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.
You are more full of shit than a septic tank!
Fine, prove us wrong then. Show us where a sitting Senator or Congressman questioned McCain's or Bush's record. Provide examples that are on par with "you lie" being shouted during a SOFU address. Show us in history where a cabinet appointment has been filibustered. Hell, show me a time in history where a President's appointments have been filibustered at the rate President Obama's has.
Just off the top of my head there were TWO Democratic filibusters of Bush II Cabinet nominees.
2006, when the Senate had to get 60 votes for a cloture motion to force a final vote on President George W. Bush's choice for Interior Secretary, Dirk Kempthorne, and for EPA nominee Stephen Johnson.
1989, when ex-Sen. John Tower was defeated in his bid to become Defense Secretary for the first President Bush.
Also, Democrats forced Republicans to get 60 votes on Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito.
I consider $375 million a day obscene. That's just me though, I'm sure others have a different obscene level.
They shouldn't get to write off anything if they are making a profit. I don't get to collect welfare since I have a job that "makes a profit". They should be the same.
You just don't get it. How much do they have to spend every day to make 375 M ?
like I said, you get carried away with the zeros and ignore the %.
If not for the write offs, the price of gas would be higher. Those were given by congress to encourage energy exploration. Why is that a bad thing?
Now see, there you go. I don't think write offs for energy exploration is such a bad thing. Why do the Republicans want to STOP these "write offs" for green energy exploration while keeping them in place for big oil?
"Eradicating subsidies to fossil fuels would enhance energy security, reduce emissions of greenhouse gases and air pollution, and bring economic benefits," said the IEA, the energy watchdog to 28 industrialized countries, in its annual World Energy Outlook. The report estimated such subsidies at $312 billion in 2009, mostly in developing countries, compared with $57 billion in subsidies for renewable energy.
President Obama has recently called for a similar action for U.S. fossil fuel subsidies. For decades, tax breaks and federal incentives have been a boon to the U.S. fossil fuels industry. Numbers compiled by the Environmental Law Institute reveal that those figures totaled $72 billion between 2002 and 2008about $10 billion annually. Figures from the Washington-based nonprofit Oil Change International, put annual U.S. subsidies of these mature technologies somewhere between $6 billion and $39 billion annually, depending on what is included in the count.
US Republicans Propose "Inexplicable" Cuts to Renewable Energy
Why not shift some of those incentives to alternative energy solutions?
I've had the pleasure of reading this thread and one thing comes to mind about the new Senator from Texas and several others too both Democrat and Repbulican, and that is calling into question the honor and patriotism of any man or woman who carries the scares of defending this nation when they themselves didn't bother to pick up a weapon to defend the nation they call home is somewhat suspect. In the Senator from Texas case, I fail to understand what would quailify him given the fact he has never worn the uniform his country to actually be in a position to question this nations candidate for SecDef. other that being voted into office. While yes that gives him the ability to select a person based on his vote, but it DOES not quailfy him to question a man who has served in combat and worn the uniform of his country when he himself did not have the honor and courage to do the same. The same can be said for any number of people in congress both Republican and Democrat, past and present.
Really? so only those who have been in the military should be allowed to vote. Cruz is doing the job he was elected to do---represent the people of his state. If they don't like what he has done and said, they can vote him out next time.
Personally, I am glad when anyone in congress dares to challenge the establishment. We need more of that, not more sheep blindly following the failed leadership.
Fine, prove us wrong then. Show us where a sitting Senator or Congressman questioned McCain's or Bush's record. Provide examples that are on par with "you lie" being shouted during a SOFU address. Show us in history where a cabinet appointment has been filibustered. Hell, show me a time in history where a President's appointments have been filibustered at the rate President Obama's has.
Just off the top of my head there were TWO Democratic filibusters of Bush II Cabinet nominees.
2006, when the Senate had to get 60 votes for a cloture motion to force a final vote on President George W. Bush's choice for Interior Secretary, Dirk Kempthorne, and for EPA nominee Stephen Johnson.
