View Single Post
Old 02-21-2013, 10:35 PM   #269
patteeu patteeu is offline
The 23rd Pillar
 
patteeu's Avatar
 

Join Date: Sep 2002
Casino cash: $19337
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigRedChief View Post
Why do you defend your tax money going for corporate welfare to billion $ profit companies?
One of your two examples of "corporate welfare" (the oil example) isn't really a valid one as I've explained to you in the past.


Quote:
Originally Posted by BigRedChief View Post
uh facts are getting in the way of your argument points. It was the Republicans that never negotiated in good faith. The re-election of Obama means to me that the American public thinks that Obama wasn't the obstructionist. Or why did they re-elect him? Only the hard right agrees with your views.


* The historical obstructionism of the opposing party was unprecedented. From day one.
On day one (or shortly thereafter when Arlen Specter switched parties), the Republican opposition was irrelevant and couldn't obstruct anything. The democrats had a functionally filibuster-proof majority in the Senate (including the two independents who are democrats in everything but name) and a stranglehold on the House.


Quote:
Originally Posted by BigRedChief View Post
* More filibusters than ever was even dreamed of by the opposing party. Obama had to have 60 votes to pass anything.
That 60 vote thing isn't new. George W. Bush needed 60 votes to move things through the Senate too. It's been that way for a long time. Majority leaders traditionally haven't bothered to move legislation that they knew didn't have the votes, but apparently the democrat strategy over the past few years has been to demonstrate as much resistance from Republicans as possible.

That said, it's not surprising that the filibuster tool was used more over the last few years given the large majority the democrats held. If they'd have held a more narrow majority, they would have been more open to bipartisanship and/or the minority would have had a better chance to peel off a small number of democrats to block legislation by denying a simple majority.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BigRedChief View Post
* It started from day one. The Senate majority leader publicly declared that the #1 goal was to make Obama a one term president.
On day one, the Senate majority leader was Harry Reid.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BigRedChief View Post
* On inauguration night top Republicans got together in a steakhouse and conspired to obstruct every single issue or proposal that Obama wanted. And then over the 4 years they carried out that plan.
Again, for a long time, Republicans were irrelevant. They were probably in that steakhouse because they knew that they were so powerless it didn't matter whether they were in the Capital Building or not. Obama and his cheerleaders are the biggest whiners and take-no-responsibility finger-pointers in the history of mankind.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BigRedChief View Post
* He proposed legislation in the exact same form as previous Republican legislators had proposed. Same exact proposal as the Republican. But now they not only opposed their own ideas and proposals but filibuster the proposal.
Rarely, if at all. Proponents of Obamacare liked to say it was identical to Romneycare and identical to the Heritage plan, neither of which was true. There were similarities, to be sure, but the devil is in the detail.
__________________


“The American people are tired of liars and people who pretend to be something they’re not.” - Hillary Clinton
Posts: 89,636
patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.
  Reply With Quote