Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
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
link?
it's too blurry. It can say anything and Dumya will expect us to believe it
this is dated but says the same and the repubs have increased their log-jam tactics if anything
The Republicans? Unprecedented Obstructionism by the Numbers | Crooks and Liars
Ohhh, crooks and liars...
Who would have EVER guessed your source was a hate site.....
As Senate Majority Leader, Reid has been the all time champion of blocking legislation.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.
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
You shouldn't have asked.
filibuster chart - Google Search
Have you noticed you're getting your ass kicked here? No? It figures.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
You shouldn't have asked.
filibuster chart - Google Search
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.
I find it hilarious how you simply call those who you can't refute with facts "liars". Gotta love it, especially when you can't even provide in your post, where it is exactly that I have "supposedly" lied and back that up with some actual facts.
Now I will say the economy began to show signs of trouble through Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. You see President Clinton passed what us to be known as the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA for short). This regulation onto banks, was meant to get people that wouldn't ordinarily be able to "afford" [key word] a home to have the ability to purchase one. Banks were no longer allowed to ask those credit questions, they normally would, to see if they the customer inquiring is a risk to be given the loan. Sure enough, you would have those who had no business OWNING a home in the first place (never mind being given such a substantial "risk" loan), beginning to get behind with the threat of even losing the home through bankruptcy.
Now President Obama didn't help the situation by giving Freddie Mac a huge bailout. Nor did it help for Obama to look at those about to lose their home and provide them with government "taxpayer" assistance, without FIRST inquiring if they could afford the mortgage to start with.
True Cost of Fannie, Freddie Bailouts: $317 Billion, CBO Says | CNS News Mobile
Fannie & Freddie: The most expensive bailout - Jul. 22, 2009
You see how easy that was? I even included some actual FACTS to support my argument
Dumbass, I didn't make the claim, so let the fool who made the claim prove it and what I know for a fact isn't true! I've spent the time to look up the BLS reports and that's how I know it's a lie. I've also looked up the contribution of government to GDP during those periods. I'm not going to waste my time on lazy fools making claims they can't back up with facts. If you make the claim, you prove it. You idiots are always making claims and it doesn't take much time to type a lie.
The CRA program is very small compared to the amount of money in those ABS bonds. CRA doesn't get loans for $400,000 homes.
The Community Reinvestment Act (CRA, Pub.L. 95–128, title VIII of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1977, 91 Stat. 1147, 12 U.S.C. § 2901 et seq.) is a United States federal law designed to encourage commercial banks and savings associations to help meet the needs of borrowers in all segments of their communities,including low- and moderate-income neighborhoods.[1][2][3] Congress passed the Act in 1977 to reduce discriminatory credit practices against low-income neighborhoods, a practice known as redlining.[4][5]
Source: Community Reinvestment Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The GSE bailout is ongoing and hasn't costed anything.
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?
Source: contextualized - definition of contextualized by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.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: re- - definition of re- by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.1. Again; anew: rebuild.
Dictionaries can be your friends.
Consider: taken out of context to purposely change the original meaning.
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?
Source: University of Chicago Law School - Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaThe 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]
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.
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?
Source: University of Chicago Law School - Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaThe 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]
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.
Wow, the school being high rated in US News and World Reports ranking, which has recently admitted that many schools fudge the date to get higher ratings, somehow proves that Obama is a good teacher.
Brilliant argument.
LMAO. Birther? Nope. Even a dummy wouldn't try to run for POTUS if not born in the USA.
You are right. No President has released their college transcripts except for that little leak about Bush. Turns out he was smarter than both Gore and Kerry. Not bad for Dubya.
Guess Barry just wants to follow the rest of the herd as far as his transcripts go.
To bad. I would really like to know just how smart, or not smart, that dude is.
Why do you want THIS President to provide what no other President has been asked or required to provide? You really can't tell he is a smart man? The don't let dummies graduate from Harvard cum laude.
Why not?? Is there any reason he wouldn't unseal his transcripts?
Just because other presidents don't doesn't mean Barry shouldn't.
After all isn't his administration the most transparant in history??
Why not?? Is there any reason he wouldn't unseal his transcripts?
Just because other presidents don't doesn't mean Barry shouldn't.
After all isn't his administration the most transparant in history??
Except that other presidents have. Clinton, Bush, Gore, they all have transcripts online.
Clinton made A's.
Bush B's and C's - mostly C's
Gore C's and D's - mostly D's
I suspect that Obama matches Gore's academic performance.
Well, it turns out his biased sites are correct.
Though personally I like to go straight to the source:
U.S. Senate: Reference Home >
I imagine you'll claim the Senate's own site is biased now.
Damn those biased facts, always making the right look bad...
And yet, oddly, you didn't actually provide the link to these transcripts that are allegedly online. Funny that...
And yet, oddly, you didn't actually provide the link to these transcripts that are allegedly online. Funny that...
They've already been linked, in this thread, dumbass.
And yet, oddly, you didn't actually provide the link to these transcripts that are allegedly online. Funny that...
They've already been linked, in this thread, dumbass.
Bush's only. His were leaked. He did not release them. Keep trying to make the black man dance for you..that'll win hearts and minds.
When, exactly, did you realize that you really didn't like Obama and were going to be against him no matter what?
When, exactly, did you realize that you really didn't like Obama and were going to be against him no matter what?
When, exactly, did you realize that you really liked Obama and would support him no matter what?