1989, when ex-Sen. John Tower was defeated in his bid to become Defense Secretary for the first President Bush.
Also, Democrats forced Republicans to get 60 votes on Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito.
This is the first time in history that a cabinet member has been successfully filibustered. I think that's why they are calling it "historic" and "unprecedented". Both words that have been used frequently when describing GOP opposition to this President.
Not hardly. And definitely not once he became POTUS. This is all new territory. Never in US history has such blatant disrespect been shown to a President or his appointees by another branch of the federal government.
You are more full of shit than a septic tank!
no shit...I don't see anyone camping out and shitting in the bushes on Obama's property..or rushing up on the Sec. of State with fake blood on their hands
these Obamabots want everyone to forget how disrespectful these people were with Bush and whine how it's so much worse with the poor Dear Leader..
I've had the pleasure of reading this thread and one thing comes to mind about the new Senator from Texas and several others too both Democrat and Repbulican, and that is calling into question the honor and patriotism of any man or woman who carries the scares of defending this nation when they themselves didn't bother to pick up a weapon to defend the nation they call home is somewhat suspect. In the Senator from Texas case, I fail to understand what would quailify him given the fact he has never worn the uniform his country to actually be in a position to question this nations candidate for SecDef. other that being voted into office. While yes that gives him the ability to select a person based on his vote, but it DOES not quailfy him to question a man who has served in combat and worn the uniform of his country when he himself did not have the honor and courage to do the same. The same can be said for any number of people in congress both Republican and Democrat, past and present.
Really? so only those who have been in the military should be allowed to vote. Cruz is doing the job he was elected to do---represent the people of his state. If they don't like what he has done and said, they can vote him out next time.
Personally, I am glad when anyone in congress dares to challenge the establishment. We need more of that, not more sheep blindly following the failed leadership.
If you had bothered to read what I posted rather than have a childish fit and "neg" rep me, then you would have been able to comprehend what I posted. What I posted is simple, while the Sen. Does has the right and the ability to vote for any selectee for SecDef. it DOES NOT quailfy him to call into question the honor of someone who has worn the uniform of this nation and has the scars to prove when he himself did not have the courage to do so. Has nothing to do whatsoever with his ability to be a Senator. It's rather like me trying to call into question the ability of someone who drill for oil when I know nothing about oil drilling , even though I was appointed to the board of an oil drilling board.
You just don't get it. How much do they have to spend every day to make 375 M ?
like I said, you get carried away with the zeros and ignore the %.
If not for the write offs, the price of gas would be higher. Those were given by congress to encourage energy exploration. Why is that a bad thing?
Now see, there you go. I don't think write offs for energy exploration is such a bad thing. Why do the Republicans want to STOP these "write offs" for green energy exploration while keeping them in place for big oil?
"Eradicating subsidies to fossil fuels would enhance energy security, reduce emissions of greenhouse gases and air pollution, and bring economic benefits," said the IEA, the energy watchdog to 28 industrialized countries, in its annual World Energy Outlook. The report estimated such subsidies at $312 billion in 2009, mostly in developing countries, compared with $57 billion in subsidies for renewable energy.
President Obama has recently called for a similar action for U.S. fossil fuel subsidies. For decades, tax breaks and federal incentives have been a boon to the U.S. fossil fuels industry. Numbers compiled by the Environmental Law Institute reveal that those figures totaled $72 billion between 2002 and 2008about $10 billion annually. Figures from the Washington-based nonprofit Oil Change International, put annual U.S. subsidies of these mature technologies somewhere between $6 billion and $39 billion annually, depending on what is included in the count.
US Republicans Propose "Inexplicable" Cuts to Renewable Energy
Why not shift some of those incentives to alternative energy solutions?
I agree that we should be looking for energy alternatives, but they need to be viable ones. We don't need more Solyndra's where we wasted half a billion to get some votes for obama.
