believes we can tax our way to prosperity.
So, your job is to give one example of how any nation has been able to tax itself into prosperity.

Nothing is what it is, right?

What is the sense for me to discuss something with a person who denies the obvious? We have been having a record number of filibuster and that is obstruction of the Senate by a minority of at least 40%. It takes more than words to prove your case and you can't change facts. Having a 40% representation in the Senate can shut it down from passing legislation and some of that legislation is necessary daily business. The act of doing so is called obstruction of government. When you drag out passing a bill that you totally support, that is obstruction of government.

January 2013 filibuster reform

Negotiations between the two parties resulted in two packages of amendments to the rules on filibusters being approved by the Senate on January 24, 2013.[43] Changes to the standing orders affecting just the 2013-14 Congress were passed by a vote of 78 to 16, eliminating the minority party's right to filibuster a bill as long as each party has been permitted to present at least two amendments to the bill.[43] Changes to the permanent Senate rules were passed by a vote of 86 to 9.[43]

The series of changes to the filibuster rules announced represented a compromise between the major reforms put forward by some Democratic senators and the changes preferred by Republican senators.[44] Those seeking reform, including Democrats and liberal interest groups, had originally proposed a variety of strong reforms including: ending the filibuster completely; banning the use of filibusters on the motion to proceed; re-introducing the "talking filibuster" where the minority would have to remain on the Senate floor and speak in order to impede passage of a vote; banning the use of filibusters on House-Senate conferences; and forcing the minority to produce 41 votes in order to block cloture.[45][46] These more extensive reforms of the filibuster could only have been implemented by the nuclear option.[43]

Source: Filibuster in the United States Senate - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

That's how government works? You propose legislation and endlessly debate your own proposal to waste the time of the Senate. Why isn't that obstruction of government? The Senate rules allows a minority to use legislation that even the minority supports and cause an endless debate to waste the Senate's time.

If it wasn't obstruction of government, why were the rules changed and don't you think the Republicans helped to change the rules, because they didn't want to risk having the same thing done to them? They were hoping they could get power in the Senate, but didn't and that's why they supported changing the rules they've been abusing. They had a shot at controlling the Senate, but they didn't have a chance to get close to a super-majority that is able to prevent a filibuster. Under the old rules, 60 Senators are needed to pass legislation. Legislation isn't usually anything new and is usually slight changes to present law. The law still exists whether new law is made. Our government functions under plenty of previous Republican laws, so it isn't a wonder that things are often fucked up.

You call it obstruction. I call it representation of the wishes of the people that sent these House members and Senators to Washington.
In conclusion you cannot get around the fact that you believe in unconditional majority rule without debate or dissent.
Obstruction is a term YOU use.
Here's the rub. A house or senate member sponsors a bill. The bill is presented to the floor for amendments. Too often, amendments are added to which the sponsor would be opposed. This happens all the time. It's called a "poison pill". Both parties do it. When a member or members see a piece of legislation they don't like, they will add amendments to the bill that essentially scuttle any chance of passage. BTW, the libs who proposed ending Filibuster rules entirely should be careful what they wish for. Because in doing this, they open the door for the poison pill to be used en masse. You think the wheels of government turn slowly now? Just wait.
Suppose we eliminate the filibuster. SO what. All a Senator has to do is enter an amendment or use other parliamentary procedures to keep a bill off the Floor.
Anyway, your whine is just that. You are just pissed off because Obama and the democrat party have been denied unfettered control of Capitol Hill.
Once again, the US is NOT a democracy. It is a representative republic. Which means you libs cannot disenfranchise half the country just because you feel as though you have power.
The Founding Fathers were aware of and feared the tyranny of democracy. SO they built a system to control government. A system where checks and balances were put into place. Not only to ensure equal power among the three branches of government but to ensure the rights of the minority party and their constituents would not be trampled.
You call it obstruction because you have been expecting goodies from the government at the expense of the producers and they haven't arrived at your door in that unmarked discreet package.
Instead of looking to government to do things for you, you should try doing something for yourself...

Bingo. Both parties do it.

When the Dems do it he's all for it. When the Reps do it its obstructing things.

Funny. Harry Reids the biggest obstructor of all yet I don't hear him screaming for Reid to catch a fucking clue.

 

[Dubya]

Nothing is what it is, right?

What is the sense for me to discuss something with a person who denies the obvious? We have been having a record number of filibuster and that is obstruction of the Senate by a minority of at least 40%. It takes more than words to prove your case and you can't change facts. Having a 40% representation in the Senate can shut it down from passing legislation and some of that legislation is necessary daily business. The act of doing so is called obstruction of government. When you drag out passing a bill that you totally support, that is obstruction of government.







Source: Filibuster in the United States Senate - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

That's how government works? You propose legislation and endlessly debate your own proposal to waste the time of the Senate. Why isn't that obstruction of government? The Senate rules allows a minority to use legislation that even the minority supports and cause an endless debate to waste the Senate's time.

If it wasn't obstruction of government, why were the rules changed and don't you think the Republicans helped to change the rules, because they didn't want to risk having the same thing done to them? They were hoping they could get power in the Senate, but didn't and that's why they supported changing the rules they've been abusing. They had a shot at controlling the Senate, but they didn't have a chance to get close to a super-majority that is able to prevent a filibuster. Under the old rules, 60 Senators are needed to pass legislation. Legislation isn't usually anything new and is usually slight changes to present law. The law still exists whether new law is made. Our government functions under plenty of previous Republican laws, so it isn't a wonder that things are often fucked up.

You call it obstruction. I call it representation of the wishes of the people that sent these House members and Senators to Washington.
In conclusion you cannot get around the fact that you believe in unconditional majority rule without debate or dissent.
Obstruction is a term YOU use.
Here's the rub. A house or senate member sponsors a bill. The bill is presented to the floor for amendments. Too often, amendments are added to which the sponsor would be opposed. This happens all the time. It's called a "poison pill". Both parties do it. When a member or members see a piece of legislation they don't like, they will add amendments to the bill that essentially scuttle any chance of passage. BTW, the libs who proposed ending Filibuster rules entirely should be careful what they wish for. Because in doing this, they open the door for the poison pill to be used en masse. You think the wheels of government turn slowly now? Just wait.
Suppose we eliminate the filibuster. SO what. All a Senator has to do is enter an amendment or use other parliamentary procedures to keep a bill off the Floor.
Anyway, your whine is just that. You are just pissed off because Obama and the democrat party have been denied unfettered control of Capitol Hill.
Once again, the US is NOT a democracy. It is a representative republic. Which means you libs cannot disenfranchise half the country just because you feel as though you have power.
The Founding Fathers were aware of and feared the tyranny of democracy. SO they built a system to control government. A system where checks and balances were put into place. Not only to ensure equal power among the three branches of government but to ensure the rights of the minority party and their constituents would not be trampled.
You call it obstruction because you have been expecting goodies from the government at the expense of the producers and they haven't arrived at your door in that unmarked discreet package.
Instead of looking to government to do things for you, you should try doing something for yourself...

Bingo. Both parties do it.

When the Dems do it he's all for it. When the Reps do it its obstructing things.

Funny. Harry Reids the biggest obstructor of all yet I don't hear him screaming for Reid to catch a fucking clue.

B dumb

Here is your Bingo

 

[Dubya]

Plucked out of thin air, your theories are.

Taken from encyclopedias, fool! That is history and it is and will be taught in colleges around the world.

Not the facts, dummy. Your intepretation of them...
Theoryeople who study economics know what happened to crash the economy and they know people like you are liars trying to cover up who was involved.
Now, to which people do you refer?
Which encylopedias(sic)? There is no such word as encyclopedias....There is no (s) in the plural of this term.
Now for the facts. Anyone not caught up in partisan politics knows damned well the economic meltdown was caused primarily by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
And who protected them? Barney Frank, Chris Dodd Mel Watt and Maxine Watters.
The federal government mandated the banks expand lending. The government demanded the banks relaxed their lending standards. The government in return told the banks it would guarantee the loans. The federal government made up a list of rules for lending, for borrowing, for investments, for the sale of the loans, for the repackaging of the loans, etc.
But for the federal government meddling in the housing market, NONE of this would have happened.

Why do you have to interpret numbers?

 

[Dot Com]

senate repubs, kings of obstruction

B dumb

Here is your Bingo

 

[Dubya]

B dumb

Here is your Bingo

senate repubs, kings of obstruction

That's an old chart and the Repugs beat the record every Congress since.

 

[squeeze berry]

B dumb

Here is your Bingo

senate repubs, kings of obstruction

That's an old chart and the Repugs beat the record every Congress since.

link?

it's too blurry. It can say anything and Dumya will expect us to believe it