Republicans shut 'er down, boys!

[Sallow]

It's ok I didn't expect you to understand English or context.

The statement is "It's why I think in many ways the central issue that we were trying to focus on in the filibuster was not the continuing resolution."

We in this case is not Cruz talking about himself in the plural. The we is a group of republicans that agreed to filibuster. However, what Cruz did was not a filibuster. You can scream till you are blue in the face that people called it a filibuster but it wasn't. Do you require a link for proof? As to the rest of the sentence, the phrase "in the filibuster" is missing commas. Why did the writer you cut and pasted from make that error? I don't know. The sentence should read:

"It's why I think in many ways the central issue that we were trying to focus on, in the filibuster, was not the continuing resolution." You'll have to note that this particular sentence does not define which or what filibuster he's talking about. However, it is a matter of history now that he wanted the republican party to filibuster. It is also a matter of history now that the republican party refused to join him in filibustering the bill when they had the chance to in the senate. It is further a matter of history that Cruz got up to a podium and talked for about one day. However that lengthy stay was not a filibuster. Anyone with an ounce of intelligence and understanding of the events would know these facts.

LMAO. Re writing sentences the correct way. You really are to fucking funny. I like that comma. You should stick with that every time you get your ass kicked on a point, just add a comma,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

Changes the meaning of EVERYTHING. Just add puff the magic comma.

I mean fucking hilarious.

You didn't study English composition in school. Did ya?

Are you retarded, stupid, or just plain ignorant? The comma that I added did not change the meaning of the sentence at all. Or perhaps you can explain what "on in the" means sans my inclusion of the missing commas from the poorly written transcription of what Cruz said on the radio. I'm an Engineer, not an English major. What are you a store clerk? HS drop out? Illegal immigrant? Perhaps you have a link to the "filibuster?" I say there was never a filibuster. But you appear to have puked a gut at that statement, so maybe you can show everyone.

Another example of why I find it so hard to believe you were a coder.

 

[Sallow]

because neither party are totally or were totally up on or understood, what the bill, in toto actually was, as to how one thing may affect the other,.

Firstly, From Social Security to civil rights to Medicaid to Medicare, never in the modern history of the country has major social legislation been enacted on a straight party-line vote.

Secondly, the SCOTUS UNconstitutionally redrafted the Obama Hellcare bill. The statute was NOT adopted as a revenue --tax--increasing measure.

.

Wrong. The SCOTUS ruled that it is constitutional under the taxing clause to mandate that people must buy insurance. Sucks but there it is. If the republicans had juevos they would demand a revote based on the ruling that the mandated fee was a tax. Maybe refuse to support CRs sans a negotiation on said ACT. Oh yeah, that's where we are.

You really posted that?

 

[RKMBrown]

You don't believe deficits have gone down do you?

Why won't the Boehner let the full house vote?

>> You don't believe deficits have gone down do you?
No. I know they have not gone down. Obama is raiding federal pensions. If he were a republican he would have been hung in the press for it.

>> Why won't the Boehner let the full house vote?
How does he let only a portion of the full house vote? Is that some new kind of procedure that I'm not aware of?

It's called the Hastert rule, look it up. (By the way, Hastert thinks it's stupid to do it now)

Oh you mean blocking the bill from being voted upon at all. Yeah both houses of congress manage what bills get debated. Both houses can sit on bills put them in committee etc.

I thought you were talking about a vote on the bill, not a vote to decide what bills should be debated at all.

 

[Sallow]

>> You don't believe deficits have gone down do you?
No. I know they have not gone down. Obama is raiding federal pensions. If he were a republican he would have been hung in the press for it.

>> Why won't the Boehner let the full house vote?
How does he let only a portion of the full house vote? Is that some new kind of procedure that I'm not aware of?

It's called the Hastert rule, look it up. (By the way, Hastert thinks it's stupid to do it now)

Oh you mean blocking the bill from being voted upon at all. Yeah both houses of congress manage what bills get debated. Both houses can sit on bills put them in committee etc.

I thought you were talking about a vote on the bill, not a vote to decide what bills should be debated at all.

You're something else.

 

[RKMBrown]

LMAO. Re writing sentences the correct way. You really are to fucking funny. I like that comma. You should stick with that every time you get your ass kicked on a point, just add a comma,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

Changes the meaning of EVERYTHING. Just add puff the magic comma.

I mean fucking hilarious.

You didn't study English composition in school. Did ya?