Do you agree with subsidies (yes subsidies) for ethanol production? Why not let private enterprise work on energy solutions with a profit motive? There would be no ethanol produced if the govt was not subsidizing it. Brazil realized that and they are now going back to oil. Ethanol production caused food prices to go sky high, was destroying engines, and polluting as much or more than oil.
Fine, prove us wrong then. Show us where a sitting Senator or Congressman questioned McCain's or Bush's record. Provide examples that are on par with "you lie" being shouted during a SOFU address. Show us in history where a cabinet appointment has been filibustered. Hell, show me a time in history where a President's appointments have been filibustered at the rate President Obama's has.
Just off the top of my head there were TWO Democratic filibusters of Bush II Cabinet nominees.
2006, when the Senate had to get 60 votes for a cloture motion to force a final vote on President George W. Bush's choice for Interior Secretary, Dirk Kempthorne, and for EPA nominee Stephen Johnson.
1989, when ex-Sen. John Tower was defeated in his bid to become Defense Secretary for the first President Bush.
Also, Democrats forced Republicans to get 60 votes on Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito.
This is the first time in history that a cabinet member has been successfully filibustered. I think that's why they are calling it "historic" and "unprecedented". Both words that have been used frequently when describing GOP opposition to this President.
Just off the top of my head there were TWO Democratic filibusters of Bush II Cabinet nominees.
2006, when the Senate had to get 60 votes for a cloture motion to force a final vote on President George W. Bush's choice for Interior Secretary, Dirk Kempthorne, and for EPA nominee Stephen Johnson.
1989, when ex-Sen. John Tower was defeated in his bid to become Defense Secretary for the first President Bush.
Also, Democrats forced Republicans to get 60 votes on Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito.
This is the first time in history that a cabinet member has been successfully filibustered. I think that's why they are calling it "historic" and "unprecedented". Both words that have been used frequently when describing GOP opposition to this President.
Good, congress is doing its job. Obama and his ideas are wrong for the country.
Just off the top of my head there were TWO Democratic filibusters of Bush II Cabinet nominees.
2006, when the Senate had to get 60 votes for a cloture motion to force a final vote on President George W. Bush's choice for Interior Secretary, Dirk Kempthorne, and for EPA nominee Stephen Johnson.
1989, when ex-Sen. John Tower was defeated in his bid to become Defense Secretary for the first President Bush.
Also, Democrats forced Republicans to get 60 votes on Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito.
This is the first time in history that a cabinet member has been successfully filibustered. I think that's why they are calling it "historic" and "unprecedented". Both words that have been used frequently when describing GOP opposition to this President.
Good, congress is doing its job. Obama and his ideas are wrong for the country.
West Virginia Senator Jay Rockefeller, on John McCain in 2008, "What happened when they [the missiles] get to the ground?" he asked. "He doesn't know. You have to care about the lives of people. McCain never gets into those issues."
This is the first time in history that a cabinet member has been successfully filibustered. I think that's why they are calling it "historic" and "unprecedented". Both words that have been used frequently when describing GOP opposition to this President.
Good, congress is doing its job. Obama and his ideas are wrong for the country.
No, the Republicans in the Senate are abusing the use of the filibuster. They've been doing it for 4 going on 5 years. It has nothing to do with Obama's "ideas" They don't give a crap about them. They could be all for his ideas and still attempt to obstruct him. It's all political.
The proof of that lies in the fact that if Romney was President and appointed Chuck Hagel for Sec of Defense, he'd sail through the confirmation hearings.
Deny that, but make sure you provide a basis for your reasoning, if you can.
Just off the top of my head there were TWO Democratic filibusters of Bush II Cabinet nominees.
2006, when the Senate had to get 60 votes for a cloture motion to force a final vote on President George W. Bush's choice for Interior Secretary, Dirk Kempthorne, and for EPA nominee Stephen Johnson.
1989, when ex-Sen. John Tower was defeated in his bid to become Defense Secretary for the first President Bush.
Also, Democrats forced Republicans to get 60 votes on Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito.
This is the first time in history that a cabinet member has been successfully filibustered. I think that's why they are calling it "historic" and "unprecedented". Both words that have been used frequently when describing GOP opposition to this President.
Did you miss this sentence, Seawytch??
1989, when ex-Sen. John Tower was defeated in his bid to become Defense Secretary for the first President Bush.
This is the first time in history that a cabinet member has been successfully filibustered. I think that's why they are calling it "historic" and "unprecedented". Both words that have been used frequently when describing GOP opposition to this President.
Good, congress is doing its job. Obama and his ideas are wrong for the country.
Well summbitch....must be why he was re-elected in an Electoral landslide then.
Congress has an approval rating hovering between head lice and cockroaches. You really think blocking everything that the very popular president wants to do is a good course of action?
This is the first time in history that a cabinet member has been successfully filibustered. I think that's why they are calling it "historic" and "unprecedented". Both words that have been used frequently when describing GOP opposition to this President.
Did you miss this sentence, Seawytch??
1989, when ex-Sen. John Tower was defeated in his bid to become Defense Secretary for the first President Bush.
The Senate rejected the nomination, 53-47. That means it came up for an actual vote. That's not the same as a filibuster.
This is the first time in history that a cabinet member has been successfully filibustered. I think that's why they are calling it "historic" and "unprecedented". Both words that have been used frequently when describing GOP opposition to this President.
Did you miss this sentence, Seawytch??
1989, when ex-Sen. John Tower was defeated in his bid to become Defense Secretary for the first President Bush.
The Senate rejected the nomination, 53-47. That means it came up for an actual vote. That's not the same as a filibuster.
This is the first time in history that a cabinet member has been successfully filibustered. I think that's why they are calling it "historic" and "unprecedented". Both words that have been used frequently when describing GOP opposition to this President.
Good, congress is doing its job. Obama and his ideas are wrong for the country.
Well summbitch....must be why he was re-elected in an Electoral landslide then.
Congress has an approval rating hovering between head lice and cockroaches. You really think blocking everything that the very popular president wants to do is a good course of action?
I consider $375 million a day obscene. That's just me though, I'm sure others have a different obscene level.
They shouldn't get to write off anything if they are making a profit. I don't get to collect welfare since I have a job that "makes a profit". They should be the same.
You just don't get it. How much do they have to spend every day to make 375 M ?
like I said, you get carried away with the zeros and ignore the %.
If not for the write offs, the price of gas would be higher. Those were given by congress to encourage energy exploration. Why is that a bad thing?
Now see, there you go. I don't think write offs for energy exploration is such a bad thing. Why do the Republicans want to STOP these "write offs" for green energy exploration while keeping them in place for big oil?
"Eradicating subsidies to fossil fuels would enhance energy security, reduce emissions of greenhouse gases and air pollution, and bring economic benefits," said the IEA, the energy watchdog to 28 industrialized countries, in its annual World Energy Outlook. The report estimated such subsidies at $312 billion in 2009, mostly in developing countries, compared with $57 billion in subsidies for renewable energy.
President Obama has recently called for a similar action for U.S. fossil fuel subsidies. For decades, tax breaks and federal incentives have been a boon to the U.S. fossil fuels industry. Numbers compiled by the Environmental Law Institute reveal that those figures totaled $72 billion between 2002 and 2008about $10 billion annually. Figures from the Washington-based nonprofit Oil Change International, put annual U.S. subsidies of these mature technologies somewhere between $6 billion and $39 billion annually, depending on what is included in the count.
US Republicans Propose "Inexplicable" Cuts to Renewable Energy
Why not shift some of those incentives to alternative energy solutions?
Did you miss this sentence, Seawytch??
1989, when ex-Sen. John Tower was defeated in his bid to become Defense Secretary for the first President Bush.
The Senate rejected the nomination, 53-47. That means it came up for an actual vote. That's not the same as a filibuster.
Glad to see I got your attention. Now would you care to focus on the TWO Bush II nominees who were filibustered in 2006?
