Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

New Questions For Presidential Candidates


  • Please log in to reply
31 replies to this topic

#11 CatofWar

CatofWar

    Join, or Die

  • Joined: 24-March 12
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 3,486
  • Reputation: 865
  • LocationGitmo
HUDDLER

Posted 12 October 2012 - 09:26 PM

Most likely the same time you idiot libtards do.


Lol

#12 PhillyB

PhillyB

    sườn núi phía đông thứ ba của mặt trời

  • Joined: 29-November 08
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 22,919
  • Reputation: 18,343
  • Locationthird spur east of the sun
HUDDLER

Posted 12 October 2012 - 10:05 PM

Most likely the same time you idiot libtards do.


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

#13 SuperMan

SuperMan

    I'm always holding back.

  • Joined: 12-December 08
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 2,265
  • Reputation: 141
  • LocationRaleigh,NC
HUDDLER

Posted 13 October 2012 - 12:25 AM

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


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.

#14 PhillyB

PhillyB

    sườn núi phía đông thứ ba của mặt trời

  • Joined: 29-November 08
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 22,919
  • Reputation: 18,343
  • Locationthird spur east of the sun
HUDDLER

Posted 13 October 2012 - 12:32 AM

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.


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.

#15 Chimera

Chimera

    Not Bant

  • Joined: 11-November 09
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 11,699
  • Reputation: 2,637
HUDDLER

Posted 13 October 2012 - 01:11 AM

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

#16 Anybodyhome

Anybodyhome

    USN Retired

  • Joined: 07-July 10
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 7,509
  • Reputation: 2,426
  • LocationWherever I May Roam
HUDDLER

Posted 13 October 2012 - 06:45 AM

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.


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.

Posted Image

#17 CatofWar

CatofWar

    Join, or Die

  • Joined: 24-March 12
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 3,486
  • Reputation: 865
  • LocationGitmo
HUDDLER

Posted 13 October 2012 - 07:27 AM

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

#18 Chimera

Chimera

    Not Bant

  • Joined: 11-November 09
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 11,699
  • Reputation: 2,637
HUDDLER

Posted 13 October 2012 - 08:06 AM

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.

Posted Image


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

#19 Davidson Deac II

Davidson Deac II

    Senior Member

  • Joined: 24-November 08
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 17,923
  • Reputation: 1,458
HUDDLER

Posted 13 October 2012 - 08:22 AM

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?


Interesting article on the history of the filibuster. As congress has made it easier to stop it, filibusters have become more common.

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



#20 Anybodyhome

Anybodyhome

    USN Retired

  • Joined: 07-July 10
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 7,509
  • Reputation: 2,426
  • LocationWherever I May Roam
HUDDLER

Posted 13 October 2012 - 08:38 AM

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?
"A secular conservative site dedicated to asserting conservative principles without religious ..."

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


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users