Printable View
No you are completely wrong about everything. I could, unlike you have done so far, provide supporting materials.. but I don't really care that much. Besides changing your mind would cause a rip in the time space continuum resulting in a total protonic reversal.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loyal Rogue
TallGuyLargeCollidor?Quote:
Originally Posted by TallGuyLittleCar
you've been talking to some of my ex-girlfriends?
great, now the LHC has lost all meaning to me.
Man, what did I say that got your panties in such a bunch?!?Quote:
Originally Posted by TallGuyLittleCar
I don't know what you think I'm wrong about, but if you're *****ing about me not providing any reading material...
GOP May Target Use of Filibuster
Senate Republicans' Bid to Destroy the Filibuster Option, And Push Through Ultraconservative Federal Judges:Quote:
Republicans say that Democrats have abused the filibuster by blocking 10 of the president's 229 judicial nominees in his first term -- although confirmation of Bush nominees exceeds in most cases the first-term experience of presidents dating to Ronald Reagan. Describing the filibusters as intolerable, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) has hinted he may resort to an unusual parliamentary maneuver, dubbed the "nuclear option," to thwart such filibusters.
It Seems Likely the "Nuclear Option" Actually Will Be Used
Senate tied in knots by filibustersQuote:
Toward this goal, Senate Republicans - now enjoying a 55-45 majority due to the 2004 election -- are campaigning to end filibustering of such nominations. This would require a Senate rule change - an option that is referred to candidly as the "nuclear option" and euphemistically (by Republicans) as "the constitutional option." If such a change is sought, it will likely happen when one or more of Bush's pending judicial nominees return to the Senate floor this month
Wash. Post reported Republican claim of "do-nothing" Congress, ignored GOP "obstructionist" strategyQuote:
This year Senate Republicans are threatening filibusters to block more legislation than ever before...
Seven months into the current two-year term, the Senate has held 42 "cloture" votes aimed at shutting off extended debate — filibusters, or sometimes only the threat of one — and moving to up-or-down votes on contested legislation. Under Senate rules that protect a minority's right to debate, these votes require a 60-vote supermajority in the 100-member Senate.
Democrats have trouble mustering 60 votes; they've fallen short 22 times so far this year. That's largely why they haven't been able to deliver on their campaign promises.
Nearly 1 in 6 roll-call votes in the Senate this year have been cloture votes. If this pace of blocking legislation continues, this 110th Congress will be on track to roughly triple the previous record number of cloture votes — 58 each in the two Congresses from 1999-2002, according to the Senate Historical Office.
I don't need you to waste your time searching out supporting material since you don't care, but just point me in the right direction and tell me exactly what I'm wrong about and I'll go do the research and if I'm wrong, I'll say I'm wrong.Quote:
In a July 30 article discussing a recent Washington Post/ABC News poll, Post staff writer Jonathan Weisman wrote that negative congressional approval ratings "have buoyed Republicans as they attack what they call a Democratic 'Post Office Congress' -- unable to accomplish much more than renaming federal buildings" and that "[o]ne GOP tactic is to slap a 'do-nothing' label on Democrats." Weisman went on to quote Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) claiming that Democrats have "apparently squandered whatever political capital they may have achieved with the American people last November the 7th in a record short period of time." But while Weisman noted that Democrats "have passed half" of their "6 for '06" domestic legislative agenda, he left out the role of Senate Republicans in blocking Democratic initiatives, which they have done at an unprecedented rate -- apparently as part of what Senate Minority Whip Trent Lott (R-MS) has described as an "obstructionist" strategy.
^ flip flopper.
http://www.hoax-slayer.com/images/flip-flop-rash2.jpgQuote:
Originally Posted by jAQUAN
It'll cause a rash!
Wtf!?
As much as I'd love to see you spontaneously collapse into a black hole, TGLC, there's really only one part of that that he may be off on:Quote:
Originally Posted by TallGuyLittleCar
I don't believe the nuke option was ever suggested outside the confines of the judicial nominations.Quote:
...Meaning if the dems decided to filibuster any republican bills...
You're right, I was overly broad in my words.
The judicial nominees was certainly the trigger for that threat to be put on the table, but once that threat was in the open there was nothing (except the "gang of 14") to stop the Repubs from hanging that threat over the Dems heads for any future legislation.
We can only speculate about what effect that had on the following deals and arm-twisting on the floor.
Just another reason why Ron Paul will be a front runner in 2012.
He predicted this 5 years ago.
http://blog.freeny.org/?p=3548Quote:
Ironically, by transferring the risk of a widespread mortgage default, the government increases the likelihood of a painful crash in the housing market. This is because the special privileges granted to Fannie and Freddie have distorted the housing market by allowing them to attract capital they could not attract under pure market conditions.
Anybody else catching the bickering between Barney Frank and Bush over this?
Chuck Baldwin might not be a wasted vote after all. :thumbsup:Quote:
Originally Posted by jAQUAN
more waste is arguable.. and technically we had larger debt during FDR's / truman's administration.. but there were a few circumstances that makes that a very very poor comparison.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loyal Rogue
We are also within a few percentage points of Clintons first term debt
...and about 11% higher than his second.Quote:
Originally Posted by TallGuyLittleCar
You mean when he had that evil obstructionist congress ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by japangreg
11% is a projecting.. which are usually rounded down
That's correct. He made a tax increase that affected his first term and a tax cut that affected the second.Quote:
Originally Posted by japangreg
Interesting, no?
Interesting too that our current employment situation took a turn for the worse right when the minimum wage hike took effect.