• 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!

Ted Cruz launches faux filibuster as Senate readies spending bill vote

29yhz6s.jpg
 
greengirl77 said:
No you dont! and you havent in this thread when someone else called you out.
Click to expand...

I have given you the sites but you choose not to go there expecting me to provide the information again which you will just ignore. What are you afraid of? When you go to the Bureau of Labor Statistics site you will find that TX has a labor force of 12.8 million people and 12 million of them are working. of that work force 500,000 are making minimum wage which makes it about 4% of the labor force. Want to compare that to any other state? When you go to the California Labor site you will find that there are over 1.6 million workers making California minimum wage which is 8% of the 18 million labor force so please tell me which state is worse off?

Then regarding insurance, ask those sites where their information comes from you will find it comes from the U.S Census bureau and little research goes into it. If someone is uninsured there is no reason given, could be by choice, could be by ignorance, could be because they are self insured but regardless those sites you post recognize that their numbers are overstated.

You seem to only demand proof from conservatives and even when provided the proof you still want to believe the leftwing rhetoric. Why is that? Why such loyalty to a failed ideology
 
danarhea said:
Except that Cruz' filibuster, which technically was not a filibuster (confused yet? - LOL), lasted a little over an hour. What the hell was that? Was THAT the amount of time he was able to stand on his feet? Jesus!! I know people who stood in line for hours just to get an iPhone. Cruz - You are a *****. LOL.

Article is here.
Click to expand...
Heck, there are people who wait hours in line just to VOTE.
 
Conservative said:
You seem to only demand proof from conservatives and even when provided the proof you still want to believe the leftwing rhetoric. Why is that? Why such loyalty to a failed ideology
Click to expand...
You tell us. Conservatism has failed every time it's been tried.
 
CanadaJohn said:
Number one, I never said all the Tea Party candidates elected were "big mouths" or problems. In fact, I admire many if not pretty much all of them because they have stuck to the principles by which they were elected and stuck to the wishes of the constituents in their districts who sent them to Washington. Not all of them by any stretch are big mouth fools and it's foolish of you to take my comments about one Senator and extrapolate that over the entire Tea Party contingent in congress.

Number two, Republicans lost seats in the last election both in the House and in the Senate. Particularly, in the Senate, they lost multiple seats they should have won had they not primaried out viable candidates that had been proven winners and not primaried in unelectible buffoons in races where the Democrat candidate was easily defeatable. Missouri and the "preventable rape" ignoramous quickly comes to mind as an example.

Finally, if you don't realize that since 1994 the Republicans actually gained and then lost control of the Senate you've got no business telling me I don't know what I'm talking about. But you continue to find pride in "losing by less" in the past election. You're probably one of those great Republican minds who talks glowingly about Obama winning less of the vote in 2012 than he did in 2008 as if that's somehow a great accomplishment.
Click to expand...

These same Tea Party candidates that you claim to admire are the same ones that support the "big mouth Cruz" as you refer to him, in his efforts in the Senate.

Second, I was giving data from the 2010 midterm election, since you included the last two elections, and the data for that election proved your comments to be in error.

Third, the Republicans did not lose multiple seats as you exaggerate, they lost two. The data is in and says the base of the Republican party did not show up to vote in the last election because they are tired of the "elites" getting behind a candidate there is little difference between them and the Democrat. Romney and Romneycare? Seriously? What were they thinking? These yahoos went after Gingrich and Santorum with viciousness I have never seen before. Gingrich was actually ahead in the polls early on but because of folks like the great Karl Rove and Romney's elite support, the poison penned op ed pieces from Krauthammer to NRO hit the presses against Romney's opponents. Then to make sure their guy looked like he won the primary in Iowa, they hid the fact that Santorum won until AFTER the New Hampshire primary to give their guy Romney momentum. It all stunk to high heaven. And maybe if the Republican party allowed a stronger candidate that one could actually tell the difference between a Democrat and the Republican, most likely a lot more races especially in the Senate would have created a change in majority because a lot more of the base would have showed up to vote.
 
Last edited:
Comunitee.com said:
You tell us. Conservatism has failed every time it's been tried.
Click to expand...

Guess it is your definition of failure that is the problem because not many would consider the Obama results a success but then Obama could never be confused with a conservative. Reagan doubled GDP, grew tax revenue 60%, and created 17 million jobs. Liberals call that a failure
 
rocket88 said:
So doing the same thing makes it OK?
Click to expand...
Here? Yep. The notion that having been slapped for no good reason repeatedly should prompt turning the other cheek in political venues is for ******s. Or are you saying that the political left can dish it out, but shouldn't have to take it?
 
Conservative said:
Guess it is your definition of failure that is the problem because not many would consider the Obama results a success but then Obama could never be confused with a conservative. Reagan doubled GDP, grew tax revenue 60%, and created 17 million jobs. Liberals call that a failure
Click to expand...
Reagan brought unemployment to 11 percent in 1982. Knowing that he'd failed, he did what George W. refused to do 20 years later: He compromised with the Democratic leaders of Congress, and raised taxes. THAT is why the economy got better between 1983 and 1989. Reagan was frequently oblivious, but he wasn't stupid. He figured out when the things he did weren't working -- at home (taxes) and abroad (Beirut, his ramping-up of Cold War rhetoric).
 
raising taxes creates jobs
lawd these commies are whackadoodles
 
Comunitee.com said:
Reagan brought unemployment to 11 percent in 1982. Knowing that he'd failed, he did what George W. refused to do 20 years later: He compromised with the Democratic leaders of Congress, and raised taxes. THAT is why the economy got better between 1983 and 1989. Reagan was frequently oblivious, but he wasn't stupid. He figured out when the things he did weren't working -- at home (taxes) and abroad (Beirut, his ramping-up of Cold War rhetoric).
Click to expand...

Please don't go there as you aren't smart enough nor probably old enough to debate what Reagan did in the 80's. I could beat you up all day with actual data and facts but somehow doubt that you would even realize how foolish you are. Interesting how people like you always want to divert from the Obama performance and record to try and discuss something you don't understand and were probably too young to experience.
 
Comunitee.com said:
Conservatives talking about conscience is like priests talking about birth control.
Click to expand...

Ah, yes, another arrogant Easterner who thinks they have all the answers but the problem remains they can't even find the question.
 
Anthony60 said:
I think a little arrogance is required in this situation, especially since he is getting plenty of it right back at him from both sides. I watched a little of it last night, he was answering questions. He is so well spoken, articulate, and extremely knowledgeable. It was so refreshing to see someone that could back up his position with a rock solid foundation of facts based in the Constitution. He is the real minority leader in the senate.
And, God willing, he will be the leader one day, if not President.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...




He will never come close to being president.
 
ItAin'tFree said:
The loser getting less votes was not all that uncommon. Especially considering the "conservative" party didn't run a conservative again.

But Obama pulled a first. Millions caught on to his incompetence and ignorance. Maybe many of those that didn't vote for him the second time will tell others why it was dumb to vote for him the second time and the education will continue.
Click to expand...

Sure - the third time Obama runs for President, everyone will be on to him.
 
TheDemSocialist said:
IF you dont want to purchase insurance or go through the exchange you pay a fine. Your not forced to you have to pay a one time fine.
Yes. If we wanna go by the ol "free market" line the more people buy something and go into a competive market insurance companies will offer better coverage and compete for that better coverage.

Ideological backgrounds.
Click to expand...

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure it's not just a one time fine - you pay the fine every year you file your taxes and you don't have health insurance coverage. Otherwise, the mandate makes even less sense.
 
Ted Cruz needs to get the **** off the stage so greedy liberals can get their free healthcare. Come on, down with Cruz! Down with Cruz! :roll:
 
Conservative said:
Please don't go there as you aren't smart enough nor probably old enough to debate what Reagan did in the 80's. I could beat you up all day with actual data and facts but somehow doubt that you would even realize how foolish you are. Interesting how people like you always want to divert from the Obama performance and record to try and discuss something you don't understand and were probably too young to experience.
Click to expand...

It's the liberal way. History began the day they were born, and their ideas are brand new and haven't actually been tried for thousands of years of repeated failure.

Oh, and as long as we act from the heart, instead of our brains, eva-ting gonna be alright!
 
humbolt said:
Here? Yep. The notion that having been slapped for no good reason repeatedly should prompt turning the other cheek in political venues is for ******s. Or are you saying that the political left can dish it out, but shouldn't have to take it?
Click to expand...

When you act like a douche, you're no better than the other douches.

Congrats, you're right up there with the Liberal douches.
 
vesper said:
These same Tea Party candidates that you claim to admire are the same ones that support the "big mouth Cruz" as you refer to him, in his efforts in the Senate.

Second, I was giving data from the 2010 midterm election, since you included the last two elections, and the data for that election proved your comments to be in error.

Third, the Republicans did not lose multiple seats as you exaggerate, they lost two. The data is in and says the base of the Republican party did not show up to vote in the last election because they are tired of the "elites" getting behind a candidate there is little difference between them and the Democrat. Romney and Romneycare? Seriously? What were they thinking? These yahoos went after Gingrich and Santorum with viciousness I have never seen before. Gingrich was actually ahead in the polls early on but because of folks like the great Karl Rove and Romney's elite support, the poison penned op ed pieces from Krauthammer to NRO hit the presses against Romney's opponents. Then to make sure their guy looked like he won the primary in Iowa, they hid the fact that Santorum won until AFTER the New Hampshire primary to give their guy Romney momentum. It all stunk to high heaven. And maybe if the Republican party allowed a stronger candidate that one could actually tell the difference between a Democrat and the Republican, most likely a lot more races especially in the Senate would have created a change in majority because a lot more of the base would have showed up to vote.
Click to expand...

Seriously?

I claimed that Cruz was the wrong messenger, but the message was right - of course those in congress who support the message will support what Cruz is doing - I'm talking about the American people - Cruz is a terrible messenger no matter how many times you claim otherwise.

If you think Gingrich and/or Santorum would have had a greater chance of beating Obama, you're nuts. Romney actually did increase the Republican votes in some key states, however, not enough to win them. It's my view that in many cases it was the terrible Senate choices that caused a lower turn out than would have occurred had the Republican Senate candidates been reasonable alternatives.

Finally, you claim the Republicans only lost two seats and that's not "multiple". Forgetting the obvious error in math principles that suggests, my point you conveniently ignored was that there were multiple Democrat incumbents who were incredibly vulnerable and the Republicans blew it again, as they did in 2010, by nominating idiots with no chance of winning. Those senate races where Tea Party nuts were running are a microcosm of what would happen nationally if a Tea Party nut like Cruz led the national ticket. The fact you don't see that is a prime example of why Republicans can't seem to win now.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom