• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Obama State of the Union

Catawba You chart shows it took off as of 1996-2006 that was under Bush. democrats were filibustering even judges. They set the precedent

What difference does it make who set the precedent? You don;'t know history too well, I think.

"The term filibuster was first used in 1851. It was derived from the Spanish filibustero meaning pirate or freebooter. This term had evolved from the French word flibustier, which itself evolved from the Dutch vrijbuiter (freebooter). This term was applied at the time to American adventurers, mostly from Southern states, who sought to overthrow the governments of Central American states, and was transferred to the users of the filibuster, seen as a tactic for pirating or hijacking debate.[1]"
 
The evidence is that Obama wasn't in office in 2007-08 thus there is no way the GOP Could have made your statement true



What am I missing here, you posted the chart that went to 2008 then blamed the Republicans for unprecedented number of filibusters in a year when Bush was in the WH.

Then in 2009 Obama had a filibuster proof Senate therefore again your statement is invalid so not sure what your point is. Obama cannot even sell his own Party.

We seem to be stuck on repeat here. I've already provided the number of filibusters in 2009 ~

"Likewise, the public also doesn't realize that abuse has gotten completely out of control -- from 1949 to 1970, there were 30 cloture votes. In just 2009, there were 39."

The Washington Monthly
 
There was nothing blocked by the Republicans, they didn't have the votes.

The Republican stalling tactics worked,therefore it was blocked,no need for a filibuster.The party of NO succeeded in blocking the bill without the need of a filibuster.
 
Last edited:
We seem to be stuck on repeat here. I've already provided the number of filibusters in 2009 ~

"Likewise, the public also doesn't realize that abuse has gotten completely out of control -- from 1949 to 1970, there were 30 cloture votes. In just 2009, there were 39."

The Washington Monthly

You posted the chart, read it again. It stops at the 110th Congress which had a huge spike and covers the years 2007-2008 when Bush was in office. The question is who filibustered in 2007-2008 and why wasn't that an issue for you?

Then you go to 2009, a time when the Republicans didn't have enough votes to filibuster anything, yet for some reason they are the ones you claimed blocked Obama with unprecedented filibusters. Republicans couldn't stop anything but the Democrats and Republicans together in a bipartisan way created the numbers you are so concerned about. By the way what legislation did they block that concerns you?
 
The Republican stalling tactics worked,therefore it was blocked,no need for a filibuster.The party of NO succeeded in blocking the bill without the need of a filibuster.

Nice spin, Obama couldn't hold his own party but the party with 40 votes saying now isn't any difference to what happened in 2007-2008 when Bush was in the WH and the Democrats were the party of no. How quickly you forget.
 
Nice spin, Obama couldn't hold his own party but the party with 40 votes saying now isn't any difference to what happened in 2007-2008 when Bush was in the WH and the Democrats were the party of no. How quickly you forget.

They gave bush his dirty little war. Weapons of Mass Destruction:fart:fart:fart
 
They gave bush his dirty little war. Weapons of Mass Destruction:fart:fart:fart

Good, now we are getting somewhere, Yes, Democrats voted overwhelmingly for the war having exactly the same intelligence as Bush had plus the knowledge that Saddam Hussein had violated very UN resolution which led to the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998.
 
You posted the chart, read it again. It stops at the 110th Congress which had a huge spike and covers the years 2007-2008 when Bush was in office. The question is who filibustered in 2007-2008 and why wasn't that an issue for you?

Then you go to 2009, a time when the Republicans didn't have enough votes to filibuster anything, yet for some reason they are the ones you claimed blocked Obama with unprecedented filibusters. Republicans couldn't stop anything but the Democrats and Republicans together in a bipartisan way created the numbers you are so concerned about.

You'll have to take that up with the Washington Monthly
where they state:
"Likewise, the public also doesn't realize that abuse has gotten completely out of control -- from 1949 to 1970, there were 30 cloture votes. In just 2009, there were 39."

Or, provide evidence their numbers are wrong.


They say there were By the way what legislation did they block that concerns you?

Block is your term, I said filibuster. Perhaps we need to review the definition of filibuster, because I think we are talking oranges and apples here ~

"A filibuster, or "speaking or talking out a bill", is a form of obstruction in a legislature or other decision-making body whereby one attempts to delay or entirely prevent a vote on a proposal by extending a debate on that proposal. A popular saying is "filibuster it to death!"
[ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filibuster]Filibuster - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]

Here are some that I thought were most critical ~

The Stimulus bill, Health Care Reform, energy bill to extend incentives for wind and solar and reduce some tax breaks for oil companies, and blocking a routine nomination to the National Labor Relations Board at a time of high unemployment.
 
Catawba;1058564281]
You'll have to take that up with the Washington Monthly
where they state:
"Likewise, the public also doesn't realize that abuse has gotten completely out of control -- from 1949 to 1970, there were 30 cloture votes. In just 2009, there were 39."

Or, provide evidence their numbers are wrong.

Who says they are wrong? What I am saying but you are ignoring is the FACT that the Republicans didn't have the votes to prevent cloture without Democrat support.

What I am also saying and you are ignoring is the chart you posted stops at 2008 and includes only the 2007-2008 Congress which was controlled by the Democrats with a Republican in the WH. Notice the large spike in that chart? Why would Republicans block legislation with a Republican President who could veto the legislation? What I believe happened was the Democrats blocked GOP legislation to keep Bush from signing it. Seems you don't have a problem with that happening.

Block is your term, I said filibuster. Perhaps we need to review the definition of filibuster, because I think we are talking oranges and apples here

"A filibuster, or "speaking or talking out a bill", is a form of obstruction in a legislature or other decision-making body whereby one attempts to delay or entirely prevent a vote on a proposal by extending a debate on that proposal. A popular saying is "filibuster it to death!"
Filibuster - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia~

A filibuster does block legislation from being brought to a vote thus it is blocked.

Here are some that I thought were most critical ~

The Stimulus bill, Health Care Reform, energy bill to extend incentives for wind and solar and reduce some tax breaks for oil companies, and blocking a routine nomination to the National Labor Relations Board at a time of high unemployment.

Again the Stimulus bill became law in January 2009 and has done nothing to create jobs as we are still losing jobs. The focus was on spending for pet Democrat constituent groups and growing the size of govt. not helping the private sector.

The Healthcare bill passed in the House and then the Senate on Christmas Eve so who filibustered those bills? Looks to me like you are confused about this entire issue and your problem is with the Democratic Party.
 
My mistake ,i didn't realize you were this eh,er,challenged; go back and read what i posted,perhaps you can get up to speed on what the thread is about.Just maybe with some luck,and if the stars are aligned just right you will succeed this time.:2wave:

Nice dodge
 
I don't ignore it, I note that it is dwarfed by the number of Republican filibusters.




Show me your evidence the chart is wrong.

You avoid the point the precedent started under Bush by democrats.

You also do not understand that the GOP can not filibuster Obama with 40 votes.
 
What difference does it make who set the precedent? You don;'t know history too well, I think.

"The term filibuster was first used in 1851. It was derived from the Spanish filibustero meaning pirate or freebooter. This term had evolved from the French word flibustier, which itself evolved from the Dutch vrijbuiter (freebooter). This term was applied at the time to American adventurers, mostly from Southern states, who sought to overthrow the governments of Central American states, and was transferred to the users of the filibuster, seen as a tactic for pirating or hijacking debate.[1]"

Democrats set the precedent of filibustering everything. That was the first for filibustering judges.

Deny it if you want but the democrats are reaping what they sowed.
 
We seem to be stuck on repeat here. I've already provided the number of filibusters in 2009 ~

"Likewise, the public also doesn't realize that abuse has gotten completely out of control -- from 1949 to 1970, there were 30 cloture votes. In just 2009, there were 39."

The Washington Monthly

In 2009 when the democrats were filibuster proof. Your point makes no sense.
 
In 2009 when the democrats were filibuster proof. Your point makes no sense.

I don't get it either. Doesn't make any sense to post a chart that shows filibusters highest in 2008 when Bush was in the WH, not Obama and when the Democrats controlled Congress and weren't going to give Bush anything thus it was Democrats that prevented the Republicans from getting any legislation to Bush for signature. Democrats were more concerned about regaining the WH than they were doing their job in working for the American taxpayers.

As for 2009, again the argument makes no sense since Republicans couldn't stop any legislation. That doesn't stop the Democrats from making the claim though which apparently some here are buying as they ignore the actual facts. Republicans with 40 votes couldn't stop anything so this whole argument is ridiculous and the facts destroy the claim that Republicans are stopping the Obama agenda. It is the Democrats that are tired of the leftwing loons trying to shift this center right country to the far left.
 
Nice spin,
docpage-greggob1.jpg


Hardly spin.:2wave:


Obama couldn't hold his own party but the party with 40 votes saying now isn't any difference to what happened in 2007-2008 when Bush was in the WH and the Democrats were the party of no. How quickly you forget.

Whats this babbling about 2007-2008 have to do with anything that we are discussing? :roll:
 
Nice dodge

Well, looks like conservatives mini-me has sobered up....for the time being anyway. :2wave:


Still waiting for a link or anything to back your claim up.:roll:
 
docpage-greggob1.jpg


Hardly spin.:2wave:




Whats this babbling about 2007-2008 have to do with anything that we are discussing? :roll:

So what bill passed in the Senate on Christmas Eve 2009? You haven't a clue as to what you are talking about. The GOP didn't have the votes to stop healthcare and thus didn't.

The bigger issue was the bribes to Democrats to get them to vote for the bill. GOP had 40 votes which would not stop the legislation.

Not exactly sure what your point is as the majority in this country today would have filibustered the Senate bill so tell me exactly what you are talking about and by all means stop the spinning and stop buying what you are being told about Republican being obstructionists. I am sure to be fair you were against what the Democrats did to Bush?
 
Conservative;

So what bill passed in the Senate on Christmas Eve 2009? You haven't a clue as to what you are talking about. The GOP didn't have the votes to stop healthcare and thus didn't.

The bigger issue was the bribes to Democrats to get them to vote for the bill. GOP had 40 votes which would not stop the legislation.

Not exactly sure what your point is as the majority in this country today would have filibustered the Senate bill so tell me exactly what you are talking about and by all means stop the spinning and stop buying what you are being told about Republican being obstructionists. I am sure to be fair you were against what the Democrats did to Bush?


From my post #578

donc

The Republican stalling tactics worked, therefore it was blocked, no need for a filibuster. The party of NO succeeded in blocking the bill without the need of a filibuster.


Which you replied in post#580

Nice spin, Obama couldn't hold his own party but the party with 40 votes saying now isn't any difference to what happened in 2007-2008 when Bush was in the WH and the Democrats were the party of no. How quickly you forget.


Notice my contention that the “The party of NO succeeded in blocking the bill without the need of a filibuster”. This knowledge will come in handy as we continue our odyssey down the rabbet hole.



From my post #590

Where I posted Sen.Judd Gregs memo, telling his colleagues in the senate how to delay the vote on healthcare. Therefore showing you proof that what I posted in post number #578 was not spin but documented fact that the intention of the Senate was to delay and stall the healthcare vote as long as they can and as I stated in post #578 “The party of NO succeeded in blocking the bill without the need of a filibuster”.

That brings us to post #592

Where you come back to this lame a** post
“So what bill passed in the Senate on Christmas Eve 2009? You haven't a clue as to what you are talking about. The GOP didn't have the votes to stop healthcare and thus didn't. ”

WTF is this supposed to mean, in context to what has been posted?

Man if you cant come up with something better than this lame a** attempt to deflect, just go on to the next of your 40+ post per day.Geesh…telling me that I haven’t a clue after that lame s…. :shock:
 
From my post #578




Which you replied in post#580




Notice my contention that the “The party of NO succeeded in blocking the bill without the need of a filibuster”. This knowledge will come in handy as we continue our odyssey down the rabbet hole.



From my post #590



That brings us to post #592

Where you come back to this lame a** post

WTF is this supposed to mean, in context to what has been posted?

Man if you cant come up with something better than this lame a** attempt to deflect, just go on to the next of your 40+ post per day.Geesh…telling me that I haven’t a clue after that lame s…. :shock:

You apparently don't have a clue as to what you are talking about, the BILL PASSED after Reid bribed two DEMOCRAT Senators.

This is just a hopeless cause with people like you especially those that are civic's challenged. Your comments are lame, the Republicans couldn't filibuster anything. The stalling tactics didn't stop the bill and there was no way the Republicans could filibuster the bill. Reid bribed Landreau and Nelson, DEMOCRATS!!!
 
You apparently don't have a clue as to what you are talking about, the BILL PASSED after Reid bribed two DEMOCRAT Senators.

This is just a hopeless cause with people like you especially those that are civic's challenged. Your comments are lame, the Republicans couldn't filibuster anything. The stalling tactics didn't stop the bill and there was no way the Republicans could filibuster the bill. Reid bribed Landreau and Nelson, DEMOCRATS!!!

Then why isn't that piece of s*** sitting on Obamas desk now waiting for his signature? :shock:
 
Then why isn't that piece of s*** sitting on Obamas desk now waiting for his signature? :shock:

Take a civics class, please! The House has a bill and the Senate has a Bill. Democrats in the House cannot agree with the Democrat bill in the Senate. It needs to be reconciled. The Senate Bill isn't as radical as the house bill and thus reconciliation isn't likely thus they will have to try again. This time the GOP Does have the votes to filibuster it and the American people don't want either the House or the Senate Bill.
 
Who says they are wrong? What I am saying but you are ignoring is the FACT that the Republicans didn't have the votes to prevent cloture without Democrat support.

What I am also saying and you are ignoring is the chart you posted stops at 2008 and includes only the 2007-2008 Congress which was controlled by the Democrats with a Republican in the WH. Notice the large spike in that chart? Why would Republicans block legislation with a Republican President who could veto the legislation? What I believe happened was the Democrats blocked GOP legislation to keep Bush from signing it. Seems you don't have a problem with that happening.

How would you interpret this article?
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2010_02/022363.php:

Or this?

Republican strategy: Filibuster everything, win in Nov.



Even conservatives admit this is what they are doing ~

"Sen. Lindsey Graham isn't willing to place all of the blame on Senate Republicans for the record number of filibusters in the 110th Congress.

On Fox News Sunday, Graham implied Majority Leader Harry Reid forced so many filibusters by allowing so many bills and refusing Republican amendments."
Lindsey Graham blames Reid for GOP’s record filibusters | Raw Story
A filibuster does block legislation from being brought to a vote thus it is blocked.

Only if you ignore the definition of filibuster also includes "attempts to delay."
 
Last edited:
Take a civics class, please! The House has a bill and the Senate has a Bill. Democrats in the House cannot agree with the Democrat bill in the Senate. It needs to be reconciled. The Senate Bill isn't as radical as the house bill and thus reconciliation isn't likely thus they will have to try again. This time the GOP Does have the votes to filibuster it and the American people don't want either the House or the Senate Bill.


Keep going Sherlock and you will eventually figure out what i have been trying to hammer into that hunk of granite on you shoulders for the last several post.:2wave: Now excuse me 24 is on.
 
How would you interpret this article?
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2010_02/022363.php:

Or this?

Republican strategy: Filibuster everything, win in Nov.



Even conservatives admit this is what they are doing ~

"Sen. Lindsey Graham isn't willing to place all of the blame on Senate Republicans for the record number of filibusters in the 110th Congress.

On Fox News Sunday, Graham implied Majority Leader Harry Reid forced so many filibusters by allowing so many bills and refusing Republican amendments."
Lindsey Graham blames Reid for GOP’s record filibusters | Raw Story


Only if you ignore the definition of filibuster also includes "attempts to delay."

I would consider that a strategy going forward but again having nothing to do with what you posted. Keep digging the hole deeper for yourself. What part of the GOP not filibustering Democratic Legislation in 2007-2008 do you not understand? Then what part of the GOP not having the votes to filibuster Democratic Legislation in 2009 after Specter defected do you not understand? I am not sure anyone understands the 110th vs the 111th Congress

If you cannot understand basic math then there really is no hope for you discussing or understanding other substantive topics
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom