Republicans kick some Democrat butt

[Dad2three]

You have a lot of class, RW. More than anyone on this board probably.

Kept their mouth shut indeed. The democrats running weren't that great either. Either way, I still would have preferred a dem victory.

why? give us 5 reasons, no talking points, no bullshit, give us 5 real reasons why you think more dem leadership would have been better.

Well I wouldn't say I like the dem's leadership. I think they are pussies. I like the policies that they push however. Repubs have nothing to offer this country while dems do. Part of the problem is that repubs won't compromise on anything the dems put out:

1) Raising the minimum wage
2) Extending unemployment benefits
3) Jobs training programs in community colleges
4) SNAP benefits for those who truly need it (not me)
5) Consumer protection laws

1. 1% of american workers make minimum wage, most of them are part time teens flipping burgers, minimum wage is a non-issue
2. why should unemployment go on for 99 weeks? would you extend it forever? when is enough?
3. good, republicans support that
4. good, republicans support that
5. good, republicans support that.

got anything else? the real reason is the D behind your name, we understand, and thats just fine. But admit it and then we can discuss these things reasonably.

1) 1% make 7.25 an hour. 16.5 million people make less than $10 an hour. That's the problem I am getting at. If raised to 10.10, anyone under that wage would see theirs go up. I don't understand why you cons can't grasp this. Oh and the average fast food worker is 29 years old.
2) Not everyone who is unemployed is even on it. It's a win win for everyone. The Benefits gives money to people who would otherwise not be spending money. This increases economic demand which creates jobs. And no, not forever.
3) No they don't. Obama proposed that early in his second term and republicans blocked it.
4) are you kidding me? They cut the funding for it.
5) Um name one.

1. if minimum wage is raised McDonalds has three choices, raise prices, lay off workers, use more electronics and lay off workers. Which of those is good for the part time teens working at McDonalds?

2. where does the money come from to pay unemployment benefits? do you have any idea?

3. being in favor of something but not being able to afford it are two different things.

4. same as 3

5. lemon laws, hazardous substance laws, anti pollution laws. there are 3 for ya

On a recent afternoon, Hampus Elofsson ended his 40-hour workweek at a Burger King and prepared for a movie and beer with friends. He had paid his rent and all his bills, stashed away some savings, yet still had money for nights out.
That is because he earns the equivalent of $20 an hour — the base wage for fast-food workers throughout Denmark and two and a half times what many fast-food workers earn in the United States.

“You can make a decent living here working in fast food,” said Mr. Elofsson, 24. “You don’t have to struggle to get by.”

If Danish chains can pay $20 an hour, why can’t those in the United States pay the $15 an hour that many fast-food workers have been clamoring for?

“We see from Denmark that it’s possible to run a profitable fast-food business while paying workers these kinds of wages,”

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/28/b...-served-in-denmark-fast-food-restaurants.html

 

[kaz]

Good example of compromise. If Republicans in the Senate had allowed Reid to proceed with Democratic legislation without 60 votes for cloture, Reid would have done the same
How can Republicans expect Reid to forward their legislation while they continue to block his?

Ding, ding, ding! As I keep pointing out, you are just finger pointing.

What you have is that Reid ... would have been ... reasonable if the Republican had been, but they weren't, so he didn't do anything. Because of course compromise is the Republicans job, not his.

The lack of progress in Congress should be blamed primarily on the Republican Party


Republican hyper-partisanship and obstructionism has extended beyond disturbing rhetoric. Senate Republicans have used filibusters to such a gross extent that they have broken records in obstructionism: GOP filibustering has helped the 112th Congress become one of the least productive in history, passing a mere 561 bills (the lowest number since these records started even being kept in 1947) and contributing to its deserved label of a do-nothing, dysfunctional Congress.

From 2009-2010, Senate Republicans blocked some 375 House bills from ever even reaching a vote. In shocking displays of partisanship, Republicans actually blocked votes on bills that would fund states’ efforts to help low-income children attain access to critical eye examinations (the Vision Cfor Kids Act) or help treat elder victims of psychological or physical abuse (the Elder Abuse Victims Act). The GOP’s historic abuse of the filibuster culminated in Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) having to use the historic nuclear option to end cloture votes on presidential nominees.


The Cavalier Daily RUDGLEY Republican obstructionism

Still not jiving with the question, are you? The question was not why do you blame Republicans, which is just finger pointing. The question was to show how Democrats act in the way you want Republicans to act. Try to focus.

 

[Disir]

Get very specific.

Obamacare isn't specific? That's both massive spending and massive legislation. You seriously need me to show you that Obama wants to spend lots and lots of money? You don't know that? And he is expanding regulations over energy, financial services and business in general. You're thinking he's a small government socialist?

I need you to get very specific. Move beyond platitudes and talking points. Because if you cannot define it precisely then that's pretty much all you have.

I need you to be specific about what you are arguing. I am not really interested in answering random questions where you don't commit to anything. Are you saying Obama doesn't want to spend money? He isn't interested in regulations? Make your position clear or this isn't interesting.

It's not a random question.

Peach174 makes an overgeneralized statement on welfare programs creating dependency but does not define which ones, how or why. It's very vague and intentionally so. What this means is that the primary issues are not resolved. Hell, they aren't even addressed.

Let me show you something:
Federal funds spent on day centers for homeless people. They are only open during the day. Some have a night time shelter (limited) but many do not. There are limited services offered.......during the day. Many of them have opened not because they will actually help the homeless but because they remove the homeless people during the day time from the sight of people that have homes. Specifically from places like libraries where some homeless people go to read or because they have no place else to go.
Now, some of them offer mental health counseling but because of the short falls in the lack of long term mental health care facilities it's pretty much dismal. While it may provide an address for mail, it may not be enough of a legitimate address in some states to qualify for an ID or license. This was supposed to be a crack down on illegal immigrants but the result was that the homeless couldn't get an ID to be used for getting a job or anything else. While some offer aid in acquiring documentation there are many accounts of acquiring the paperwork and getting the holy crap beat out of them and having it stolen when they return at night to wherever they are staying.
If the goal was simply to keep them from annoying all the civilized folks and keep them out of sight then it has the capacity to achieve the desired goal. I'm sure lots of people pat themselves on the back at black tie affairs geared towards fundraising. I'm sure that they mean well.

Is it successful? You won't know because records are kept for a limited time. So, where is the accountability? You have demanded none. Where and why does it not work? Be specific.I'm not asking you to be specific with my example but yours.

Repeating the socialist mantra is not an answer.

I am not peach, so when you ask me a question where you're assuming I know what she said and that you're referring to that, I'm not likely to actually make that connection.

What I said was when you asked what bigger government meant, I was referring to spending and regulation. Homeless shelters are a tiny, tiny portion of the government. So you blew of Obamacare as not being specific enough, which makes no sense, then you dived into the weeds and went to homeless shelters. Obamacare is massive spending and regulation. And regulation is a tax because companies have to spend to comply. Homeless shelters is such a tiny portion of the budget I am not clear what debating that establishes.

So, other than homeless shelters, what are you actually claiming?

Regulation: Retaliation towards an employee, by either the insurance group or the employer, once you have found out that the individual has been diagnosed with an illness.

 

[kaz]

Bigger Government is not for the good of the country.

What is bigger government?

Wow, great question. Are you going to follow it up with other insights like what does water is wet mean?

OK, Chickie, it means more government spending and more bureaucracy. I mean duh. What else would it mean? Did that sound good to when you wrote it?

You mean like the DHS and the TSA and 2 wars of choice? Or school lunches for poor kids, social security for seniors, unemployment benefits for those out of work?

Yes, the Republicans suck. Which is why I always say the Republicans suck. That doesn't remotely address the question, which is about Obama, not W.

 

[kaz]

Good example of compromise. If Republicans in the Senate had allowed Reid to proceed with Democratic legislation without 60 votes for cloture, Reid would have done the same
How can Republicans expect Reid to forward their legislation while they continue to block his?

Ding, ding, ding! As I keep pointing out, you are just finger pointing.

What you have is that Reid ... would have been ... reasonable if the Republican had been, but they weren't, so he didn't do anything. Because of course compromise is the Republicans job, not his.

The lack of progress in Congress should be blamed primarily on the Republican Party


Republican hyper-partisanship and obstructionism has extended beyond disturbing rhetoric. Senate Republicans have used filibusters to such a gross extent that they have broken records in obstructionism: GOP filibustering has helped the 112th Congress become one of the least productive in history, passing a mere 561 bills (the lowest number since these records started even being kept in 1947) and contributing to its deserved label of a do-nothing, dysfunctional Congress.

From 2009-2010, Senate Republicans blocked some 375 House bills from ever even reaching a vote. In shocking displays of partisanship, Republicans actually blocked votes on bills that would fund states’ efforts to help low-income children attain access to critical eye examinations (the Vision Cfor Kids Act) or help treat elder victims of psychological or physical abuse (the Elder Abuse Victims Act). The GOP’s historic abuse of the filibuster culminated in Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) having to use the historic nuclear option to end cloture votes on presidential nominees.


The Cavalier Daily RUDGLEY Republican obstructionism

none of that is true. bloggers lie.

AD HOMS is what you bring? Shocking

That’s THREE HUNDRED SEVENTY-FIVE BILLS!


HR 12 -- Paycheck Fairness Act

H.R. 20 -- Melanie Blocker Stokes Mom’s Opportunity to Access Health, Education, Research, and Support for Postpartum Depression Act

H.R. 320 -- CJ’s Home Protection Act

H.R. 448 -- Elder Abuse Victims Act

H.R. 466 –- Wounded Veteran Job Security Act

H.R. 515 –- Radioactive Import Deterrence Act

H.R. 549 -- National Bombing Prevention Act

H.R. 577 –- Vision Care for Kids Act

H.R. 626 –- Federal Employees Paid Parental Leave Act

H.R. 780 –- Student Internet Safety Act

H.R. 911 -- Stop Child Abuse in Residential Programs for Teens Act

H.R. 985 -- Free Flow of Information Act

H.R. 1029 -– Alien Smuggling and Terrorism Prevention Act

H.R. 1110 –- PHONE Act and H.R. 1258 – The Truth in Caller ID Act

H.R. 1168 -- Veterans Retraining Act

H.R. 1171 –- Homeless Veterans Reintegration Program Reauthorization

H.R. 1262 -- Water Quality Investment Act

H.R. 1293 -- Disabled Veterans Home Improvement and Structural Alteration Grant Increase Act of 2009

H.R. 1319 –- Informed P2P User Act

H.R. 1380 -- Josh Miller HEARTS Act

H.R. 1429 -- Stop AIDS in Prison Act


But every single one of these bills is being blocked by every single Republican in the Senate, all of whom are working in lockstep to prevent a vote.

H.R. 1469 –- Child Protection Improvements Act

H.R. 1511 –- Torture Victims Relief Reauthorization Act

H.R. 1514 –- Juvenile Accountability Block Grants Program Reauthorization Act

H.R. 1580 –- Electronic Waste Research and Development Act

H.R. 1585 -- FIT Kids Act

H.R. 1617 –- Department of Homeland Security Component Privacy Officer Act

H.R. 1622 -– Research and Development Programs for Natural Gas Vehicles

H.R. 1675 –- Frank Melville Supportive Housing Investment Act of 2009

H.R. 1709 –- STEM Education Coordination Act

H.R. 1722 -- Telework Improvements Act

H.R. 1727 -- Managing Arson Through Criminal History (MATCH) Act


Put simply, DEMOCRATS are passing bills to make things easier, and REPUBLICANS are refusing to even allow an “up or down vote.”
H.R. 1741 -- Witness Security and Protection Grant Program Act

H.R. 1796 –- Carbon Monoxide Poisoning Prevention Act

H.R. 1803 -- Veterans Business Center Act

H.R. 1807 –- Educating Entrepreneurs through Today’s Technology Act

H.R. 1834 –- Native American Business Development Enhancement Act

H.R. 1838 –- Amending Small Business Act

H.R. 1824 -- Best Buddies Empowerment for People with Intellectual Disabilities Act

H.R. 1875 -- End the Trade Deficit Act

H.R. 1879 -- National Guard Employment Protection Act

H.R. 1933 –- A Child Is Missing Alert and Recovery Center Act

H.R. 2020 -- Networking and Information Technology Research and Development Act of 2009

H.R. 2093 –- Clean Coastal Environment and Public Health Act

H.R. 2134 -- Western Hemisphere Drug Policy Commission Act

[...]
Once again; Democrats PASSED the following bills, and Senate Republicans prevented these bills from even coming to a vote.
H.R. 2142 – Government Efficiency, Effectiveness, and Performance Improvement Act

H.R. 2187 – 21st Century Green High-Performing Public School Facilities Act

H.R. 2200 – Transportation Security Administration Authorization Act

H.R. 2221 – Data Accountability and Trust Act

H.R. 2352 – Job Creation Through Entrepreneurship Act

H.R. 2454 – American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009

H.R. 2510 – Absentee Ballot Track, Receive and Confirm Act

H.R. 2529 – Neighborhood Preservation Act

H.R. 2554 – National Association of Registered Agents and Brokers Reform Act

H.R. 2611 – Authorizing the Securing the Cities Initiative of the Department of Homeland Security

H.R. 2664 – Promoting Transparency in Financial Reporting Act

H.R. 2693 – Oil Pollution Research and Development Program Reauthorization Act

H.R. 2749 -- Food Safety Enhancement Act

H.R. 2868 – Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Act of 2009, Drinking Water System Security Act of 2009 and Wastewater Treatment Works Security Act of 2009


In other words the Democratic party believes in actually doing the People's Business (see the list above);

while the Republicans believe in Blocking just that. ... Whatever our business may be.

Why is the Republican Record-Breaking use of the Filibuster -- Not a topic of the News

in your next post list all of the house-passed bills that reid has not allowed to reach the floor of the senate.

the bottom line here is that the senate will now vote on those bills that reid has been hiding. thene obama can either sign them or veto them and the public will know who the real obstructionist is.

Not to mention Pelosi when she was speaker.

 

[rightwinger]

You have a lot of class, RW. More than anyone on this board probably.

Kept their mouth shut indeed. The democrats running weren't that great either. Either way, I still would have preferred a dem victory.

Congratulations you won because you kept your mouth shut. That's classy to you??

It is true

Republicans avoided "Legitimate Rape" and "Rape is Gods blessing" type comments that Dems used to destroy them last time. Republicans ran solid campaigns that avoided controversy. A key reason they won

If you would have said they did a good job at not producing gaffs that would have been a compliment. You didn't say that though, you said they did a good job of keeping their mouth shut, which is a backhanded compliment.

Not intended to be
"Keeping your mouth shut" did not mean say nothing, it means not saying anything stupid. Democrats crucified the entire GOP in 2010 and 2012 when key candidates said stupid things
Republicans ran a clean campaign this time by avoiding hot button topics

What you said was basically if republicans would have opened up their mouths stupid things would have come out. Who are you kidding ?

WTF are you babbling about?

Of course Republicans opened their mouths.......but they avoided saying stupid things
They couldn't do that in the last two elections

 

[kaz]

Obamacare isn't specific? That's both massive spending and massive legislation. You seriously need me to show you that Obama wants to spend lots and lots of money? You don't know that? And he is expanding regulations over energy, financial services and business in general. You're thinking he's a small government socialist?

I need you to get very specific. Move beyond platitudes and talking points. Because if you cannot define it precisely then that's pretty much all you have.

I need you to be specific about what you are arguing. I am not really interested in answering random questions where you don't commit to anything. Are you saying Obama doesn't want to spend money? He isn't interested in regulations? Make your position clear or this isn't interesting.

It's not a random question.

Peach174 makes an overgeneralized statement on welfare programs creating dependency but does not define which ones, how or why. It's very vague and intentionally so. What this means is that the primary issues are not resolved. Hell, they aren't even addressed.

