Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

no debate for you!

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Guess Who
    replied
    Originally posted by cutthemdown View Post
    It's true the liberal media running the debates is a joke. Repubs are smart to do this if they want to try and win.
    The "liberal media" had nothing to do with this. These idiots made just as big a fools of themselves on the Fox debates as they did on any other network.

    It is a smart move I will agree with you on that. The less time they spend answering tough questions the better off they will be.

    This will hurt Rand Paul but it will mostly hurt other Republicans that will not be able to raise lots of money without the exposure of the debates like Santorium and Huckaby. The Republican establishment will do everything they can to get the nomination to Bush and NOT to Paul. They do not like Paul and this will hurt his chances.
    Last edited by Guess Who; 05-14-2014, 11:42 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • barryr
    replied
    Liberals only complain with "blocking" when their democrats are in the WH and have a majority. Otherwise, it's just good politics.

    Leave a comment:


  • BroncoBeavis
    replied
    Originally posted by Rigs11 View Post
    who is switching topics? if you want to lower the number because they got nominated in the end, while ignoring the wasted time in congress, go ahead. what is your definition of "blocked?
    Ahhh, we're back to worrying about the "Why Pass a Budget?" Senate's precious time.

    Leave a comment:


  • Rigs11
    replied
    Originally posted by BroncoBeavis View Post
    Ah, the classic "I've been beclowned so let's switch topics" gambit.

    As for Reid's math, which Congrats, got only 2 pinocchios here...

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...ered-nominees/

    How many of those 86 blocks under "all other presidents" were really just done to Bush?
    who is switching topics? if you want to lower the number because they got nominated in the end, while ignoring the wasted time in congress, go ahead. what is your definition of "blocked?

    Leave a comment:


  • BroncoBeavis
    replied
    Originally posted by Rigs11 View Post
    spouting rubbish as usual. try again.

    "In the history of the United States, 168 presidential nominees have been filibustered, 82 blocked under President Obama, 86 blocked under all the other presidents."

    As Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., was about to execute the "nuclear option" -- changing the chamber’s rules to eliminate a 60-vote supermajority for executive nominations -- his office released a graphic designed to show how Senate Republicans had used filibusters to target a disproportionate number of President Barack Obama’s nominees.

    The graphic -- which quickly went viral among Democrats using social media -- showed a pie chart with the following caption. "In the history of the United States, 168 presidential nominees have been filibustered, 82 blocked under President Obama, 86 blocked under all the other presidents."

    Reid’s graphic said that "in the history of the United States, 168 presidential nominees have been filibustered, 82 blocked under President Obama, 86 blocked under all the other presidents."

    The figures are solidly sourced to the Congressional Research Service, but the graphic’s wording was wrong -- an error that Reid’s office acknowledged after we contacted them, and for which they released a corrected version of the graphic. Meanwhile, the question of how many pre-Obama presidents should be included is a bit murkier. The CRS report doesn’t incorporate data prior to 1949, but there’s evidence that blocked nominations were rare to nonexistent before that.

    Since the revised numbers actually increase the accuracy of Reid's underlying point -- that blockages under Obama have accounted for a disproportionate share of those undertaken in United States history -- we rate the claim Mostly True.

    http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...ees-have-been/
    Ah, the classic "I've been beclowned so let's switch topics" gambit.

    As for Reid's math, which Congrats, got only 2 pinocchios here...

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...ered-nominees/

    How many of those 86 blocks under "all other presidents" were really just done to Bush?

    Leave a comment:


  • Rigs11
    replied
    Originally posted by BroncoBeavis View Post
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...ver-400-times/



    It's a bull**** line you kids have been flinging around for years.
    spouting rubbish as usual. try again.

    "In the history of the United States, 168 presidential nominees have been filibustered, 82 blocked under President Obama, 86 blocked under all the other presidents."

    As Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., was about to execute the "nuclear option" -- changing the chamber’s rules to eliminate a 60-vote supermajority for executive nominations -- his office released a graphic designed to show how Senate Republicans had used filibusters to target a disproportionate number of President Barack Obama’s nominees.

    The graphic -- which quickly went viral among Democrats using social media -- showed a pie chart with the following caption. "In the history of the United States, 168 presidential nominees have been filibustered, 82 blocked under President Obama, 86 blocked under all the other presidents."

    Reid’s graphic said that "in the history of the United States, 168 presidential nominees have been filibustered, 82 blocked under President Obama, 86 blocked under all the other presidents."

    The figures are solidly sourced to the Congressional Research Service, but the graphic’s wording was wrong -- an error that Reid’s office acknowledged after we contacted them, and for which they released a corrected version of the graphic. Meanwhile, the question of how many pre-Obama presidents should be included is a bit murkier. The CRS report doesn’t incorporate data prior to 1949, but there’s evidence that blocked nominations were rare to nonexistent before that.

    Since the revised numbers actually increase the accuracy of Reid's underlying point -- that blockages under Obama have accounted for a disproportionate share of those undertaken in United States history -- we rate the claim Mostly True.

    http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...ees-have-been/

    Leave a comment:


  • BroncoBeavis
    replied
    Originally posted by B-Large View Post
    always the "liberal media"

    Had nothing to do with a Presidential Candidate essentially saying 47% of the people in the US and useless takers... or how he was going to cut spending by elimating loopholes, but was unwilling to be specific about which ones...

    The R's lost because their campaign was dark, cold, negative and lacked any kind of hope or optimism.

    But I am sure it was the "Liberal Media"
    I agree with most of this. Except the part about "more specifics"

    Campaigns are always by and large 99.9% Candy Canes and Unicorn Rainbows. The other .1% is mostly just bull****.

    Obama was a connoisseur of lofty words and platitudes on his way to the top. But whenever he did get specific, it was pretty much always just untrue (at least once measured up against his actual Presidency)

    Leave a comment:


  • B-Large
    replied
    always the "liberal media"

    Had nothing to do with a Presidential Candidate essentially saying 47% of the people in the US and useless takers... or how he was going to cut spending by elimating loopholes, but was unwilling to be specific about which ones...

    The R's lost because their campaign was dark, cold, negative and lacked any kind of hope or optimism.

    But I am sure it was the "Liberal Media"

    Leave a comment:


  • cutthemdown
    replied
    What dems did is realize that a huge segment of the population didn't understand how Congress works.

    They have young voters thinking republicans made up the fillibuster, like it was never a tool before.

    Hopefully the repubs get enough power in Congress to make the dems fillibuster, vote not to end debate, and even some vetos maybe. It will be good for the young voters to see how both parties approach being the minority.

    Obama does just lie and say whatever he wants. But as we get closer and closer to his terms ending the media will start to report on it more and more.

    Leave a comment:


  • BroncoBeavis
    replied
    Originally posted by Rigs11 View Post
    yeah his number was off. care to post the real number or are you gonna hide all day?
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...ver-400-times/

    If you want to measure the extent of “blocking” in the Senate, you first need to look at the number of actual votes on cloture. That adds up to 309 since 2007. Then you have to look at figure for “cloture invoked,” which means that the Democrats prevailed in a vote. That adds up to 189 — a success rate for the Democrats of better than 60 percent.
    Subtracting 189 from 309, that means 120 Senate actions have been blocked during McConnell’s tenure as minority leader.

    By contrast, during the eight years that Tom Daschle (D-S.D.) was minority leader (not counting a brief period in 2001), here’s how the statistics work out. There were 210 votes in that period, and cloture was invoked 67 times. Thus Democrats blocked 143 actions in that period–meaning the Republican majority had a success rate of only 32 percent.
    It's a bull**** line you kids have been flinging around for years.

    Leave a comment:


  • Rigs11
    replied
    Originally posted by BroncoBeavis View Post
    What should I look up? How hard your guys work to earn Four Pinocchios inflating filibuster counts?

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/politi...e11_story.html

    Obama busted for false facts on Republicans’ filibusters
    yeah his number was off. care to post the real number or are you gonna hide all day?

    Leave a comment:


  • BroncoBeavis
    replied
    Originally posted by Rigs11 View Post
    lookup the number of filibusters by the repubs and come back and post the number.
    What should I look up? How hard your guys work to earn Four Pinocchios inflating filibuster counts?

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/politi...e11_story.html

    Obama busted for false facts on Republicans’ filibusters

    Leave a comment:


  • Rigs11
    replied
    Originally posted by BroncoBeavis View Post
    So it's ok for the Senate to take a smoke/pancake break because the House won't pass it anyway. But the House should be doing all sorts of fixing of everything because... because.

    Epic sensemaking skills you have there.
    lookup the number of filibusters by the repubs and come back and post the number.

    Leave a comment:


  • BroncoBeavis
    replied
    Originally posted by Rigs11 View Post
    pass a budget that will stall in the house until the rich get taxed less?
    So it's ok for the Senate to take a smoke/pancake break because the House won't pass it anyway. But the House should be doing all sorts of fixing of everything because... because.

    Epic sensemaking skills you have there.

    Leave a comment:


  • Rigs11
    replied
    Originally posted by BroncoBeavis View Post
    pass a budget that will stall in the house until the rich get taxed less?

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X