A community of 30,000 US Transcriptionist serving Medical Transcription Industry
Pubs, the Filibuster Royalty
Posted: Aug 12, 2012
I hope I do not have to explain filibuster again.
;
*** - ***
[ In Reply To ..]"I HOPE I DON'T HAVE EXPLAIN THIS AGAIN...We all know what a fillibuster is. We also know that the Dems had control in House and Senate the last 2 years of Bush Admin, first 2 years of Obama AND BLEW IT BIG TIME because of the refusal to work with any Republicans. It is not a hard concept for most to grasp on this board, but ya seem to be having trouble with the word majority (The greater number or part; a number more than half of the total)...maybe this will help. AGAIN, majority was the topic; try to stay with us buttercup.
Spin it any way you want, but *** you might end up in China.
It is clear from YOUR *** response that - sm
[ In Reply To ..]you are *** of filibuster facts. Sixty votes are required to override a filibuster. The democrats had a filibuster-proof senate for all of two weeks I believe.
Sepaking of "***" - Why so *** grasshopper? Movin' on
[ In Reply To ..]blahblahblah...the facts just kill your ***.
FACT - DEMS BLEW IT BIG TIME BECAUSE THEY HAD A MAJORITY AND HAD NOT CLUE HOW TO PUT ASIDE THEIR CRAZY IDEOLOGY LONG ENOUGH TO WORK WITH ANY DEMS.
But you stay hung up on the fillibuster tunnel vision, ***.
***...Yawn. Done reading your posts - ***
Your oversight of differing procedural rules on - that dictate
[ In Reply To ..]what passes by majority vote and what doesn't defines your tunnel vision.
MODERATOR - PERSONAL ATTACK HERE - No contribution to thread
[ In Reply To ..]x
And let's not forget the nasty...sm - JTBB
[ In Reply To ..]"now post beneath me where you belong" messages, which have been constant for quite some time.
http://general.mtstars.com/306179.html
And let's not forget the nasty...sm - JTBB - The constant "clueless comments
[ In Reply To ..]directly below this post, and the constant condescending posts by poster directly above. Pick any post moderator...they all read the same way.
anybody more tired of this than me?....nm - ctmt
[ In Reply To ..]
Perhaps you missed the reference to tunnel vision - in the previous post
[ In Reply To ..]to which this one responded. Right on topic, by my read. Could it be irrefutable nature of the content that's the REAL cultprit here?
Yes Moderator - tunnel post is listed in entire form - Due to fact poster above me
[ In Reply To ..]Is misleading, as usual, regarding the origin of the insults.
"Your oversight of differing procedural rules on - that dictate Posted: Aug 12th, 2012 - 5:25 pm In Reply to: Sepaking of "***" - Why so *** grasshopper? Movin' on
what passes by majority vote and what doesn't defines your tunnel vision. "
How is discussing tunnel vision in a thread about tunnel vision - misleading?
[ In Reply To ..]For Pete's sake.
MODERATOR- personal issue here - no threadibution
[ In Reply To ..]
I just wish I could follow this thread! - nm....ctmt
[ In Reply To ..]
Having a hard time accepting reality? - Numbers don't lie
[ In Reply To ..]What are you saying? That the Senate can't count the number of filibusters that they are required by law to record? The numbers all laid out on the pretty chart tell the story. The spin is all yours.
No....will say this slowly for you Spinner - Numbers are not your friend
[ In Reply To ..]Dems were the MAJORITY (definition: the greater number or part; a number more than half of the total) in the Sentate and House the laset 2 years of Bush, the first 2 years of Obama.
Dems refusal to cooperate with Repubs is all on them and no one other than the Dems. Their inability to negotiate ANYTHING is all owned by Dems.
No one commented on the fillibuster distortion regarding legal requirements other than you.
Keep up the spin and straying off topic to try and avoid what was actually stated. WE ALL can read. Your spin and the relentless desire to carry on about the fillibuster, does not change the number of the Dems in the House in Senate the last 2 years of Bush, first 2 years of Obama.
Hope you can understand the simplicity of the majority, meaning actual number being discussed, of Dems in the House and Senate during that time.
"The spin is all yours".
Wow! You are obviously clueless to the facts. sm - VTMT
[ In Reply To ..]It has been posted many times in the past few days that a filibuster-proof senate requires 60 votes, not 51 a majority, but 60 votes. Get it?
Wow! You are obviously clueless to the facts. sm - VTMT - We know what you can't grasp
[ In Reply To ..]Do you read English? If not, that would explain a lot.
You seem to have a major hurdle with a very simple concept. WE know what a fillibuster is; WE know how it takes place; WE know why it takes place.
OP CLEARLY stated they were referring to the actual, physical number of Dems in the House and Senate for that period of time. The Dems outnumbered the Reubs; hence, the majority of Dems in both houses by actual bodies that held those seats. Get it yet? All the charts and spins do not change the fact that the Dems in majority refused to work with the Repubs in the minority. IT IS THE DEMS SOLE FAULT THEY REFUSED TO COOPERATE IN ANY WAY WITH THE REPUBS.
With all the respect you show others on this board, you are the last one I would go to for any history or political facts;' you got the corner on "clueless" (direct lib quote meant to insult).
You want to fixate on what is a fillibuster and continue to post your insulting comments go head. None of your spin changes that fact that there were more Democrat bodies (actual physical bodies since you cannot seem to grasp the number thing) than there were Republican bodies (actual physical bodies).
...and the number of "physical bodies" do not - VTMT
[ In Reply To ..]matter unless there are 60 of them if either side filibusters and refuses to compromise. Therefore, claims that the democrats had a "super-majority" are false.
Again, trouble with the written word I see - No one but you
[ In Reply To ..]Mentioned "super majority". The word used was "majority" - Huge difference. OP was correct; you not so much. Nice try on the spin though. A dictionary would explain the difference in words and their meaning for you dear.
Oh dear! I guess my 30 years as a language specialist (MT) were wasted. nm - VTMT
[ In Reply To ..].
Suppose so - Maybe you can get a refund - ;)
[ In Reply To ..];)
Just a suggestion for you - you have a better chance of
[ In Reply To ..]breaking through solid rock with a tooth pick then trying to get through the mindset of the Dems/Libs on this board. Your posts were very clear, but since it does not fit the Dem's talking points and spin, they will hound you relentlessly and try to act as if their comment is all that counts. Best to just move onto posters with substance and actual facts than what is in this thread. You'll learn soon enough which posters are a major waste of time and only troll to start arguments or insults. Just sayin'
dems/libs repubs/conserves - oldone
[ In Reply To ..]Why are there always fights and name throwing on these posts? I agree with Just a Suggestion For You...move on. The same folks will gripe and insinuate they are the only ones on here with a brain and some will just move on. It really does serve best to move on. I do wonder why some folks seem to think theirs are the only opinion worth reading...and I have been called ignorant. I am far from ignorant...but I know better than to argue with small minds who call others ignorant. Move on and be happy. State your opinions and expect to be called names...but rejoice in the knowledge that all those who think they are legends...are just that...LEGENDS IN THEIR ON MINDS...they would be doctors.hahahahahaha
Enjoyed your post - Conservative
[ In Reply To ..]Especially the part about legends in their own minds. I got a good laugh out of that. When I read this board, I think about the story of the 4 blind men that felt different parts of an elephant, and then were asked to describe what they felt. They all had a different description and all felt they were correct and were forceful in their description. Those that are immature seem to have a major problem with anyone that does not agree with them, and then the personal attacks start. That is something you learn how to handle in high school. Seems some on this board never grew up or learned how to deal with a difference of opinion.
How does body count of one party or the other - in either chamber of Congress
[ In Reply To ..]in any way determine which party does or does not cooperate with the other? The premise of this argument couldn't be more irrelevant. WE all know what happens to arguments that begin with false premises, don't WE?
With regard to the senate in particular, this is truly a no-brainer. Mitch McConnell's first order of business after this session of Congress was sworn in was to set HIS MINORITY PARTY'S priorities. Remember: “The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president.”
In response, the GOP has set an all-time record for filibusters while using any and every obstructing tactic they can conjure to follow McConnell's lead. This is accepted as common knowledge among voters and political analysts alike.
To sit here and pretend filibusters have nothing to do "failure to cooperate," while insisting which party holds the majority of warm bodies is in any way a factor, is fallacious nonsense. Shouting "majority" a thousand times, and all the name-calling, self-righteous indignation, pontification, and pompous lecturing you can muster is not going to change what WE know about GOP obstructionists in Congress. Whether you want to "get it" or not makes no difference whatsoever.
Clearly you don't understand the post - Try keeping up
[ In Reply To ..]During Democrat reign of terror under Princess Pelosi (D), no Repub idea, bill, etc. was presented to the floor of the House.
During Democrat reign of terror under Prince Harry (D), no Repub idea, bill, etc. was presented to the floor of the Senate.
Let me connect the dots for you since that is such a problem for you. If Democrats, who had the majority (and please note it does not say "super" majority) and refuse to work with the minority, that constitutes lack of cooperation. DO. YOU. GET. IT. NOW? I doubt it?
They are trying to "save face" because they are so wrong - anutter utter rose
[ In Reply To ..]They can never accept when they are wrong. I was quite shocked to have posted a nice factual chart and then come back and see all the ****. I am guessing that they wanted the thread taken down so they did not have to look at their lie/misleading. I wonder what the **** were? I cannot imagine an entire subject and nickname field being censored. Must have hit the reflex for sure.
Similar Messages:
Republicans Filibuster Their OWN Bill!Dec 06, 2012
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) wanted to prove on Thursday that Democrats don’t have the votes to weaken Congress’ authority on the debt limit. Instead they called his bluff, and he ended up filibustering his own bill. The legislation, modeled on a proposal McConnell offered last year as a “last-choice option” to avert a U.S. debt default, would permit the president to unilaterally lift the debt ceiling unless Congress mustered a two-thirds majority to stop him. Preside ...
9/11 First Responders React To Republican FilibusterDec 18, 2010
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-december-16-2010/9-11-first-responders-react-to-the-senate-filibuster ...
Filibuster Time! Gooooo Cruz And OthersSep 24, 2013
Before all you haters (dems) start spitting out hateful remarks remember how wonderful you thought it was when that witch from Texas pulled this just for the sake of killing babies (abortion). You all thought she was a freaking awesome goddess. ...
Gillibrand And Warren Will Petition For Filibuster ReformNov 16, 2012
Not sure of this has a chance, but certainly is quite an aggressive "here I am" by Warren. I have feeling that many of her colleagues on the right side of the aisle are now wishing she'd been appointed to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, her brainchild, which they opposed at the time. She will be exciting to watch for sure. ...
Olympia Snowe Confirms She'll Filibuster Health ReformDec 21, 2009
(More obstructism by Republicans just might lead to another vote in the middle of the night, IMHO. I hope they're forced to stay and actually filibuster, instead of just saying the word "filibuster" and everyone gets to go home.) --- By Sahil KapurSunday, December 20th, 2009 -- 5:24 pm WASHINGTON -- Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-ME) said on Sunday she will join Republicans in filibustering the Senate health care bill, claiming the process has been moving too fast. "I deeply regret that I c ...
Frivolous Filibuster Finally Flopped. Hagel ConfirmedFeb 26, 2013
Guess the GOP couldn't dig up enough dirt on him during their most recent break from their tireless efforts to oppose and obstruct. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/27/us/politics/hagel-filibuster-defense-senate-confirmation.html?_r=0 ...
Democrats Attempted To Filibuster Bush's Supreme CourtFeb 17, 2016
he would shift the balance of the court. What hypocrites they are and they get away with it. Apparently Harry Reid has forgotten his own role in trying to do so. Payback is a ....... Just two years ago Harry Reid went for the nuclear option eliminated the filibuster rule of 60-40 votes required to override one so he could pack the super-important DC Circuit Court with extreme leftist. The cool thing about having no moral values and no accountability is that you can lie without a guilty ...
Is This True? A Real "speaking" Filibuster And Not Just Cloture Vote? Dec 10, 2010
http://maddowblog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2010/12/10/5624383-holy-crow-its-an-actual-fillibuster ...
Seems Like The Pubs AreApr 11, 2017
Pubs doing the same thing as usual. They get something and then may lose it because of their 1% policies. We don't know what is going to happen but Trump even got in on this one. I've read about other same scenarios in other places. They just don't get that people don't want policies that protect the 1% while leaving us in the cold. ...
Good For The Pubs!Dec 30, 2010
This is great news! And good for the Dem mentioned who thinks it is a good idea; looks like he listened too! ...
Just A Sample Of What The Pubs Want . . . .Feb 04, 2010
"Spend too much, tax too much and borrow too much." Clearly, Republicans believe that we can reduce our deficits by cutting spending even while cutting taxes. So what would they cut? . . . . 2009 Republican budget put together by Rep. Paul D. Ryan, who passes as the party's idea man. That budget would freeze domestic discretionary spending till 2014, but Obama's budget does that. It would increase spending on the military over the Obama budget, and pledge all the money needed to ...
Crats Vs PubsMay 14, 2010
The Republicans are run by a bunch of rich folks, that are proud of being rich. They don’t want the gov’t doing anything that might cost them money. The Democrats are run by a bunch of rich folks, that feel guilty about being rich. They don’t feel guilty enough to give away their money, so they want to tax the heck out of the "middle class" to pay for social programs to ease their guilt. Both party’s seem to pretty much define the "middle class" as those that don’ ...
Pubs Who Want To Win Next Time, Here's Something To Think About:Nov 07, 2012
The Republican ticket may hail from Massachusetts and Wisconsin, butMitt Romney and Paul Ryan head the most Southernized major U.S. political party since Jefferson Davis’s day. In its hostility toward minorities, exploitation of racism, antipathy toward government and suspicion of science, today’s Republican Party represents the worst traditions of the South’s dankest backwaters. No other party in U.S. history has done such a 180. Founded as the party of t ...
Why Have The Pubs Not Ousted Vitter?Jun 17, 2011
I thought they are the family values party? ...
Question For Cons/pubs...smAug 15, 2012
The Ryomney budget seemingly would like to increase military spending, reduce taxes for the wealthy and reduce the deficit. Question: Where does the money come from to do this? ...
Pubs Will Slam The Article Because It Mar 25, 2017
It hits the nail on the head. So, before you slam the source, read the article. This is stuff I have known all along. The ACA had ideas from both sides. ...
I Don't Like Political Games, But The PubsMay 06, 2017
The fallout is beginning on that disaster of a plan that the pubs put out. Somebody in another post said that people get used to "goodies" and are not going to give them up. I really don't believe having access to healthcare is a "goody" but people did get used to having it and now they may not be able to. I have been for national healthcare long before the ACA. Many countries laugh at us becaue we don't have it. We are supposed to be a leader yet our leaders ...
IF Pubs Repeal ACA With No Replacement Jul 03, 2017
You can kiss your transcription pittance jobs GOOD-Bye. Many of you had better be careful what you wish for...turning healthcare upside down will not bode well for the non-revenue aspects of hospitals. ...
A Superbowl Audience, But The Pubs Say They Won't Watch? Sep 26, 2016
The bar is so low for Trump, all he has to do is not vomit on the stage and he will say he has won. So why are all the Pubs afraid to watch? ...
So Instead Of Real Issues, This Is All The Pubs Go For November . . .Mar 04, 2010
Exclusive: RNC document mocks donors, plays on 'fear' Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0310/33866.html#ixzz0hDH5xzIl ...
Lawyers Weighing In--Logan Act--yes, PubsMar 10, 2015
see link ...
How's That Freedom Of Speech Working For Ya, Pubs?Mar 16, 2016
Now Politico was denied entry into a Trump event. POLITICO is far from alone among media organizations being denied entry to Trump events. The Des Moines Register, Univision, Fusion, The Huffington Post, National Review, Mother Jones and BuzzFeed have all been denied credentials to Trump's events, often after publishing critical stories about the campaign. In January, New York Times reporter Trip Gabriel was ejected from an event in Iowa after writing about Trump' ...
Pubs Don't Want You To Watch And The Donald Doesn't Want FactcheckingSep 26, 2016
Here is where you can watch: Live Streaming – All the major news networks will offer a free live stream as will YouTube and Twitter. Live stream links will be posted the day of the debate. TV Channels – Each debate will be broadcast live on C-SPAN, ABC, CBS, FOX and NBC, as well as all cable news channels including CNN, Fox News and MSNBC among others. Full Videos – Click the “Watch Full Video Link” below on each debate to watch the entire debate v ...
T-party/Pubs Shows True ColorsSep 13, 2011
At the debate last night, the audience cheered when Ron Paul as wasked "What do you tell a guy who is sick, goes into a coma and doesn't have health insurance? Who pays for his coverage? "Are you saying society should just let him die?" "Yeah!" several members of the crowd yelled out. Paul's explanation: This was, more-or-less, the root choice of a free society. At the last debate, the crowd cheered when Perry was questioned about executions. People executed during his go ...
What Happened? I Thought The Pubs Were Going To Take The Senate MajorityNov 03, 2010
x ...
Democrats Digging Harder Than Ever To Dig Dirt On PubsJul 08, 2010
So, does this mean they are worried about the upcoming election? I think so....but also think the pubs should worry, too. They also have a lot to lose. I do think this is quite underhanded, but yet, if they find dirt on candidates, that may be a good thing. Do you think the pubs should also start digging on the dems? This may be the most interesting election in history. Democrats digging harder than ever for dirt on Republicans Top 10 Senate races that turned ugly The Fix combed throug ...
The Facts That Pubs Are Talking About Biden's SmileOct 12, 2012
says a lot about who won the debate. As usual Ryan has no details, sounds like a parrot. ...
Clint: Will The Pubs Officially Own That They Are The "Hollywood Party"Sep 03, 2012
I am so glad we won't be hearing that anymore. ...
According To Polls, Most Pubs Think Biden's A "joke", And Oct 11, 2012
Independents also expect Ryan to do substantially better than Biden, although aren't quite as excited as Pubs over the man some are describing as the "new intellectual leader" of the Republican Party. Yes, that IS Ryan they're talking about. ...