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.
Why would Republicans filibuster Republican bills?Then you agree that Senate Democrats are not doing their job?If, by doing their job, you're referring to the fact that Republican Senators a dragging their feet and refusing to bring any of Obama's nominees to a vote, then doing their job is exactly what they are NOT doing.
If Republicans are going to keep pulling this stupid shit, they'd better get used to getting it thrown back in their faces.
Frustrated House still waiting for Senate action on 420 bills - TheHill.com
Perhaps you should read the article, which credited the gap to Republican filibusters.
Ahhh, I love a good game of "the liberal didn't say what he said". So much fun.
Yep, you were caught in your own web.
You're doing it again!!
Read the article you posted. It's from October 2010, when the Democrats still had the majority in the House.
That's right, a direct quote is not something you said. Got it.
You keep playing the game where you said I said something I did not.
That's right, a direct quote is not something you said. Got it.You're doing it again!!
You keep playing the game where you said I said something I did not.
Yes, it's amusing watching you dance around what you said.That's right, a direct quote is not something you said. Got it.You keep playing the game where you said I said something I did not.
What you are saying that I meant by what I said is not the same thing at all. It's the little narrative you add.
You are fun to toy with.
Thanks for your worthless input."The House passed three more common-sense jobs bills last week, bringing the current number of jobs bills awaiting a vote in the Democratic-controlled Senate to 25. Each of these bills is focused on removing government barriers excessive regulations, the threat of tax hikes, and stimulus spending policies that are hurting job growth"
These are not job bills. This is BS. Speaker of the House John Boehner is lying. These are bills promoting deregulation none of which provide any jobs anywhere. The RINO's stlll pushing the same ole shit that have yet to provide jobs or stimulate new industry of any substance.
Yes, it's amusing watching you dance around what you said. You know, in all the times I've brought this up to you, this is the FIRST time you've tried the "failure of leadership" angle. If that's what you meant at the time, why haven't you mentioned it before? Dance, Jakey! Dance!That's right, a direct quote is not something you said. Got it.
What you are saying that I meant by what I said is not the same thing at all. It's the little narrative you add.
You are fun to toy with.
Thanks for your worthless input."The House passed three more common-sense jobs bills last week, bringing the current number of jobs bills awaiting a vote in the Democratic-controlled Senate to 25. Each of these bills is focused on removing government barriers excessive regulations, the threat of tax hikes, and stimulus spending policies that are hurting job growth"
These are not job bills. This is BS. Speaker of the House John Boehner is lying. These are bills promoting deregulation none of which provide any jobs anywhere. The RINO's stlll pushing the same ole shit that have yet to provide jobs or stimulate new industry of any substance.
Congress turned down the President's nominees.
They did their job.
Since the dipshit in chief now wants to subvert the Constitution on this matter, it IS the job of the Senate (minority) and the House (majority) to obstruct the President at every turn.
Fuck him. He's an elected President in a Constitutional REPUBLIC. He's not a fucking dictator.
Congress didn't "turn down" the President's nominees, as they've never voted on them in the first place. Using your argument though, I have no idea why you objected to the Democrats filibustering judicial nominees during the Bush administration.
Oh, so would you like to point out where the Senate has acted on any of those House bills?Then you agree that Senate Democrats are not doing their job?
Frustrated House still waiting for Senate action on 420 bills - TheHill.com
You're quoting a source from over a year ago? Okay, whatever.
If the Senate is actually in recess, there's no problem.I agree that Senate Democrats failed in not reforming the rules of the filibuster. The Senate Republicans have succeeded in stonewalling pretty much everything that comes down the pike. They deserve everything they get in terms of recess appointments. I hope a lot more are on the way.
But they're not.
Congress turned down the President's nominees.
They did their job.
Since the dipshit in chief now wants to subvert the Constitution on this matter, it IS the job of the Senate (minority) and the House (majority) to obstruct the President at every turn.
Fuck him. He's an elected President in a Constitutional REPUBLIC. He's not a fucking dictator.
Congress didn't "turn down" the President's nominees, as they've never voted on them in the first place. Using your argument though, I have no idea why you objected to the Democrats filibustering judicial nominees during the Bush administration.
Wrong. As always.
The Senate DID do its job. They DID turn down the President's nominations.
The evidence is found in the fact that having refused to confirm Courdaroy for example, the President found it expedient to falsely claim that the Senate was in "recess" in order to "confirm" him by recess appointment.
And that has nothing at all to do with the logical and reasonable objection to using a filibuster on a judicial nomination.
Polky, you don't even babble articulately.
There ARE matters that require a super majority. Under the Constitution, judicial nomination/confirmations are not amongst that set of things. Thus, to filibuster a judicial nomination, the minority hacks use a procedural tool to make judicial nominations by the party that won the election almost impossible. It is singularly inappropriate.
Filibusters may have their place (although not as broadly applied as it has been of late by both Parties), but to use it in THAT fashion is an affront to our democratic republican form of government.
Congress didn't "turn down" the President's nominees, as they've never voted on them in the first place. Using your argument though, I have no idea why you objected to the Democrats filibustering judicial nominees during the Bush administration.
Wrong. As always.
The Senate DID do its job. They DID turn down the President's nominations.
The evidence is found in the fact that having refused to confirm Courdaroy for example, the President found it expedient to falsely claim that the Senate was in "recess" in order to "confirm" him by recess appointment.
And that has nothing at all to do with the logical and reasonable objection to using a filibuster on a judicial nomination.
Polky, you don't even babble articulately.
There ARE matters that require a super majority. Under the Constitution, judicial nomination/confirmations are not amongst that set of things. Thus, to filibuster a judicial nomination, the minority hacks use a procedural tool to make judicial nominations by the party that won the election almost impossible. It is singularly inappropriate.
Filibusters may have their place (although not as broadly applied as it has been of late by both Parties), but to use it in THAT fashion is an affront to our democratic republican form of government.
You could have saved a lot of typing by just saying "it's only bad when the other side does it", because that's all you ended up saying. There is no difference between blocking the nomination of an agency head and blocking the nomination of a federal judge. Both are presidential appointments. In fact, they're both governed by the same clause.
Wrong. As always.
The Senate DID do its job. They DID turn down the President's nominations.
The evidence is found in the fact that having refused to confirm Courdaroy for example, the President found it expedient to falsely claim that the Senate was in "recess" in order to "confirm" him by recess appointment.
And that has nothing at all to do with the logical and reasonable objection to using a filibuster on a judicial nomination.
Polky, you don't even babble articulately.
There ARE matters that require a super majority. Under the Constitution, judicial nomination/confirmations are not amongst that set of things. Thus, to filibuster a judicial nomination, the minority hacks use a procedural tool to make judicial nominations by the party that won the election almost impossible. It is singularly inappropriate.
Filibusters may have their place (although not as broadly applied as it has been of late by both Parties), but to use it in THAT fashion is an affront to our democratic republican form of government.
You could have saved a lot of typing by just saying "it's only bad when the other side does it", because that's all you ended up saying. There is no difference between blocking the nomination of an agency head and blocking the nomination of a federal judge. Both are presidential appointments. In fact, they're both governed by the same clause.
On the contrary, I believe in the Right to Filibuster.
Congress didn't "turn down" the President's nominees, as they've never voted on them in the first place. Using your argument though, I have no idea why you objected to the Democrats filibustering judicial nominees during the Bush administration.
Wrong. As always.
The Senate DID do its job. They DID turn down the President's nominations.
The evidence is found in the fact that having refused to confirm Courdaroy for example, the President found it expedient to falsely claim that the Senate was in "recess" in order to "confirm" him by recess appointment.
And that has nothing at all to do with the logical and reasonable objection to using a filibuster on a judicial nomination.
Polky, you don't even babble articulately.
There ARE matters that require a super majority. Under the Constitution, judicial nomination/confirmations are not amongst that set of things. Thus, to filibuster a judicial nomination, the minority hacks use a procedural tool to make judicial nominations by the party that won the election almost impossible. It is singularly inappropriate.
Filibusters may have their place (although not as broadly applied as it has been of late by both Parties), but to use it in THAT fashion is an affront to our democratic republican form of government.
You could have saved a lot of typing by just saying "it's only bad when the other side does it", because that's all you ended up saying. There is no difference between blocking the nomination of an agency head and blocking the nomination of a federal judge. Both are presidential appointments. In fact, they're both governed by the same clause.
Oh, so would you like to point out where the Senate has acted on any of those House bills?You're quoting a source from over a year ago? Okay, whatever.
If the Senate is actually in recess, there's no problem.I agree that Senate Democrats failed in not reforming the rules of the filibuster. The Senate Republicans have succeeded in stonewalling pretty much everything that comes down the pike. They deserve everything they get in terms of recess appointments. I hope a lot more are on the way.
But they're not.
LOL Awww.... conservatives are whining now about a little dirty pool? Nitpicking over the definition of a Senate recess?
Game on.
Oh, so would you like to point out where the Senate has acted on any of those House bills?
If the Senate is actually in recess, there's no problem.
But they're not.
LOL Awww.... conservatives are whining now about a little dirty pool? Nitpicking over the definition of a Senate recess?
Game on.
It takes a determined hypocrite liberoidal idiot to pretend that taking NOTE of the FACT that the Senate is NOT in recess supposedly amounts to nitpicking.
Game over.