Are you retarded, stupid, or just plain ignorant? The comma that I added did not change the meaning of the sentence at all. Or perhaps you can explain what "on in the" means sans my inclusion of the missing commas from the poorly written transcription of what Cruz said on the radio. I'm an Engineer, not an English major. What are you a store clerk? HS drop out? Illegal immigrant? Perhaps you have a link to the "filibuster?" I say there was never a filibuster. But you appear to have puked a gut at that statement, so maybe you can show everyone.

Another example of why I find it so hard to believe you were a coder.

The voice to english translation missed commas separating 'on' and 'in'. Or perhaps you can explain to the class what "on in" means. Have you been like this your whole life or just since you started writing poorly written scripts with syntax errors because they are interpreted at runtime and you just can't be bothered to test it all?

 

[RKMBrown]

It's called the Hastert rule, look it up. (By the way, Hastert thinks it's stupid to do it now)

Oh you mean blocking the bill from being voted upon at all. Yeah both houses of congress manage what bills get debated. Both houses can sit on bills put them in committee etc.

I thought you were talking about a vote on the bill, not a vote to decide what bills should be debated at all.

You're something else.

Yes I am. You on the other hand, are typical, I hope that makes you feel better.

 

[Sallow]

Are you retarded, stupid, or just plain ignorant? The comma that I added did not change the meaning of the sentence at all. Or perhaps you can explain what "on in the" means sans my inclusion of the missing commas from the poorly written transcription of what Cruz said on the radio. I'm an Engineer, not an English major. What are you a store clerk? HS drop out? Illegal immigrant? Perhaps you have a link to the "filibuster?" I say there was never a filibuster. But you appear to have puked a gut at that statement, so maybe you can show everyone.

Another example of why I find it so hard to believe you were a coder.

The voice to english translation missed commas separating 'on' and 'in'. Or perhaps you can explain to the class what "on in" means. Have you been like this your whole life or just since you started writing poorly written scripts with syntax errors because they are interpreted at runtime and you just can't be bothered to test it all?

I'm not the one fucking up English, man.

 

[Sallow]

Oh you mean blocking the bill from being voted upon at all. Yeah both houses of congress manage what bills get debated. Both houses can sit on bills put them in committee etc.

I thought you were talking about a vote on the bill, not a vote to decide what bills should be debated at all.

You're something else.

Yes I am. You on the other hand, are typical, I hope that makes you feel better.

It really does.

Because typical here..is a grade higher..

You don't seem to know the most rudimentary rules about the congress.

 

[Jarlaxle]

I demand that every dime of federal money that is going to Texas for any reason whatsoever, be defunded. Otherwise shut down all government security checks for passengers who fly on Southwest Airlines.

That would probably result in a stampede of people who are sick of the TSA's security-theatre to Southwest!

 

[Jarlaxle]

You remain indubitability retarded, Dildo. The House has no such constitutional authority as one party holding the other hostage is actually tyrannical, not democratic. Perhaps you could quote the Constitution where it says the House has such authority? Though I seriously doubt it.

And who knows how you blame Democrats for $17t in debt when Republicans contributed to about half of that.

I simply can't believe this has to be explained over and over and over to Dumbocrats....

Congress controls the purse strings. They do not have to raise the debt ceiling. Furthermore, they should not raise the debt ceiling.

Your fascination with dildos aside [MENTION=33829]Faun[/MENTION] - I have a serious question. At what point have we spent enough money in your mind? We're $17 trillion in debt. When is it enough for you? When we're $20 trillion in debt? $25 trillion? $100 trillion? Is it your goal to collapse the U.S. under the Cloward & Piven strategy?

Power of the Purse | US House of Representatives: History, Art & Archives

Hey, anybody else notice this rightard just tried to give the House an authority granted to the whole Congress?



Dildo, the House is only a part of the Congress -- it is not the Congress. Don't you know anything???

And your query about how much debt is too much ignores what I said. You're sooo fucking stupid, you're blaming Democrats for all of it when Republicans are responsible for about half of it.

No, actually, he was correct: the House DOES, in fact, control the purse strings. All budget bills MUST originate in the House.

No charge for the Constitutional Law 101 lesson, but the next one will cost you $50.

 

[EriktheRed]

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

A national healthcare system has been discussed for more than a 100 years. Obama is the president who got it, which at the heart of the matter, is what is driving the right crazy since they were in favor of this same plan when Conservative and Republicans promoted it as an alternative to HillaryCare in the 90's. Obama made history by signing that bill which is why the right is bat-shit crazy trying to undo it. He's not about to give that up any more than Reagan would have let Democrats undo his supply-side economics; or any more than FDR would have let Republicans undo his New Deal.

There were certainly people on the right that were generally for an individual mandate (Obamacare, however, despite sharing the individual mandate aspect, is what, 30k pages long? You're telling me that in all those pages, there's not room around the individual mandate for a few points that perhaps even the people proposing the alternative to Hillarycare didn't include in their proposals? For my point, however, you don't even need to take this into account) back when the Dems were proposing Hillarycare. The argument can be made that much of the right jumped on the idea back then because it sounded better to them than single payer. You've decided that the right only doesn't like Obamacare now because it's Obama's and the right's racist. I'm taking the position that the right only liked individual mandate back then because it was the proposed alternative to single payer and, now that they've thought about it, they've decided it wasn't such a hot idea.

Ultimately, we're both just speculating as to somebody else's motives and, near as I can tell, neither of us is psychic.

And so we're still left with you supporting Obama in letting it go to government shutdown to satiate his own ego.

Maybe Reagan would've done the same thing to satiate his ego. Maybe FDR would've done the same thing. To the degree that their egos were more important than doing a job as important as theirs, I would call them despots, or at least horrible leaders.

Obama isn't doing this to "satiate his own ego"..he's doing it to protect legislative procedure and the ACA.

First off, there's no legislative procedure that needs protecting here. Everything that's been done has been according to procedure.

Also, I realize he's doing it to protect the ACA. That's the given premise. What was being discussed was his motive for going this far to avoid negotiating on the ACA at all.

It also wasn't I who implied that Obama's motives were egotistical, it was Faun. If Faun feels that Obama's motives were egotistical for preferring a government shutdown to negotiating on Obamacare yet still supports Obama, I'm simply wondering how he reconciles being in support of a president who he believes is more concerned with his ego than he is with keeping the nation afloat. I'm also wondering, if one assumes that Obama's reasoning was purely egotistical for not wanting to negotiate -at all- on his signature legislation, how does one continue to lay the blame exclusively on the house?

You following the conversation, now? Is everybody up to speed?

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

A national healthcare system has been discussed for more than a 100 years. Obama is the president who got it, which at the heart of the matter, is what is driving the right crazy since they were in favor of this same plan when Conservative and Republicans promoted it as an alternative to HillaryCare in the 90's. Obama made history by signing that bill which is why the right is bat-shit crazy trying to undo it. He's not about to give that up any more than Reagan would have let Democrats undo his supply-side economics; or any more than FDR would have let Republicans undo his New Deal.

There were certainly people on the right that were generally for an individual mandate (Obamacare, however, despite sharing the individual mandate aspect, is what, 30k pages long? You're telling me that in all those pages, there's not room around the individual mandate for a few points that perhaps even the people proposing the alternative to Hillarycare didn't include in their proposals? For my point, however, you don't even need to take this into account) back when the Dems were proposing Hillarycare. The argument can be made that much of the right jumped on the idea back then because it sounded better to them than single payer. You've decided that the right only doesn't like Obamacare now because it's Obama's and the right's racist. I'm taking the position that the right only liked individual mandate back then because it was the proposed alternative to single payer and, now that they've thought about it, they've decided it wasn't such a hot idea.

Ultimately, we're both just speculating as to somebody else's motives and, near as I can tell, neither of us is psychic.

And so we're still left with you supporting Obama in letting it go to government shutdown to satiate his own ego.

Maybe Reagan would've done the same thing to satiate his ego. Maybe FDR would've done the same thing. To the degree that their egos were more important than doing a job as important as theirs, I would call them despots, or at least horrible leaders.

Actually, the Heritage Foundation's plan predates the opposition to HillaryCare. It started in the 80's but was adopted by Congressional Republican's in the 90's to counter HillaryCare.

As far as supporting Obama for not giving up his landmark legislation, I subscribe to the tenet that one does not negotiate with hostage takers.

When the heritage foundation wrote it isn't the crux of our discussion. Your point was that "the right" used to want individual mandate, but now "the right" doesn't because they hate Obama. Keep tryin to dodge, I got crazy aim.

One does not negotiate with hostage takers? So because you've decided that you're in agreement with the hyperbolic metaphors being used, then the Democrats are correct in not negotiating and letting the government shut down, and its the Republicans' fault? You do realize that, when you're making a deal with someone whose motives aren't your own, its customary for there to be stuff that you have that they want, that you won't give them without getting something in return, right? That's not called hostage taking. That's called the basic premise of a deal.

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

Actually, the Heritage Foundation's plan predates the opposition to HillaryCare. It started in the 80's but was adopted by Congressional Republican's in the 90's to counter HillaryCare.

As far as supporting Obama for not giving up his landmark legislation, I subscribe to the tenet that one does not negotiate with hostage takers.

They are not "hostage takers" you drama queen (or should I say drag queen?). In any case, the House is exercising their Constitutional authority. Everything here is legal and proper.

The problem is, liberals don't like Democracy (as illustrated by Obama acting like a dictator over and over). They hate the fact that they don't get their way 5% of the time and can't fast-track this nation to their communist utopia.

The government ran up $17 trillion in debt thanks to a dumbocrats. We the people said "enough" and shut it down. Get over it already...

You remain indubitability retarded, Dildo. The House has no such constitutional authority as one party holding the other hostage is actually tyrannical, not democratic. Perhaps you could quote the Constitution where it says the House has such authority? Though I seriously doubt it.

And who knows how you blame Democrats for $17t in debt when Republicans contributed to about half of that.

Again, simply because you describe the fact that neither side of the house will allow the other's legislation through as one side holding the other hostage, doesn't actually mean that anybody's being held hostage. It means they can't agree to a deal. There's nothing unconstitutional about it.

Here's the thing about the constitution and what does and doesn't violate it: It's all very specific and finite. Constitutional law doesn't rest on hyperbolic metaphors like describing the legal exercise of legislative authority as hostage taking. Your personal opinions on what is and isn't tyranny also don't apply.

Luckily, the law always works that way. Last week I was blasting this Mac Miller song in my car and my boy that I was rolling with was like, "Dude, this shit is terrible! You're raping my fuckin ears right now!"

You know what? I wasn't brought up on sexual assault charges. Thank God.

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

First of all, there wasn't an "overwhelming" majority against it:

• CBS: 48%
• KFF Health: 44%
• NBC: 48%
• CNN: 59%
• AP-GfK: 43%
• ABC: 50%
• USA Today/Gallup: 50%
• Fox: 55%
• Quinnipiac: 49%
• Bloomberg: 50%
• Pew: 48%
• Gallup: 48%

Health Policy​

... but what actually came to mind when this passed even though more people were against it than for it was when Bush was president and he told America he was proceeding with the surge in Iraq even though most people were against that. Conservatives/Republicans defended Bush as doing what he felt was best for the country, not what was popular.

Same holds true for Obama.

Except that the president has Constitutional authority over the military. While marxism is unconstitutional. See the difference there Sparky?

And yet, ObamaCare is a gift from the right as it was the Heritage Foundation who thought this idea up.

So if a republican associated organization comes up with a proposal, there's some sort of rule against anyone with a conservative viewpoint to question its constitutionality?

I just came from that, "Do conservatives lack free will" post. Why is it that democrats, while arguing, will demand that "the right" concede to any points that any prominent republican agrees with them on, as though the viewpoint of a prominent republican should control the viewpoint of everyone who associates with the viewpoints of his party, and then at the same time accuse republicans of being sheep? (I agree that most of them are sheep, but it seems like a silly thing to criticize when you demand it).

Also, Freud would have a field day with that shit. What does it say about -you- if -you- believe that someone should kowtow to your opinion because a prominent politician from the party most closely associated with that someone's philosophy shares your opinion? Essentially, if your assumption is that people who stray from the opinions of the higher up's in their party of choice are doing something fundamentally wrong, how coarse is -your- wool?

 

[asaratis]

The difference is that the Senate considered the House bills by voting on them.

Republican leaders wouldn't let their House vote on the Senate bills.

So when Obamacare passed despite an overwhelming majority of Americans being against it, I take it you were equally incensed at the few trampling on the ability of a larger body to make its opinion heard? Probably not. I'd wager that you were like, "Fuck what the people think they want, this was passed legally and it's a standing law!"

But then, when congressional leadership, -in accordance with legal procedure-, knock down the senate's clean CR proposals without a vote, they're evil, right?

But hey, if we're gonna be consistent, here, why should the opinions of the larger voting body make a shit bit of difference as long as what was done was done according to the rules?

First of all, there wasn't an "overwhelming" majority against it:

• CBS: 48%
• KFF Health: 44%
• NBC: 48%
• CNN: 59%
• AP-GfK: 43%
• ABC: 50%
• USA Today/Gallup: 50%
• Fox: 55%
• Quinnipiac: 49%
• Bloomberg: 50%
• Pew: 48%
• Gallup: 48%

Health Policy​

... but what actually came to mind when this passed even though more people were against it than for it was when Bush was president and he told America he was proceeding with the surge in Iraq even though most people were against that. Conservatives/Republicans defended Bush as doing what he felt was best for the country, not what was popular.

Same holds true for Obama.

Right! In favor it was the 47% that would kiss his ass after he took a shit on their lawn...plus a few other numbnut fucking idiots that think his giveaways are worth a vote.

Your numbers mean absolutely NOTHING when it comes to actual worth of Obamacare!

 

[RKMBrown]

It's cute how you call me retarded when you're the one who has no clue to what's going on.

The vote I just showed you where the Senate voted on a House bill was the second bill. The first House bill the Senate voted on was the one days earlier which defunded ObamaCare. It was after the Senate voted down the House bill that they voted on, and passed, their own bill which was sent back to the House -- which the House has still not voted on.

G'head, this is where you call others a retard with the wasted hope that no one will notice you're the retard.

As I stated you fucking retard, the senate did not vote on the bill de-funding Obuma Care the first time around last fucking week, they fucking amended it removing the defunding before the final vote the first time around the merry go round you stupid fool. Further they did the amendment after cloture tso they could avoid debate on obuma care in the senate. The senate refused to negotiate, as they have for two years, on dimocare.

Not quite!

As Cruz made clear in his filibuster, the actual vote on the House bill defunding Obamacare would be the cloture vote, because once cloture passes the House bill can be amended with only 51 votes and funding would be added back. So Cruz made it clear that a vote for cloture was a vote against the House bill. Cloture passed 79 to 19 with 25 Republicans voting against the House bill and for cloture. More Senate Republicans voted against the House bill that for it!!!

That was his opinion. The other republicans wanted to show a vote for the original bill. They don't believe the American people are as savy as Cruz makes out. The dumbo crats like you would have claimed they voted for obama care.

 

[P@triot]

You're something else.

Yes I am. You on the other hand, are typical, I hope that makes you feel better.

It really does.

Because typical here..is a grade higher..

You don't seem to know the most rudimentary rules about the congress.

Oh...my...God! Really [MENTION=25283]Sallow[/MENTION]? Really? The same fuck'n idiot who thought the Constitution was not the LAW but was "just a guideline" for legislators? Who was so fuck'n ignorant (not to mention lazy) that she made this claim not once but three times in the same thread?

Swallow - I've already proven over and over that you don't know a single basic thing about your government and how it functions. Please shut the fuck up already and stop humiliating yourself.

[MENTION=43831]RKMBrown[/MENTION] - here is Swallow proving his ignorance to the world. I think you'll enjoy this...CLICK HERE

 

[RKMBrown]

Yes I am. You on the other hand, are typical, I hope that makes you feel better.

It really does.

Because typical here..is a grade higher..

You don't seem to know the most rudimentary rules about the congress.

Oh...my...God! Really [MENTION=25283]Sallow[/MENTION]? Really? The same fuck'n idiot who thought the Constitution was not the LAW but was "just a guideline" for legislators? Who was so fuck'n ignorant (not to mention lazy) that she made this claim not once but three times in the same thread?

Swallow - I've already proven over and over that you don't know a single basic thing about your government and how it functions. Please shut the fuck up already and stop humiliating yourself.

[MENTION=43831]RKMBrown[/MENTION] - here is Swallow proving his ignorance to the world. I think you'll enjoy this...CLICK HERE

To be fair, our system is a bit complicated for the simple minded to grasp.

 

[Faun]

No it would not have been voted on sooner, it was voted on at the scheduled time, and no what Cruz did was not a filibuster. Any other stupid comments you want to pull out of your ass?

Both Cruz and your MessiahRushie called it a filibuster. Look at the headline he gave it when Cruz came on his show!

Senator Cruz Continues the Filibuster on EIB
September 25, 2013

CRUZ: Well, look, Rush, I understand that frustration. It's why I think in many ways the central issue that we were trying to focus on in the filibuster was not the continuing resolution.

Cruz wanted the republicans to filibuster, the senate minority leader refused. What Cruz did was not a filibuster. When Cruz talked about focusing on a filibuster he was talking about what he wanted to have happen, that the republicans said no to.

Umm, if it wasn't a filibuster ... why was there a cloture vote to end it?

Of course it was a filibuster.