Let me show you something:
Federal funds spent on day centers for homeless people. They are only open during the day. Some have a night time shelter (limited) but many do not. There are limited services offered.......during the day. Many of them have opened not because they will actually help the homeless but because they remove the homeless people during the day time from the sight of people that have homes. Specifically from places like libraries where some homeless people go to read or because they have no place else to go.
Now, some of them offer mental health counseling but because of the short falls in the lack of long term mental health care facilities it's pretty much dismal. While it may provide an address for mail, it may not be enough of a legitimate address in some states to qualify for an ID or license. This was supposed to be a crack down on illegal immigrants but the result was that the homeless couldn't get an ID to be used for getting a job or anything else. While some offer aid in acquiring documentation there are many accounts of acquiring the paperwork and getting the holy crap beat out of them and having it stolen when they return at night to wherever they are staying.
If the goal was simply to keep them from annoying all the civilized folks and keep them out of sight then it has the capacity to achieve the desired goal. I'm sure lots of people pat themselves on the back at black tie affairs geared towards fundraising. I'm sure that they mean well.

Is it successful? You won't know because records are kept for a limited time. So, where is the accountability? You have demanded none. Where and why does it not work? Be specific.I'm not asking you to be specific with my example but yours.

Repeating the socialist mantra is not an answer.

I am not peach, so when you ask me a question where you're assuming I know what she said and that you're referring to that, I'm not likely to actually make that connection.

What I said was when you asked what bigger government meant, I was referring to spending and regulation. Homeless shelters are a tiny, tiny portion of the government. So you blew of Obamacare as not being specific enough, which makes no sense, then you dived into the weeds and went to homeless shelters. Obamacare is massive spending and regulation. And regulation is a tax because companies have to spend to comply. Homeless shelters is such a tiny portion of the budget I am not clear what debating that establishes.

So, other than homeless shelters, what are you actually claiming?

Regulation: Retaliation towards an employee, by either the insurance group or the employer, once you have found out that the individual has been diagnosed with an illness.

OK...and?

 

[Redfish]

why? give us 5 reasons, no talking points, no bullshit, give us 5 real reasons why you think more dem leadership would have been better.

Well I wouldn't say I like the dem's leadership. I think they are pussies. I like the policies that they push however. Repubs have nothing to offer this country while dems do. Part of the problem is that repubs won't compromise on anything the dems put out:

1) Raising the minimum wage
2) Extending unemployment benefits
3) Jobs training programs in community colleges
4) SNAP benefits for those who truly need it (not me)
5) Consumer protection laws

1. 1% of american workers make minimum wage, most of them are part time teens flipping burgers, minimum wage is a non-issue
2. why should unemployment go on for 99 weeks? would you extend it forever? when is enough?
3. good, republicans support that
4. good, republicans support that
5. good, republicans support that.

got anything else? the real reason is the D behind your name, we understand, and thats just fine. But admit it and then we can discuss these things reasonably.

1) 1% make 7.25 an hour. 16.5 million people make less than $10 an hour. That's the problem I am getting at. If raised to 10.10, anyone under that wage would see theirs go up. I don't understand why you cons can't grasp this. Oh and the average fast food worker is 29 years old.
2) Not everyone who is unemployed is even on it. It's a win win for everyone. The Benefits gives money to people who would otherwise not be spending money. This increases economic demand which creates jobs. And no, not forever.
3) No they don't. Obama proposed that early in his second term and republicans blocked it.
4) are you kidding me? They cut the funding for it.
5) Um name one.

1. if minimum wage is raised McDonalds has three choices, raise prices, lay off workers, use more electronics and lay off workers. Which of those is good for the part time teens working at McDonalds?

2. where does the money come from to pay unemployment benefits? do you have any idea?

3. being in favor of something but not being able to afford it are two different things.

4. same as 3

5. lemon laws, hazardous substance laws, anti pollution laws. there are 3 for ya

On a recent afternoon, Hampus Elofsson ended his 40-hour workweek at a Burger King and prepared for a movie and beer with friends. He had paid his rent and all his bills, stashed away some savings, yet still had money for nights out.
That is because he earns the equivalent of $20 an hour — the base wage for fast-food workers throughout Denmark and two and a half times what many fast-food workers earn in the United States.

“You can make a decent living here working in fast food,” said Mr. Elofsson, 24. “You don’t have to struggle to get by.”

If Danish chains can pay $20 an hour, why can’t those in the United States pay the $15 an hour that many fast-food workers have been clamoring for?

“We see from Denmark that it’s possible to run a profitable fast-food business while paying workers these kinds of wages,”

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/28/b...-served-in-denmark-fast-food-restaurants.html

I have been to Copenhagen, do you have any idea what a burger costs there? A burger, fries and a drink will cost you the equivalent of $30 US. So your imaginary danish burger flipper can't afford to buy his own product. BTW, a night out in copenhagen is sitting in the park looking at the little mermaid and then walking home.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Results are in and Republicans have won major victories at all levels

Should I blame?

Low information voters?
Republican cheating?
Voter suppression?
Right wing media?

No, I'll just chalk it up to Republicans running some good candidates who kept their mouths shut and avoided shooting themselves in the foot. Republicans avoided the Tea Party nonsense and ran some candidates who appealed to their constituents.

My congratulations to the Republicans

You should blame Obama.


But you won't.

 

[Billy000]

You have a lot of class, RW. More than anyone on this board probably.

Kept their mouth shut indeed. The democrats running weren't that great either. Either way, I still would have preferred a dem victory.

why? give us 5 reasons, no talking points, no bullshit, give us 5 real reasons why you think more dem leadership would have been better.

Well I wouldn't say I like the dem's leadership. I think they are pussies. I like the policies that they push however. Repubs have nothing to offer this country while dems do. Part of the problem is that repubs won't compromise on anything the dems put out:

1) Raising the minimum wage
2) Extending unemployment benefits
3) Jobs training programs in community colleges
4) SNAP benefits for those who truly need it (not me)
5) Consumer protection laws

1. 1% of american workers make minimum wage, most of them are part time teens flipping burgers, minimum wage is a non-issue
2. why should unemployment go on for 99 weeks? would you extend it forever? when is enough?
3. good, republicans support that
4. good, republicans support that
5. good, republicans support that.

got anything else? the real reason is the D behind your name, we understand, and thats just fine. But admit it and then we can discuss these things reasonably.

1) 1% make 7.25 an hour. 16.5 million people make less than $10 an hour. That's the problem I am getting at. If raised to 10.10, anyone under that wage would see theirs go up. I don't understand why you cons can't grasp this. Oh and the average fast food worker is 29 years old.
2) Not everyone who is unemployed is even on it. It's a win win for everyone. The Benefits gives money to people who would otherwise not be spending money. This increases economic demand which creates jobs. And no, not forever.
3) No they don't. Obama proposed that early in his second term and republicans blocked it.
4) are you kidding me? They cut the funding for it.
5) Um name one.

1. if minimum wage is raised McDonalds has three choices, raise prices, lay off workers, use more electronics and lay off workers. Which of those is good for the part time teens working at McDonalds?

2. where does the money come from to pay unemployment benefits? do you have any idea?

3. being in favor of something but not being able to afford it are two different things.

4. same as 3

5. lemon laws, hazardous substance laws, anti pollution laws. there are 3 for ya

1) Actually the McDonald's CEO has said he would support the raise. What you fail to understand is the actual wage proposal. If raised to 10.10, the raise would be gradual over 3 years. This would give the market time to prepare. That proposed raise would only raise prices pennies on the dollar. Like I said, more and more adults are working at McDonalds. The economy is not like it was
2) Nowadays it wouldn't be paid for based on how low the revenue as percentage of GDP is, but tax cuts aren't paid for either now are they? Where's your outrage over that? I propose we cut defense spending to pay for it.
3) Do you even know how much this country spends on food stamps? Less than 75 billion. How many billions do you think we give to our allies? Way more than that.
4) Give me proof republicans support that. Better yet, tell me how many.

 

[Dad2three]

Good example of compromise. If Republicans in the Senate had allowed Reid to proceed with Democratic legislation without 60 votes for cloture, Reid would have done the same
How can Republicans expect Reid to forward their legislation while they continue to block his?

Ding, ding, ding! As I keep pointing out, you are just finger pointing.

What you have is that Reid ... would have been ... reasonable if the Republican had been, but they weren't, so he didn't do anything. Because of course compromise is the Republicans job, not his.

The lack of progress in Congress should be blamed primarily on the Republican Party


Republican hyper-partisanship and obstructionism has extended beyond disturbing rhetoric. Senate Republicans have used filibusters to such a gross extent that they have broken records in obstructionism: GOP filibustering has helped the 112th Congress become one of the least productive in history, passing a mere 561 bills (the lowest number since these records started even being kept in 1947) and contributing to its deserved label of a do-nothing, dysfunctional Congress.

From 2009-2010, Senate Republicans blocked some 375 House bills from ever even reaching a vote. In shocking displays of partisanship, Republicans actually blocked votes on bills that would fund states’ efforts to help low-income children attain access to critical eye examinations (the Vision Cfor Kids Act) or help treat elder victims of psychological or physical abuse (the Elder Abuse Victims Act). The GOP’s historic abuse of the filibuster culminated in Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) having to use the historic nuclear option to end cloture votes on presidential nominees.


The Cavalier Daily RUDGLEY Republican obstructionism

none of that is true. bloggers lie.

AD HOMS is what you bring? Shocking

That’s THREE HUNDRED SEVENTY-FIVE BILLS!


HR 12 -- Paycheck Fairness Act

H.R. 20 -- Melanie Blocker Stokes Mom’s Opportunity to Access Health, Education, Research, and Support for Postpartum Depression Act

H.R. 320 -- CJ’s Home Protection Act

H.R. 448 -- Elder Abuse Victims Act

H.R. 466 –- Wounded Veteran Job Security Act

H.R. 515 –- Radioactive Import Deterrence Act

H.R. 549 -- National Bombing Prevention Act

H.R. 577 –- Vision Care for Kids Act

H.R. 626 –- Federal Employees Paid Parental Leave Act

H.R. 780 –- Student Internet Safety Act

H.R. 911 -- Stop Child Abuse in Residential Programs for Teens Act

H.R. 985 -- Free Flow of Information Act

H.R. 1029 -– Alien Smuggling and Terrorism Prevention Act

H.R. 1110 –- PHONE Act and H.R. 1258 – The Truth in Caller ID Act

H.R. 1168 -- Veterans Retraining Act

H.R. 1171 –- Homeless Veterans Reintegration Program Reauthorization

H.R. 1262 -- Water Quality Investment Act

H.R. 1293 -- Disabled Veterans Home Improvement and Structural Alteration Grant Increase Act of 2009

H.R. 1319 –- Informed P2P User Act

H.R. 1380 -- Josh Miller HEARTS Act

H.R. 1429 -- Stop AIDS in Prison Act


But every single one of these bills is being blocked by every single Republican in the Senate, all of whom are working in lockstep to prevent a vote.

H.R. 1469 –- Child Protection Improvements Act

H.R. 1511 –- Torture Victims Relief Reauthorization Act

H.R. 1514 –- Juvenile Accountability Block Grants Program Reauthorization Act

H.R. 1580 –- Electronic Waste Research and Development Act

H.R. 1585 -- FIT Kids Act

H.R. 1617 –- Department of Homeland Security Component Privacy Officer Act

H.R. 1622 -– Research and Development Programs for Natural Gas Vehicles

H.R. 1675 –- Frank Melville Supportive Housing Investment Act of 2009

H.R. 1709 –- STEM Education Coordination Act

H.R. 1722 -- Telework Improvements Act

H.R. 1727 -- Managing Arson Through Criminal History (MATCH) Act


Put simply, DEMOCRATS are passing bills to make things easier, and REPUBLICANS are refusing to even allow an “up or down vote.”
H.R. 1741 -- Witness Security and Protection Grant Program Act

H.R. 1796 –- Carbon Monoxide Poisoning Prevention Act

H.R. 1803 -- Veterans Business Center Act

H.R. 1807 –- Educating Entrepreneurs through Today’s Technology Act

H.R. 1834 –- Native American Business Development Enhancement Act

H.R. 1838 –- Amending Small Business Act

H.R. 1824 -- Best Buddies Empowerment for People with Intellectual Disabilities Act

H.R. 1875 -- End the Trade Deficit Act

H.R. 1879 -- National Guard Employment Protection Act

H.R. 1933 –- A Child Is Missing Alert and Recovery Center Act

H.R. 2020 -- Networking and Information Technology Research and Development Act of 2009

H.R. 2093 –- Clean Coastal Environment and Public Health Act

H.R. 2134 -- Western Hemisphere Drug Policy Commission Act

[...]
Once again; Democrats PASSED the following bills, and Senate Republicans prevented these bills from even coming to a vote.
H.R. 2142 – Government Efficiency, Effectiveness, and Performance Improvement Act

H.R. 2187 – 21st Century Green High-Performing Public School Facilities Act

H.R. 2200 – Transportation Security Administration Authorization Act

H.R. 2221 – Data Accountability and Trust Act

H.R. 2352 – Job Creation Through Entrepreneurship Act

H.R. 2454 – American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009

H.R. 2510 – Absentee Ballot Track, Receive and Confirm Act

H.R. 2529 – Neighborhood Preservation Act

H.R. 2554 – National Association of Registered Agents and Brokers Reform Act

H.R. 2611 – Authorizing the Securing the Cities Initiative of the Department of Homeland Security

H.R. 2664 – Promoting Transparency in Financial Reporting Act

H.R. 2693 – Oil Pollution Research and Development Program Reauthorization Act

H.R. 2749 -- Food Safety Enhancement Act

H.R. 2868 – Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Act of 2009, Drinking Water System Security Act of 2009 and Wastewater Treatment Works Security Act of 2009


In other words the Democratic party believes in actually doing the People's Business (see the list above);

while the Republicans believe in Blocking just that. ... Whatever our business may be.

Why is the Republican Record-Breaking use of the Filibuster -- Not a topic of the News

in your next post list all of the house-passed bills that reid has not allowed to reach the floor of the senate.

the bottom line here is that the senate will now vote on those bills that reid has been hiding. thene obama can either sign them or veto them and the public will know who the real obstructionist is.

So you agree, you LIED

Reid blocked?

You mean like the 50+ times they were going to 'repeal Obamacares? lol

June 25, 2014

Republicans Blocked More Than 73 Amendment Votes This Congress Alone

• 36 votes on Republican amendments blocked by Senate Republicans
• 31 votes on Democratic amendments blocked by Senate Republicans
• 6 votes on bipartisan amendments blocked by Senate Republicans

Senator McConnell, the self-declared “proud guardian of gridlock,” has personally blocked 20 amendment votes in the 113th Congress alone.

Senator Grassley has personally blocked the most amendment votes of any Republican senator, blocking 37 amendment votes in the 113th Congress alone.

WHY?
These numbers beg the question: if Republicans claim to want amendment votes, why would they block more than 73 amendment votes in the past year?

Is it possible that Senator McConnell would manufacture an issue out of thin air in order to distract from his own unprecedented track record of gridlock and obstruction?

There was an instructive exchange on the Senate floor yesterday between Senators Reid, McConnell and Thune that might help answer these questions.



YESTERDAY: MCCONNELL BLOCKS VOTE ON KEYSTONE DESPITE REPEATEDLY DEMANDING VOTE ON KEYSTONE



...OTHER LOWLIGHTS

Republican Senators blocking votes proposed by other Republican senators

U.S. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid Republicans Blocked More Than 73 Amendment Votes This Congress Alone

 

[Dad2three]

You have a lot of class, RW. More than anyone on this board probably.

Kept their mouth shut indeed. The democrats running weren't that great either. Either way, I still would have preferred a dem victory.

why? give us 5 reasons, no talking points, no bullshit, give us 5 real reasons why you think more dem leadership would have been better.

Well I wouldn't say I like the dem's leadership. I think they are pussies. I like the policies that they push however. Repubs have nothing to offer this country while dems do. Part of the problem is that repubs won't compromise on anything the dems put out:

1) Raising the minimum wage
2) Extending unemployment benefits
3) Jobs training programs in community colleges
4) SNAP benefits for those who truly need it (not me)
5) Consumer protection laws

1. 1% of american workers make minimum wage, most of them are part time teens flipping burgers, minimum wage is a non-issue
2. why should unemployment go on for 99 weeks? would you extend it forever? when is enough?
3. good, republicans support that
4. good, republicans support that
5. good, republicans support that.

got anything else? the real reason is the D behind your name, we understand, and thats just fine. But admit it and then we can discuss these things reasonably.

1) 1% make 7.25 an hour. 16.5 million people make less than $10 an hour. That's the problem I am getting at. If raised to 10.10, anyone under that wage would see theirs go up. I don't understand why you cons can't grasp this. Oh and the average fast food worker is 29 years old.
2) Not everyone who is unemployed is even on it. It's a win win for everyone. The Benefits gives money to people who would otherwise not be spending money. This increases economic demand which creates jobs. And no, not forever.
3) No they don't. Obama proposed that early in his second term and republicans blocked it.
4) are you kidding me? They cut the funding for it.
5) Um name one.

1. if minimum wage is raised McDonalds has three choices, raise prices, lay off workers, use more electronics and lay off workers. Which of those is good for the part time teens working at McDonalds?

2. where does the money come from to pay unemployment benefits? do you have any idea?

3. being in favor of something but not being able to afford it are two different things.

4. same as 3

5. lemon laws, hazardous substance laws, anti pollution laws. there are 3 for ya

Costs NEVER increase for Biz right? *shaking head*

 

[007]

Results are in and Republicans have won major victories at all levels

Should I blame?

Low information voters?
Republican cheating?
Voter suppression?
Right wing media?

No, I'll just chalk it up to Republicans running some good candidates who kept their mouths shut and avoided shooting themselves in the foot. Republicans avoided the Tea Party nonsense and ran some candidates who appealed to their constituents.

My congratulations to the Republicans

You should blame Obama.

But you won't.

When the kenyan came on TV and said, "no, I'm not on the ballet, but my agenda is," he sealed the fate of every democrat who lost.

But you're right, the progtard obama ass kissers who are fully indoctrinated and brain washed will never blame their messiah. They can't, they don't know how to be truthful to themselves or anyone else. Good thing about that is, we know they're full of shit.

 

[peach174]

Results are in and Republicans have won major victories at all levels

Should I blame?

Low information voters?
Republican cheating?
Voter suppression?
Right wing media?

No, I'll just chalk it up to Republicans running some good candidates who kept their mouths shut and avoided shooting themselves in the foot. Republicans avoided the Tea Party nonsense and ran some candidates who appealed to their constituents.

My congratulations to the Republicans

Classy response thank you let's hope the President and Congress can finally get something done for the good of the country.

If anything is easy to predict....it is that the president will stay classy and work his ass off for the good of the country.

Bigger Government is not for the good of the country.

What is bigger government?

If you have to ask that then you really are dense.

 

[Dad2three]

Good example of compromise. If Republicans in the Senate had allowed Reid to proceed with Democratic legislation without 60 votes for cloture, Reid would have done the same
How can Republicans expect Reid to forward their legislation while they continue to block his?

Ding, ding, ding! As I keep pointing out, you are just finger pointing.

What you have is that Reid ... would have been ... reasonable if the Republican had been, but they weren't, so he didn't do anything. Because of course compromise is the Republicans job, not his.

The lack of progress in Congress should be blamed primarily on the Republican Party


Republican hyper-partisanship and obstructionism has extended beyond disturbing rhetoric. Senate Republicans have used filibusters to such a gross extent that they have broken records in obstructionism: GOP filibustering has helped the 112th Congress become one of the least productive in history, passing a mere 561 bills (the lowest number since these records started even being kept in 1947) and contributing to its deserved label of a do-nothing, dysfunctional Congress.

From 2009-2010, Senate Republicans blocked some 375 House bills from ever even reaching a vote. In shocking displays of partisanship, Republicans actually blocked votes on bills that would fund states’ efforts to help low-income children attain access to critical eye examinations (the Vision Cfor Kids Act) or help treat elder victims of psychological or physical abuse (the Elder Abuse Victims Act). The GOP’s historic abuse of the filibuster culminated in Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) having to use the historic nuclear option to end cloture votes on presidential nominees.


The Cavalier Daily RUDGLEY Republican obstructionism

Still not jiving with the question, are you? The question was not why do you blame Republicans, which is just finger pointing. The question was to show how Democrats act in the way you want Republicans to act. Try to focus.

You mean like compromising on ACA, tax increases on the richest, smaller stimulus, etc? Nah, the Dems don't compromise *shaking head*

 

[Disir]

I need you to get very specific. Move beyond platitudes and talking points. Because if you cannot define it precisely then that's pretty much all you have.

I need you to be specific about what you are arguing. I am not really interested in answering random questions where you don't commit to anything. Are you saying Obama doesn't want to spend money? He isn't interested in regulations? Make your position clear or this isn't interesting.

It's not a random question.

Peach174 makes an overgeneralized statement on welfare programs creating dependency but does not define which ones, how or why. It's very vague and intentionally so. What this means is that the primary issues are not resolved. Hell, they aren't even addressed.

Let me show you something:
Federal funds spent on day centers for homeless people. They are only open during the day. Some have a night time shelter (limited) but many do not. There are limited services offered.......during the day. Many of them have opened not because they will actually help the homeless but because they remove the homeless people during the day time from the sight of people that have homes. Specifically from places like libraries where some homeless people go to read or because they have no place else to go.
Now, some of them offer mental health counseling but because of the short falls in the lack of long term mental health care facilities it's pretty much dismal. While it may provide an address for mail, it may not be enough of a legitimate address in some states to qualify for an ID or license. This was supposed to be a crack down on illegal immigrants but the result was that the homeless couldn't get an ID to be used for getting a job or anything else. While some offer aid in acquiring documentation there are many accounts of acquiring the paperwork and getting the holy crap beat out of them and having it stolen when they return at night to wherever they are staying.
If the goal was simply to keep them from annoying all the civilized folks and keep them out of sight then it has the capacity to achieve the desired goal. I'm sure lots of people pat themselves on the back at black tie affairs geared towards fundraising. I'm sure that they mean well.

Is it successful? You won't know because records are kept for a limited time. So, where is the accountability? You have demanded none. Where and why does it not work? Be specific.I'm not asking you to be specific with my example but yours.

Repeating the socialist mantra is not an answer.

I am not peach, so when you ask me a question where you're assuming I know what she said and that you're referring to that, I'm not likely to actually make that connection.

What I said was when you asked what bigger government meant, I was referring to spending and regulation. Homeless shelters are a tiny, tiny portion of the government. So you blew of Obamacare as not being specific enough, which makes no sense, then you dived into the weeds and went to homeless shelters. Obamacare is massive spending and regulation. And regulation is a tax because companies have to spend to comply. Homeless shelters is such a tiny portion of the budget I am not clear what debating that establishes.

So, other than homeless shelters, what are you actually claiming?

Regulation: Retaliation towards an employee, by either the insurance group or the employer, once you have found out that the individual has been diagnosed with an illness.

OK...and?

Exactly, and? It's not enough to say the ACA or say regulations and imply that as big government.
So what is the problem?

 

[Rocko]

Congratulations you won because you kept your mouth shut. That's classy to you??

It is true

Republicans avoided "Legitimate Rape" and "Rape is Gods blessing" type comments that Dems used to destroy them last time. Republicans ran solid campaigns that avoided controversy. A key reason they won

If you would have said they did a good job at not producing gaffs that would have been a compliment. You didn't say that though, you said they did a good job of keeping their mouth shut, which is a backhanded compliment.

Not intended to be
"Keeping your mouth shut" did not mean say nothing, it means not saying anything stupid. Democrats crucified the entire GOP in 2010 and 2012 when key candidates said stupid things
Republicans ran a clean campaign this time by avoiding hot button topics

What you said was basically if republicans would have opened up their mouths stupid things would have come out. Who are you kidding ?

WTF are you babbling about?

Of course Republicans opened their mouths.......but they avoided saying stupid things
They couldn't do that in the last two elections

Now you're getting upset because you know I'm right. You said they avoided saying stupid things because they avoided talking. Not very gracious and you know it.

 

[Billy000]

1) Raising the minimum wage

Right, because we should do whatever we can to ensure our most vulnerable citizens are prevented from working at all. Fuck the uneducated. Screw the inexperienced young person hoping to get some experience. To hell with the simple man whose skills do not justify your wage mandates. The old person that just wants to engage in a workplace? Stay at home and rot your old fuck.

That's some wonderful compassion there asshole.

2) Extending unemployment benefits

Right, 'cuz 18 trillion of debt just isn't enough.

And isn't just magical that after unemployment benefit are exhausted, people manage to find a job. Just incredible.

3) Jobs training programs in community colleges

Fine, just don't ask others to pay for your education. It's not my problem that you didn't pay attention in school.

4) SNAP benefits for those who truly need it (not me)

Right, 'cuz the record increase in food stamps just isn't enough. We need MORE people on the dole...it's just so good for the country!

And that debt thing again? Ah, who cares? Fuck those yet to be born. We DESERVE to burden them with our largess.

What a fucking scumbag you are!

5) Consumer protection laws

Right...not enough of those.

My goodness comrade, have you no sense of individual responsibility?

It's amazing to me how bent out of shape you cons get over spending yet are too stupid to realize tax cuts do not pay for themselves. Where was your outage over Bush's huge tax cuts?

Oh and raising the minimum wage helps the economy by boosting consumer spending. Any capital initially lost would be regained over time.

The average person on food stamps makes $766 a month. They get $133 a month in benefits. 83% of all food stamps funding goes to housholds with kids.

 

[Disir]

Results are in and Republicans have won major victories at all levels

Should I blame?

Low information voters?
Republican cheating?
Voter suppression?
Right wing media?

No, I'll just chalk it up to Republicans running some good candidates who kept their mouths shut and avoided shooting themselves in the foot. Republicans avoided the Tea Party nonsense and ran some candidates who appealed to their constituents.

My congratulations to the Republicans

Classy response thank you let's hope the President and Congress can finally get something done for the good of the country.

If anything is easy to predict....it is that the president will stay classy and work his ass off for the good of the country.

Bigger Government is not for the good of the country.

What is bigger government?

If you have to ask that then you really are dense.

No. If you cannot clearly define it then all you have is a bumper sticker slogan.

 

[rightwinger]

It is true

Republicans avoided "Legitimate Rape" and "Rape is Gods blessing" type comments that Dems used to destroy them last time. Republicans ran solid campaigns that avoided controversy. A key reason they won

If you would have said they did a good job at not producing gaffs that would have been a compliment. You didn't say that though, you said they did a good job of keeping their mouth shut, which is a backhanded compliment.

Not intended to be
"Keeping your mouth shut" did not mean say nothing, it means not saying anything stupid. Democrats crucified the entire GOP in 2010 and 2012 when key candidates said stupid things
Republicans ran a clean campaign this time by avoiding hot button topics

What you said was basically if republicans would have opened up their mouths stupid things would have come out. Who are you kidding ?

WTF are you babbling about?

Of course Republicans opened their mouths.......but they avoided saying stupid things
They couldn't do that in the last two elections

Now you're getting upset because you know I'm right. You said they avoided saying stupid things because they avoided talking. Not very gracious and you know it.