President Undercut

BS44325

PJ_Soul said:

BS44325 said:

PJ_Soul said:

I don't have a partisan memory. That is one instance you're talking about. I definitely don't remember, though, the Democrats literally opposing whatever bit of legislation that came along simply because Bush proposed it, no matter what that article might say. They absolutely did not do what the Republicans have been doing with Obama.

Yes they did. Through W's entire second term. Your memory is partisan.

No. I would say that your interpretation of the situation is what's partisan.

The only difference between obstruction now and obstruction then is that conservatives didn't whine about it back then.

rgambs

BS44325 said:

PJ_Soul said:

BS44325 said:

PJ_Soul said:

I don't have a partisan memory. That is one instance you're talking about. I definitely don't remember, though, the Democrats literally opposing whatever bit of legislation that came along simply because Bush proposed it, no matter what that article might say. They absolutely did not do what the Republicans have been doing with Obama.

Yes they did. Through W's entire second term. Your memory is partisan.

No. I would say that your interpretation of the situation is what's partisan.

The only difference between obstruction now and obstruction then is that conservatives didn't whine about it back then.

Do you seriously not see a difference in scale??

PJ_Soul

BS44325 said:

PJ_Soul said:

BS44325 said:

PJ_Soul said:

I don't have a partisan memory. That is one instance you're talking about. I definitely don't remember, though, the Democrats literally opposing whatever bit of legislation that came along simply because Bush proposed it, no matter what that article might say. They absolutely did not do what the Republicans have been doing with Obama.

Yes they did. Through W's entire second term. Your memory is partisan.

No. I would say that your interpretation of the situation is what's partisan.

The only difference between obstruction now and obstruction then is that conservatives didn't whine about it back then.

That is HILARIOUS. Never have the Republicans not whined about something when they had the chance. The reason you didn't hear them whining about it all the time is because it wasn't being done to them all the time.

josevolution

BS44325 said:

PJ_Soul said:

I don't have a partisan memory. That is one instance you're talking about. I definitely don't remember, though, the Democrats literally opposing whatever bit of legislation that came along simply because Bush proposed it, no matter what that article might say. They absolutely did not do what the Republicans have been doing with Obama.

Yes they did. Through W's entire second term. Your memory is partisan.

Big difference from what your party did though , their mission from day one was to obstruct Obama 2nd term for Bush day one for Obama you tell me how is that the same thing ....

JimmyV

josevolution said:

BS44325 said:

PJ_Soul said:

I don't have a partisan memory. That is one instance you're talking about. I definitely don't remember, though, the Democrats literally opposing whatever bit of legislation that came along simply because Bush proposed it, no matter what that article might say. They absolutely did not do what the Republicans have been doing with Obama.

Yes they did. Through W's entire second term. Your memory is partisan.

Big difference from what your party did though , their mission from day one was to obstruct Obama 2nd term for Bush day one for Obama you tell me how is that the same thing ....

This is the key point. Democrats lined up and stood at attention for Bush after 9/11. Gave him more support and cooperation than he could have hoped for. Meanwhile, Republicans lined up against Obama from day one. Not at all the same thing.

gimmesometruth27

BS44325 said:

I get it...obstruction is horrible unless the guy you support is getting obstructed. Obama had a democratic super-majority for the first two years of his presidency and never even attempted to get a 61st vote in the senate. Stimulus, health care, you name it...you can't govern like a total partisan and expect to reach compromise later. Chickens coming home to roost.

this is absolute bullshit.

please stop perpetuating this lie.

Debunking the Myth: Obama's Two-Year Supermajority

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jennifer-m-granholm/debunking-the-myth-obamas_b_1929869.html

Mitt Romney's at it again -- shading the truth on CBS News' 60 Minutes.

In this video he's perpetuating the false Republican narrative that President Obama should have gotten more done during his first two years in office because he had a supermajority in the Senate.

A supermajority is a filibuster-proof 60 or more Senate seats, allowing one party to pass legislation without votes from the other,

Don't forget: the president needed a supermajority because of the Republicans' unprecedented use of the filibuster as an obstruction tactic -- they've used it more than 400 times.

But here's the deal -- the real deal -- there actually wasn't a two year supermajority.

This timeline shows the facts.

President Obama was sworn in on January 20, 2009 with just 58 Senators to support his agenda.

He should have had 59, but Republicans contested Al Franken's election in Minnesota and he didn't get seated for seven months.

The President's cause was helped in April when Pennsylvania's Republican Senator Arlen Specter switched parties.

That gave the President 59 votes -- still a vote shy of the super majority.

But one month later, Democratic Senator Byrd of West Virginia was hospitalized and was basically out of commission.

So while the President's number on paper was 59 Senators -- he was really working with just 58 Senators.

Then in July, Minnesota Senator Al Franken was finally sworn in, giving President Obama the magic 60 -- but only in theory, because Senator Byrd was still out.

In August, Senator Ted Kennedy of Massachusetts died and the number went back down to 59 again until Paul Kirk temporarily filled Kennedy's seat in September.

Any pretense of a supermajority ended on February 4, 2010 when Republican Scott Brown was sworn into the seat Senator Kennedy once held.Do you see a two-year supermajority?

I didn't think so.

gimmesometruth27

BS44325 said:

PJ_Soul said:

BS44325 said:

PJ_Soul said:

I don't have a partisan memory. That is one instance you're talking about. I definitely don't remember, though, the Democrats literally opposing whatever bit of legislation that came along simply because Bush proposed it, no matter what that article might say. They absolutely did not do what the Republicans have been doing with Obama.

Yes they did. Through W's entire second term. Your memory is partisan.

No. I would say that your interpretation of the situation is what's partisan.

The only difference between obstruction now and obstruction then is that conservatives didn't whine about it back then.

what decade are you living in?

you are not american, so i would not expect you to know this, but democrats, when they had a majority under bush, were bullied into supporting bush's policies. the people who opposed the iraq invasion were called pussies and were publicly called out on it. you can't obstruct when you are contantly called out on it, like the minority gop did to the dems.

Halifax2TheMax

gimmesometruth27 said:

BS44325 said:

I get it...obstruction is horrible unless the guy you support is getting obstructed. Obama had a democratic super-majority for the first two years of his presidency and never even attempted to get a 61st vote in the senate. Stimulus, health care, you name it...you can't govern like a total partisan and expect to reach compromise later. Chickens coming home to roost.

this is absolute bullshit.

please stop perpetuating this lie.

Debunking the Myth: Obama's Two-Year Supermajority

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jennifer-m-granholm/debunking-the-myth-obamas_b_1929869.html

Mitt Romney's at it again -- shading the truth on CBS News' 60 Minutes.

In this video he's perpetuating the false Republican narrative that President Obama should have gotten more done during his first two years in office because he had a supermajority in the Senate.

A supermajority is a filibuster-proof 60 or more Senate seats, allowing one party to pass legislation without votes from the other,

Don't forget: the president needed a supermajority because of the Republicans' unprecedented use of the filibuster as an obstruction tactic -- they've used it more than 400 times.

But here's the deal -- the real deal -- there actually wasn't a two year supermajority.

This timeline shows the facts.

President Obama was sworn in on January 20, 2009 with just 58 Senators to support his agenda.

He should have had 59, but Republicans contested Al Franken's election in Minnesota and he didn't get seated for seven months.

The President's cause was helped in April when Pennsylvania's Republican Senator Arlen Specter switched parties.

That gave the President 59 votes -- still a vote shy of the super majority.

But one month later, Democratic Senator Byrd of West Virginia was hospitalized and was basically out of commission.

So while the President's number on paper was 59 Senators -- he was really working with just 58 Senators.

Then in July, Minnesota Senator Al Franken was finally sworn in, giving President Obama the magic 60 -- but only in theory, because Senator Byrd was still out.

In August, Senator Ted Kennedy of Massachusetts died and the number went back down to 59 again until Paul Kirk temporarily filled Kennedy's seat in September.

Any pretense of a supermajority ended on February 4, 2010 when Republican Scott Brown was sworn into the seat Senator Kennedy once held.Do you see a two-year supermajority?

I didn't think so.

Facts have no place in the world of BS.

Gern Blansten

gimmesometruth27 said:

BS44325 said:

I get it...obstruction is horrible unless the guy you support is getting obstructed. Obama had a democratic super-majority for the first two years of his presidency and never even attempted to get a 61st vote in the senate. Stimulus, health care, you name it...you can't govern like a total partisan and expect to reach compromise later. Chickens coming home to roost.

this is absolute bullshit.

please stop perpetuating this lie.

Debunking the Myth: Obama's Two-Year Supermajority

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jennifer-m-granholm/debunking-the-myth-obamas_b_1929869.html

Mitt Romney's at it again -- shading the truth on CBS News' 60 Minutes.

In this video he's perpetuating the false Republican narrative that President Obama should have gotten more done during his first two years in office because he had a supermajority in the Senate.

A supermajority is a filibuster-proof 60 or more Senate seats, allowing one party to pass legislation without votes from the other,

Don't forget: the president needed a supermajority because of the Republicans' unprecedented use of the filibuster as an obstruction tactic -- they've used it more than 400 times.

But here's the deal -- the real deal -- there actually wasn't a two year supermajority.

This timeline shows the facts.

President Obama was sworn in on January 20, 2009 with just 58 Senators to support his agenda.

He should have had 59, but Republicans contested Al Franken's election in Minnesota and he didn't get seated for seven months.

The President's cause was helped in April when Pennsylvania's Republican Senator Arlen Specter switched parties.

That gave the President 59 votes -- still a vote shy of the super majority.

But one month later, Democratic Senator Byrd of West Virginia was hospitalized and was basically out of commission.

So while the President's number on paper was 59 Senators -- he was really working with just 58 Senators.

Then in July, Minnesota Senator Al Franken was finally sworn in, giving President Obama the magic 60 -- but only in theory, because Senator Byrd was still out.

In August, Senator Ted Kennedy of Massachusetts died and the number went back down to 59 again until Paul Kirk temporarily filled Kennedy's seat in September.

Any pretense of a supermajority ended on February 4, 2010 when Republican Scott Brown was sworn into the seat Senator Kennedy once held.Do you see a two-year supermajority?

I didn't think so.

Thanks....I knew that crap was debunked but didn't search for it.

The GOP is a master at lying. They have an entire news network that will let them say anything they want unchallenged. When the other news outlets (NBC, CBS, ABC, PBS, etc.) challenge them it falls on deaf ears since so many GOP supporters live in the Fox News bubble.

The garbage that Fiorina stated in the debate is a perfect example. She totally made up shit about generals retiring because of disagreements with Obama and then when challenged on it she would not take it back. General Keane was even interviewed ON FOX and stated that he never did any work for Obama. Just fucking unreal.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/carly-fiorina-digs-claim-generals-retirement-due-obama/story?id=35808113

The Democrats don't do this folks....I'm not saying they don't lie or stretch the truth but when they say something outright false and are called out on it they don't continue to say it over and over.

BS44325

Lot of heads exploding on here. Soul, Gerns, Gambs, Jose, Jimmy, Gimme, Halifax...looks like every member of Broken Socialist Scene! Must have touched a nerve.

Gern Blansten

Actually I believe it might be your head exploding. You've been proven wrong. Why can't you grasp that?

mickeyrat

Gern Blansten said:

Actually I believe it might be your head exploding. You've been proven wrong. Why can't you grasp that?

If it isn't trolling its troll adjacent. Figure half the shit posted is fro personal amusement purposes only. Soem kind of merit in the rest. What kind, I have no idea.

gimmesometruth27

BS44325 said:

Lot of heads exploding on here. Soul, Gerns, Gambs, Jose, Jimmy, Gimme, Halifax...looks like every member of Broken Socialist Scene! Must have touched a nerve.

no my head did not explode. i am just sick and tired of people like you spouting off complete and utter lies as truth. i am going to start calling you on it every time i see it. i should not have to debunk your posts, but since nobody else is doing it, and i have a lot of time, i might as well be the guy.

josevolution

gimmesometruth27 said:

BS44325 said:

Lot of heads exploding on here. Soul, Gerns, Gambs, Jose, Jimmy, Gimme, Halifax...looks like every member of Broken Socialist Scene! Must have touched a nerve.

no my head did not explode. i am just sick and tired of people like you spouting off complete and utter lies as truth. i am going to start calling you on it every time i see it. i should not have to debunk your posts, but since nobody else is doing it, and i have a lot of time, i might as well be the guy.

Thanks for doing that I just don't have the time or sabby enough to get all the info needed to debunk most of the lies ....

PJ_Soul

BS44325 said:

Lot of heads exploding on here. Soul, Gerns, Gambs, Jose, Jimmy, Gimme, Halifax...looks like every member of Broken Socialist Scene! Must have touched a nerve.

My head has not exploded. I don't even know what you're referring to. And what is Broken Socialist Scene?

JimmyV

Something in this thread is alleged to have caused my head to explode? I missed that, whatever it was.

gimmesometruth27

JimmyV said:

Something in this thread is alleged to have caused my head to explode? I missed that, whatever it was.

maybe you had already gotten you mind so blown you did not realize that it exploded?

Halifax2TheMax

gimmesometruth27 said:

JimmyV said:

Something in this thread is alleged to have caused my head to explode? I missed that, whatever it was.

maybe you had already gotten you mind so blown you did not realize that it exploded?

Exactly.

I've given up and shan't waste my time by laying the waste pipe through the sandkasten as I shout Halts Maul.

Facts have no relevance in the world of BS.

northerndragon

PJ_Soul said:

BS44325 said:

Lot of heads exploding on here. Soul, Gerns, Gambs, Jose, Jimmy, Gimme, Halifax...looks like every member of Broken Socialist Scene! Must have touched a nerve.

My head has not exploded. I don't even know what you're referring to. And what is Broken Socialist Scene?

I think it's a band. I didn't know you all played together, that's pretty cool! :giggle:

BS44325

northerndragon said:

PJ_Soul said:

BS44325 said:

Lot of heads exploding on here. Soul, Gerns, Gambs, Jose, Jimmy, Gimme, Halifax...looks like every member of Broken Socialist Scene! Must have touched a nerve.

My head has not exploded. I don't even know what you're referring to. And what is Broken Socialist Scene?

I think it's a band. I didn't know you all played together, that's pretty cool! :giggle:

Broken Social Scene...A Canadian band...a collective if you will. They're excellent.