• 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

donc said:
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:
Click to expand...

A link for what. You did not respond to two examples I showed unless you know nothing of Reids deals.
 
Conservative said:
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!!!
Click to expand...

Thats the point the GOP can stop nothing it is democrats stopping bills
 
Conservative said:
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?
Click to expand...

I understand it fine, and I've provided documentation of record filibuster attempts against Democratic bills. Where is your documentation that shows otherwise. All you have provided is it is your opinion that its not the case.

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
Click to expand...

As per the definition of filibuster, it can be an "attempt to delay," without having the votes to block.

If you cannot understand basic math then there really is no hope for you discussing or understanding other substantive topics
Click to expand...

Slipping back into the insult mode there again, eh?

If you wish to end discussions, fine.
 
ptif219 said:
donc said:
40 votes is not enough to filibuster.
Click to expand...

Frustrating, isn't it? Such a simple concept to understand yet for some reason Obama supporters conveniently cannot grasp that concept.

The purpose of a filibuster was to promote bipartisanship and has been used by both parties over the decades but now somehow it is a nasty word or concept even though last year there weren't enough votes for the Republicans to filibuster anything Obama wanted. Obama's problem was he couldn't convince his own party.

Now with regards to 2008 any filibuster by the Republicans weren't going to matter with Bush in the WH but probably had more to do with Republicans trying to get Reid to let them participate in the legislative process knowing that Bush was going to veto legislation that was passed solely by Democrats.
Click to expand...
 
Catawba said:
I understand it fine, and I've provided documentation of record filibuster attempts against Democratic bills. Where is your documentation that shows otherwise. All you have provided is it is your opinion that its not the case.



As per the definition of filibuster, it can be an "attempt to delay," without having the votes to block.



Slipping back into the insult mode there again, eh?

If you wish to end discussions, fine.
Click to expand...

The blocking of bills is democrats not sticking together. The GOP can not block with 40 votes. Now that they have 41 it may be different, Come November it may be a lot different.
 
Catawba;1058564834]I understand it fine, and I've provided documentation of record filibuster attempts against Democratic bills. Where is your documentation that shows otherwise. All you have provided is it is your opinion that its not the case.
Click to expand...

Please explain to me what purpose it would serve for the Republicans to filibuster Democrat bills in 2008? Think Bush was going to sign them?



As per the definition of filibuster, it can be an "attempt to delay," without having the votes to block.
Click to expand...

It can be an attempt to delay but not with less than 41 votes. Seems pretty simple to me, 40 votes isn't enough to filibuster anything. How could the GOP delay anything with only 40 votes.


Slipping back into the insult mode there again, eh?
Click to expand...

You are one of the most frustrating individuals in this forum. Think, please. How can the GOP fililbuster, delay, stonewall, divert, or any other adjective you want to use when they don't have the votes to do it?

If you wish to end discussions, fine.
Click to expand...

Now tell me why the GOP in 2008 would filibuster Democratic Legislation with a Republican President in the WH? Couldn't it be simply to get the Democrats to allow them into the legislative process? Do you believe Bush would have signed Democrat Legislation?



Want to stop while you are behind?
 
ptif219 said:
The blocking of bills is democrats not sticking together. The GOP can not block with 40 votes. Now that they have 41 it may be different, Come November it may be a lot different.
Click to expand...

Conservative said:
Please explain to me what purpose it would serve for the Republicans to filibuster Democrat bills in 2008? Think Bush was going to sign them?
Click to expand...

It is very clear if you do not ignore the definition of a filibuster. Pay particular attention to the part in bold. What does it say?

"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]


What does it say? That is the reason it was used.
 
Last edited:
Catawba said:
It is very clear if you do not ignore the definition of a filibuster. Pay particular attention to the part in bold. What does it say?

"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


What does it say? That is the reason it was used.
Click to expand...

Is there something that indicates we do not know the purpose of a filibuster? If that is the case then let's put that to rest right now. I totally agree. Now what is your point?

There are other reasons to threaten a filibuster including making amendments to the bill. Now answer the question, does it really matter how many filibusters the Republicans had of Democratic Bills in 2008 with Bush in the WH?

What does any of that have to do with 2009? You seem to be having a problem with the basic fact that the Republicans didn't have the votes to filibuster Obama and required Democrat support if indeed a filibuster occurred in 2009?

You do realize that no matter how many times you post the same information it doesn't change the facts that I keep giving you.
 
Catawba said:
It is very clear if you do not ignore the definition of a filibuster. Pay particular attention to the part in bold. What does it say?

"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


What does it say? That is the reason it was used.
Click to expand...

Problem is they no longer do the holding of the floor. 40 votes can stop nothing.

It is the democrats infighting that is giving Obama problems.
 
Conservative said:
Is there something that indicates we do not know the purpose of a filibuster? If that is the case then let's put that to rest right now. I totally agree. Now what is your point?
Click to expand...

If you understand the purpose is to delay why would you continue to claim that because they didn't have enough votes to block a bill's passage that it isn't a filibuster?

That is the point.

There are other reasons to threaten a filibuster including making amendments to the bill. Now answer the question, does it really matter how many filibusters the Republicans had of Democratic Bills in 2008 with Bush in the WH?
Click to expand...

Oh, a new goalpost! That wasn't my argument. My claim was the filibuster's use by the Republican's is unprecedented in history.

What does any of that have to do with 2009?
Click to expand...

Delay, Delay, Delay!

You seem to be having a problem with the basic fact that the Republicans didn't have the votes to filibuster Obama and required Democrat support if indeed a filibuster occurred in 2009?
Click to expand...

As we have established, they do not need the votes to block to be able to delay.

Even Graham has admitted a record number of filibusters, as I have documented.

What have you documented?
 
Catawba said:
If you understand the purpose is to delay why would you continue to claim that because they didn't have enough votes to block a bill's passage that it isn't a filibuster?

That is the point.



Oh, a new goalpost! That wasn't my argument. My claim was the filibuster's use by the Republican's is unprecedented in history.



Delay, Delay, Delay!



As we have established, they do not need the votes to block to be able to delay.

Even Graham has admitted a record number of filibusters, as I have documented.

What have you documented?
Click to expand...

How is it delay if you don't have enough votes. The problem was the democrats infighting.
 
"Sen.-elect Scott Brown (R-Mass.) has promised to join the GOP filibuster of health care reform. To do so, he will not need to give any long-winded speeches, make any parliamentary motions, or even vote. All he will need to do is NOT do something his predecessor did — vote to allow the Senate to vote on the bill itself, a procedure known as cloture.

If that sounds like doing nothing at all, it is. This is the latest step in the evolution of the filibuster from exhausting to effortless. It has always been difficult to pass a bill, but it has never in Senate history been easier to stall or block a vote.

No wonder the number of votes stalled or blocked has dramatically increased. Once a tactic of extraordinary resistance used sparingly, filibusters are now a routine way to oppose anything. Senators have even filibustered bills they support to gain concessions. Several months ago, the Senate unanimously voted to extend unemployment benefits after overcoming three separate filibusters.

All this filibustering has made it extremely difficult for the Senate to act and impossible for it to act quickly. The constant delays are mystifying to citizens and maddening to at least half of Senators at any time."
Krasno & Robinson: Fixing the Filibuster - Roll Call
 
Catawba said:
"Sen.-elect Scott Brown (R-Mass.) has promised to join the GOP filibuster of health care reform. To do so, he will not need to give any long-winded speeches, make any parliamentary motions, or even vote. All he will need to do is NOT do something his predecessor did — vote to allow the Senate to vote on the bill itself, a procedure known as cloture.

If that sounds like doing nothing at all, it is. This is the latest step in the evolution of the filibuster from exhausting to effortless. It has always been difficult to pass a bill, but it has never in Senate history been easier to stall or block a vote.

No wonder the number of votes stalled or blocked has dramatically increased. Once a tactic of extraordinary resistance used sparingly, filibusters are now a routine way to oppose anything. Senators have even filibustered bills they support to gain concessions. Several months ago, the Senate unanimously voted to extend unemployment benefits after overcoming three separate filibusters.

All this filibustering has made it extremely difficult for the Senate to act and impossible for it to act quickly. The constant delays are mystifying to citizens and maddening to at least half of Senators at any time."
Krasno & Robinson: Fixing the Filibuster - Roll Call
Click to expand...

The point is the GOP before this did not have enough votes so it was democrats blocking.

This means it is time for democrats to start working with the GOP instead of demanding everything be the way they want it. Democrats need to learn to compromise.
 
Catawba said:
"Sen.-elect Scott Brown (R-Mass.) has promised to join the GOP filibuster of health care reform. To do so, he will not need to give any long-winded speeches, make any parliamentary motions, or even vote. All he will need to do is NOT do something his predecessor did — vote to allow the Senate to vote on the bill itself, a procedure known as cloture.

If that sounds like doing nothing at all, it is. This is the latest step in the evolution of the filibuster from exhausting to effortless. It has always been difficult to pass a bill, but it has never in Senate history been easier to stall or block a vote.

No wonder the number of votes stalled or blocked has dramatically increased. Once a tactic of extraordinary resistance used sparingly, filibusters are now a routine way to oppose anything. Senators have even filibustered bills they support to gain concessions. Several months ago, the Senate unanimously voted to extend unemployment benefits after overcoming three separate filibusters.

All this filibustering has made it extremely difficult for the Senate to act and impossible for it to act quickly. The constant delays are mystifying to citizens and maddening to at least half of Senators at any time."
Krasno & Robinson: Fixing the Filibuster - Roll Call
Click to expand...

You act like this is a new technique. There is nothing new here nor is there anything that refutes what we have been posting regarding the information you provided.

No matter how much information you post nothing is going to change the fact that the chart you posted was for 2008 which had nothing to do with Obama.

No matter how much information you post regarding 2009 the fact is the GOP didn't have the votes to filibuster any legislation. Amending legislation is what both parties do all the time so nothing new there.

What also isn't new is the biased, partisan posting that you do all in hopes of propping up the empty suit in the WH. The American people do not want Obamacare and the American people know that the stimulus plan isn't working. Why would the GOP vote for programs that don't work and aren't going to work?
 
donc said:
docpage-greggob1.jpg


Hardly spin.:2wave:




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

Sincerely, the republican death panel letter.
Click to expand...
 
LiberalAvenger said:
donc said:
Sincerely, the republican death panel letter.
Click to expand...

Looks to me like Obama is leading the Democratic Party over the cliff in November. The empty suit in the WH is showing the lack of leadership skills everyone that read his resume knew about but many of his supporters are finally waking up to.

He has yet to keep a major campaign promise showing that he said what it took to get elected but now that he is in office is doing what he wants to do, back room deals, no transparency, moving this country to the far left, and spending us into bankruptcy.
Click to expand...
 
Conservative said:
Looks to me like Obama is leading the Democratic Party over the cliff in November. The empty suit in the WH is showing the lack of leadership skills everyone that read his resume knew about but many of his supporters are finally waking up to.

He has yet to keep a major campaign promise showing that he said what it took to get elected but now that he is in office is doing what he wants to do, back room deals, no transparency, moving this country to the far left, and spending us into bankruptcy.
Click to expand...

I'm sure the taliban would agree with you.
 
Conservative said:
When will the empty suit be apologizing to the Taliban for the capture of their leader? How is that hope and change working out for you?
Click to expand...

Now you are making things up and treating them as reality. My reality is not the same as your reality.
 
LiberalAvenger said:
Now you are making things up and treating them as reality. My reality is not the same as your reality.
Click to expand...

Since when does reality play a role in an Obama supporter's world? Want reality?

Obama promised transparency and no lobbyist in his Administration-Healthcare negotiations held behind closed doors

Obama promised to go through the budget line by line-2009 budget deficit 1.47 trillion, 2010 projections 1.6 trillion, 2011 1.3 trillion, more debt in 3 years than Bush generated in 8 and more debt in less than 2 years than Reagan did in 8

Obama promised to keep unemployment at 8% and it is closer to 17% with over 4 million unemployed since January 2009

How are those for reality?
 
Conservative said:
Since when does reality play a role in an Obama supporter's world? Want reality?

Obama promised transparency and no lobbyist in his Administration-Healthcare negotiations held behind closed doors

Obama promised to go through the budget line by line-2009 budget deficit 1.47 trillion, 2010 projections 1.6 trillion, 2011 1.3 trillion, more debt in 3 years than Bush generated in 8 and more debt in less than 2 years than Reagan did in 8

Obama promised to keep unemployment at 8% and it is closer to 17% with over 4 million unemployed since January 2009

How are those for reality?
Click to expand...

What are you bitching about? You are getting your share of the pie, aren't you?
 
LiberalAvenger said:
What are you bitching about? You are getting your share of the pie, aren't you?
Click to expand...

What has Obama done that has generated this kind of loyalty and support? It looks to me like you simply cannot admit that you were wrong in your support for him.
 
Conservative said:
What has Obama done that has generated this kind of loyalty and support? It looks to me like you simply cannot admit that you were wrong in your support for him.
Click to expand...

He is the person that the majority have voted for to lead our great country. I do not want to see him fail because if he fails the country fails with him.:usflag2::usflag2:
 
LiberalAvenger said:
He is the person that the majority have voted for to lead our great country. I do not want to see him fail because if he fails the country fails with him.:usflag2::usflag2:
Click to expand...

His agenda is contrary to the very foundation upon which this country was built and he is taking this country far left. Is that the direction you want this country to go and if so why?

If he succeeds this country will be changed forever and no longer be the economic and world power that it has been. I don't call that success.

I asked you a question as to what accomplishment he has achieved in his first year in office that has made things better for the country and you didn't answer. Why is it so hard to admit that you were wrong?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom