Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

New Questions For Presidential Candidates

32 posts in this topic

Posted · Report post

[quote name='PhillyB' timestamp='1350097510' post='1945101']

the only context you can use the word 'libtard' and looking even remotely credible/intelligent is glen beck's comedy show tour so i'd recommend avoiding further use at all costs
[/quote]

Who said I was trying to be credible?

It is an insult point blank, there is no point even atemtpting to be credible with people whose minds are set as everyone who posts here in the tinderbox are.


Here its just one big pissing contest come join the fray.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

[quote name='SuperMan' timestamp='1350105908' post='1945155']

Who said I was trying to be credible?

It is an insult point blank, there is no point even atemtpting to be credible with people whose minds are set as everyone who posts here in the tinderbox are.


Here its just one big pissing contest come join the fray.
[/quote]

it's idiotic. how can you claim to be enraged at how obama won't work with republicans (i'm assuming you do) when you yourself admittedly refuse to engage in open and honest discourse and revert to partisan sniping?

i firmly believe that it is the death of open dialogue that has caused the divide of this nation's constituency and it's ideologues such as yourself that proudly lead the way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

What PhillyB said, then throw in the fact that CatofWar is the one of the coolest guys on the huddle, lib or not.
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

[quote name='PhillyB' timestamp='1350106365' post='1945158']

it's idiotic. how can you claim to be enraged at how obama won't work with republicans (i'm assuming you do) when you yourself admittedly refuse to engage in open and honest discourse and revert to partisan sniping?

i firmly believe that it is the death of open dialogue that has caused the divide of this nation's constituency and it's ideologues such as yourself that proudly lead the way.
[/quote]

This.

And the cause of death for open dialogue has to be laid directly at the feet of the Republican party.

The Republican party leadership held a meeting at the Caucus Room restaurant in Washington on Inauguration eve and made a commitment then to block every attempt, every piece of legislation, every effort to make economic progress or any effort by the Administration to pass any laws. That's a simple fact Karl Rove, Newt Gingrich and Paul Ryan, among others, have openly admitted.

The result is a record number of filibusters by the Senate Republicans during the 111th Congress.

But, sure, go ahead and believe it's the President not working with Republicans... wouldn't want facts to get in the way.

[img]http://newsjunkiepost.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/Filibuster-and-Cloture-Data.png[/img]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

I'm pretty liberal on some things but I'm far from a democrat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

[quote name='Anybodyhome' timestamp='1350128745' post='1945195']

This.

And the cause of death for open dialogue has to be laid directly at the feet of the Republican party.

The Republican party leadership held a meeting at the Caucus Room restaurant in Washington on Inauguration eve and made a commitment then to block every attempt, every piece of legislation, every effort to make economic progress or any effort by the Administration to pass any laws. That's a simple fact Karl Rove, Newt Gingrich and Paul Ryan, among others, have openly admitted.

The result is a record number of filibusters by the Senate Republicans during the 111th Congress.

But, sure, go ahead and believe it's the President not working with Republicans... wouldn't want facts to get in the way.

[img]http://newsjunkiepost.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/Filibuster-and-Cloture-Data.png[/img]
[/quote]

projected numbers during obama's first two years?

here are some updated numbers... 136 motions filed; 91 votes on cloture and invoked 63 times....

you know "standard procedure" for the minority party.
[img]http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-ze-lP9DFovs/Toi_GxvtrnI/AAAAAAAAAQ4/2yn81rQJSP4/s1600/Filibusters_by_congress.jpg[/img]
That blue line on the 111th is taller than the red line. How can that be?
[img]http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-ahBJEQ_DP2s/Toi_N1hLEzI/AAAAAAAAAQ8/9ELHfZ8z7Ws/s1600/Filibusters_111_congress.jpg[/img]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

[quote name='googoodan' timestamp='1350133585' post='1945229']
projected numbers during obama's first two years?

here are some updated numbers... 136 motions filed; 91 votes on cloture and invoked 63 times....

you know "standard procedure" for the minority party.

That blue line on the 111th is taller than the red line. How can that be?

[/quote]

Interesting article on the [url="http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/the-history-of-the-filibuster-in-one-graph/2012/05/15/gIQAVHf0RU_blog.html"]history of the filibuster[/url]. As congress has made it easier to stop it, filibusters have become more common.

[quote]
This is an imperfect measure. On the one hand, it’s susceptible to changes in congressional strategy: If the majority begins trying to break the filibuster more often, you could see more cloture votes, even though the filibuster isn’t actually being used any more frequently. On the other side, it misses the many, many, many filibusters that never receive a cloture vote, either because the majority decides that a cloture vote is too time-consuming — simply holding a cloture vote takes about 30 hours of floor time — or because they won’t win it.

That said, it is, at least, a relatively consistent measure, and it’s the best one we have. And most observers agree that its basic point is correct: We’re seeing many more filibusters today than we ever did before. But I actually think that’s the wrong way to think about it.

The issue today isn’t that we see 50, or 100, or 150 filibusters. It’s that the filibuster is a constant where it used to be a rarity. Indeed, it shouldn’t even be called “the filibuster”: It has nothing to do with talking, or holding the floor. It should be called the 60-vote requirement. It applies to everything now even when the minority does not specifically choose to invoke it. There are no longer, to my knowledge, categories of bills that don’t get filibustered because such things are simply not done, though there are bills that the minority chooses not to invoke their 60-vote option on. That’s why Harry Reid says things like “60 votes are required for just about everything,” though there are a small number of bills where the majority uses the budget reconciliation process to short-circuit the 60-vote requirement.

An interesting implication of this graph: The filibuster has become more common even as it’s become easier to break. Until 1917, the filibuster couldn’t be stopped. And until 1975, you needed two-thirds of the Senate, rather than three-fifths. So as it’s become less powerful, it’s become more common. What that means is that the rise of the filibuster is largely about “norms” in the Senate. It didn’t become more effective and thus more popular. It actually became less effective, but parties chose to use it more[/quote]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Well, your source for the information says it all- rather than use statistical data from a reliable, unbiased source- something the Republicans just seem to have problems doing, the Heathen Republican? Really?
[b]"A secular conservative site dedicated to asserting conservative principles without religious ..."[/b]

Yep, no agenda there. No reason to confuse fact and fiction.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

[quote name='Anybodyhome' timestamp='1350135488' post='1945238']
Well, your source for the information says it all- rather than use statistical data from a reliable, unbiased source- something the Republicans just seem to have problems doing, the Heathen Republican? Really?
[b]"A secular conservative site dedicated to asserting conservative principles without religious ..."[/b]

Yep, no agenda there. No reason to confuse fact and fiction.
[/quote]

Well if you can find it on senate.gov, more power to you. Don't you think that was the first place I looked? If the same information came from keitholbermannfanatics.com, would it somehow be more credible?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

No, but it is available on PRNewswire.com, for example. FactCheck.org is another...

Jus' sayin'

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

[quote name='Anybodyhome' timestamp='1350141243' post='1945274']
No, but it is available on PRNewswire.com, for example. FactCheck.org is another...

Jus' sayin'
[/quote]

Is the chart the same on those sites as it is on the one he used? If that is the case, then it doesn't make any difference, unless you are disputing what he said and not the chart itself.

Don't get me wrong, I fully agree with ignoring articles that come from biased sites like Huffington or Worldnetdaily, but if its chart that is used by several sites without being changed, then the source doesn't make much of a difference.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

[quote name='CatofWar' timestamp='1350131250' post='1945214']
I'm pretty liberal on some things but I'm far from a democrat.
[/quote]

Understandable, and I like most of your posting this is the tinderbox after all I check any soft feelings when I enter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites