Lameduck getting lamer

[CellarRat]

www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/direction_of_country-902.html

[CellarRat]

Watching the ed show. Every guest blames the problems we have on the republicans. Lol. Sounds like MP.

Where does the buck stop? Well, when the other party is in power it stops with them. When the dems are in power it's stops with the other party.

This is why I'm no longer a democrat. It's a party that's has been taken over by extreme big government liberals without any conscience or morals.

And no SF both parties are not the same, I belong to neither now, but the democrats are far worse. Very few lunatics are on the right, the left, on the other hand, is saturated with them.

Big government is not the answer. History continues to support that conclusion.

At least the polls seem to suggest that we have a chance to get back on track.

[Deleted]

Aug 6, 2014 16:38:11 GMT -5 CellarRat said:

Watching the ed show. Every guest blames the problems we have on the republicans. Lol. Sounds like MP.

Where does the buck stop? Well, when the other party is in power it stops with them. When the dems are in power it's stops with the other party.

This is why I'm no longer a democrat. It's a party that's has been taken over by extreme big government liberals without any conscience or morals.

And no SF both parties are not the same, I belong to neither now, but the democrats are far worse. Very few lunatics are on the right, the left, on the other hand, is saturated with them.

Big government is not the answer. History continues to support that conclusion.

At least the polls seem to suggest that we have a chance to get back on track.

Let's see, unless I missed an election, a coup, or something similar, the Republicans control the House and they also control the Senate (since it takes 60 votes to end a filibuster and the Democrats do not hold 60 seats). Our President can do little on his own, sadly. So your conclusion validates what you watched and heard on the Ed Show - The buck stops with the party in power - the Republican TeaParty/McConnell Obstructionists. God - you are soooooo easy!!!!!!!!

I am glad to see all of the myriad experts on the Ed Show agree with me, but then, their conclusions should be evident to anyone with a modicum of a brain and a pulse.

[CellarRat]

Aug 6, 2014 19:28:44 GMT -5 @misspractice said:

Aug 6, 2014 16:38:11 GMT -5 CellarRat said:

Watching the ed show. Every guest blames the problems we have on the republicans. Lol. Sounds like MP.

Where does the buck stop? Well, when the other party is in power it stops with them. When the dems are in power it's stops with the other party.

This is why I'm no longer a democrat. It's a party that's has been taken over by extreme big government liberals without any conscience or morals.

And no SF both parties are not the same, I belong to neither now, but the democrats are far worse. Very few lunatics are on the right, the left, on the other hand, is saturated with them.

Big government is not the answer. History continues to support that conclusion.

At least the polls seem to suggest that we have a chance to get back on track.

Let's see, unless I missed an election, a coup, or something similar, the Republicans control the House and they also control the Senate (since it takes 60 votes to end a filibuster and the Democrats do not hold 60 seats). Our President can do little on his own, sadly. So your conclusion validates what you watched and heard on the Ed Show - The buck stops with the party in power - the Republican TeaParty/McConnell Obstructionists. God - you are soooooo easy!!!!!!!!

I am glad to see all of the myriad experts on the Ed Show agree with me, but then, their conclusions should be evident to anyone with a modicum of a brain and a pulse.

The first two years of the Obama administration dems had control of the house and the senate. They lost the house but the senate and the executive branch remain with the democrats. Your spin is entertaining I'll give you that.

President Clinton worked with a republican controlled congress. President Reagan worked with the house dems specifically with tip Oneil. Although Reagan and tip Oneil had little in common politically, Reagan worked with him.

[Deleted]

Once again you are exhibiting another overdose of right wing kool-aid. Take a look at the following site - it will give you the party by party breakdown of the Senate and House in two year chunks. Please point out to me (and the rest of those that follow these posts) where the Democrats had 60 or more Senate seats.

www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0774721.html

A filibuster will prevent a law from coming to the Senate floor for a vote. A vote to invoke cloture (ends a filibuster) initially required a 2/3 majority in the Senate. For Rat's benefit - 2/3 of 100 = 67 votes (66.666 rounds to 67). In 1975 the Senate voted to change the requirement to invoke cloture to 3/5 = 60 votes. The last time the Democrats held a Senate majority of 60 or more was during the 94th and 95th Congress (1975-1979). This is not spin, it is reality that we see time and time again as the Republicans in the Senate threaten or actually conduct a filibuster, thereby PROHIBITING A LAW FROM COMING TO A VOTE! No one is saying that cooperation between the parties (didn't want to use the Republican hot button "compromise" word) hasn't happened in the past and laws have been brought to the floor with no filibuster and passed by a simple 51 vote majority. Hasn't happened much during the last six years of effective Republican obstructionism. When Presidents Clinton and Reagan worked with opposing Congresses, they were not hampered by 1)the Tea Party, 2)an ultra right makeup of the Republican Party, and 3)Mitch McConnell's "leadership" evidenced by his vow to prevent any and all success in any and all areas under the term(s) of President Obama.

Now please, using facts, show me where what I just posted is spin. The only spin in play here is going on in that miniscule calcified brain of yours as you try to validate the crap you accept from right wing media.

[th24]

[indian82]

Aug 7, 2014 5:28:49 GMT -5 th24 said:

View Attachment

I'm sure you think that's clever and cute, but really all it shows is that you have no facts, logic or even a news clip to counter MP's post.

[CellarRat]

Aug 7, 2014 5:09:00 GMT -5 @misspractice said:

Once again you are exhibiting another overdose of right wing kool-aid. Take a look at the following site - it will give you the party by party breakdown of the Senate and House in two year chunks. Please point out to me (and the rest of those that follow these posts) where the Democrats had 60 or more Senate seats.

www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0774721.html

A filibuster will prevent a law from coming to the Senate floor for a vote. A vote to invoke cloture (ends a filibuster) initially required a 2/3 majority in the Senate. For Rat's benefit - 2/3 of 100 = 67 votes (66.666 rounds to 67). In 1975 the Senate voted to change the requirement to invoke cloture to 3/5 = 60 votes. The last time the Democrats held a Senate majority of 60 or more was during the 94th and 95th Congress (1975-1979). This is not spin, it is reality that we see time and time again as the Republicans in the Senate threaten or actually conduct a filibuster, thereby PROHIBITING A LAW FROM COMING TO A VOTE! No one is saying that cooperation between the parties (didn't want to use the Republican hot button "compromise" word) hasn't happened in the past and laws have been brought to the floor with no filibuster and passed by a simple 51 vote majority. Hasn't happened much during the last six years of effective Republican obstructionism. When Presidents Clinton and Reagan worked with opposing Congresses, they were not hampered by 1)the Tea Party, 2)an ultra right makeup of the Republican Party, and 3)Mitch McConnell's "leadership" evidenced by his vow to prevent any and all success in any and all areas under the term(s) of President Obama.

Now please, using facts, show me where what I just posted is spin. The only spin in play here is going on in that miniscule calcified brain of yours as you try to validate the crap you accept from right wing media.

Strawman arguments again. Bravo. I am not arguing about filibusters or the fact that 60 votes are needed to conclude a debate on a bill.

Nice try.

The fact of the matter is that the dems have the majority in the Senate and they control. You are a rabid liberal as your posts demonstrate. The tea party folks that you so fondly refer to are composed of dems, republicans and independents. I stopped paying attention to party ideologues like yourself because you don't seem to care about the country, all you care about is your team and winning. You make your silly arguments and you pretend to be objective.

The fact of the matter is that presidents like Clinton and Reagan were leaders that were able to lead even though they didn't have complete control of the congress.

Stop your filibustering, lord knows that you have the time and enough hot air, but spare us from your insanity.

[Deleted]

Ok Rat - define "control" and then show us what bills have been introduced by the Republicans in the Senate that have been either, not brought to the floor or voted down by the Democratic 'majority'!

[CellarRat]

Aug 7, 2014 6:44:44 GMT -5 @misspractice said:

Ok Rat - define "control" and then show us what bills have been introduced by the Republicans in the Senate that have been either, not brought to the floor or voted down by the Democratic 'majority'!

Again, follow along, I'm not arguing with your strawman. It's the president's job to lead with the congress the people elect. That's the way it was then and that's the way it is now.

The reality is that both democrats and republicans are distancing themselves from this administration. That in my opinion isn't necessarily a bad thing. I would rather have no legislation than bad legislation. The system of government that you seem to abhor is designed that way. Stalemate and agreeable incremental change is a good thing. It prevents rapid swings one way or the other.

The present administration is divisive by constantly making the arguments you make in a demagogic fashion. Would you insult the party that you seek concessions from? Would you lead like that?

I know that Romney wouldn't "lead" like that. He was the gov in a state where the majority were dems. He made it work: he was a leader.

[Deleted]

It's also the duty of the Congress to WORK WITH the President that all of the people elected. The problems in this country are shared by all of us. When legislation is proposed, by either side, no one, least of all me, would expect the other side to just blindly accept it. Those elements that are not in alignment with all need to be adjusted by counter proposals and negotiations. That is how the government is supposed to work. Just saying "NO" with no counter is counter to the principles of our Government and what the Founders hoped for. I agree that bad legislation should never be implemented but I feel the other side must work to remove the "bad" adjective - maybe not resulting in an ideal bill, but one that would at least help to solve a problem. It is clear to me, and should be clear to someone who claims to be astute in all things political, that the Republicans, over the last six years, have only said "NO" and have offered ZERO in the way of counter proposals. The Affordable Care Act is a case in point. All the House has accomplished in the last four years is numerous, redundant votes to TOTALLY repeal the act. When asked about why they wanted to eliminate the entire bill and examples of the good things in it were set forth they would pause and say we'll fix it - pure BS - they have no alternative because they don't want it in any way shape or form. When President Obama agreed in TOTAL with a Republican proposed budget from the House, the Republicans, caught unaware and clearly with no intention of passing ANY budget, changed their mind and voted down what THEY HAD PROPOSED. How do you think Clinton, Reagan or even Romney would have handled that? Romney made it work in Utah because he was not governing as an ultra right wing conservative - he was more moderate. Does Romney Care ring a bell with you? Once your great leader realized he needed votes from Republicans across the country to have any hope at being elected President he backtracked big time. Pure political BS. They all do only what they need to do to ensure getting reelected. Term limits are needed - that's the only fix. The Tea Party has adopted the hostage taking stance of threatening incumbent Republicans who won't drink the Kool-Aid and sign the pledge with a primary - pure blackmail and, sadly, it works. I say throw all the bums out but unfortunately no one wants to vote out their own representative who brings home the bacon just before each election.

[th24]

This is for Indian!