History Doesn't Lie

[Little Stevie]

History Doesn't Lie - that's why Teapublicans have to distort it!

http://youtu.be/C_UwkE7hB4s

[CuteOldGuy]

Geez, Stevie. You're starting to make me like Republicans again. Thank God for the filibuster!

[IIFFOFRDB]

I'm thinking of naming my next dog "Buster". LOL

[JD Barleycorn]

Okay a couple of salient points; the House has no filibusters and the House is where all, ALL, spending bills originate. There is no Constitutional filibuster, it is a Senate rule that could be changed by the Senate if they have enough votes. Despite the harpings of Rachel Maddow, there have been very few filibusters. What you have are threatened filibusters which seem to have the affect of a filibuster. The word you are looking for is "cloture". That is how the Senate dealt with filibusters in 1917. A real filibuster is when a Senator has the floor and is able to speak (and hold the floor) for as long as they can physically do it (think Mr. Smith Goes to Washington). Anytime a Senator refused to give up the floor (a filibuster) it could be overridden with 2/3s of the Senate. In 1975 they changed that to 3/5s of the Senate. So your filibuster is now the equivalent of threatening to hold you breath until you turn blue. The last real filibuster was 13 years ago.

Some light reading. Enjoy. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,156686,00.html

Oh, so your post is crap and so is MSNBC for promoting this crap.

[Little Stevie]

Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

Despite the harpings of Rachel Maddow, there have been very few filibusters. What you have are threatened filibusters which seem to have the affect of a filibuster. The word you are looking for is "cloture". The last real filibuster was 13 years ago.

Oh, so your post is crap and so is MSNBC for promoting this crap.

My post reported FACTS, Barleybrains!

YOUR post used "semantics" to try to cloud the truth that Republicans had blocked over 400 votes in comparison to only a few per year prior to implementation of their obstructionist strategy. Their "threat" to filibuster was used to block DOZENS of jobs bills in the Senate and to stop meaningful Senate legislation on jobs and infrastructure. They have also refused to confirm a record number of judicial appointments using the same tactics.

AND NO MATTER HOW MUCH YOU ATTEMPT TO CLOUD THE ISSUE, THE CLIPS OF ROMNEY, McCONNELL, RYAN AND OTHERS STILL PROVE THEY ARE LYING ABOUT THE 60 VOTE THRESHOLD THEY SWORE DEMS HAD!!!!!

[Fast Gunn]

Don't you love when it people (ahem) work in harmony?

. . . Why don't that do that more often?

[JD Barleycorn]

Thus proving that little Stevie can't think on his own. He has to link to Maddow??? It is what it is. A filibuster like the kind that the democrats tried in 1964 to keep blacks from voting was really a filibuster. A threat is not an attack. That is why assualt and battery are two different things.

[waverunner234]

History doesn't lie?

If that is true .......................
Then we will see not far from now that George Bush will go into history as the worst president the United States has ever had.

[Guest040616]

Originally Posted by waverunner234

History doesn't lie?

If that is true .......................
Then we will see not far from now that George Bush will go into history as the worst president the United States has ever had.

Let's be fair, shall we? It is difficult to compare and contrast a POTUS from 150-200 years ago to modern day Presidents. That was a different time and a different era and quite frankly the US foreign policy and economy of that period was not a dominant factor in the world.

It seems to me that GW should be judged on the here and now. I believe the more appropriate reference to Dubya would be as the "most unpopular (and incompetent) sitting President in modern history!"

Now that's a bandwagon I can jump on!

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/fac...orge_bush.html

[waverunner234]

Originally Posted by bigtex

Let's be fair, shall we? It is difficult to compare and contrast a POTUS from 150-200 years ago to modern day Presidents. That was a different time and a different era and quite frankly the US foreign policy and economy of that period was not a dominant factor in the world.

It seems to me that GW should be judged on the here and now. I believe the more appropriate reference to Dubya would be as the "most unpopular (and incompetent) sitting President in modern history!"

Now that's a bandwagon I can jump on!

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/fac...orge_bush.html

I can agree with that

[JD Barleycorn]

It is just that your media besotted opinion does not match the facts. Facts are difficult things. If you will recall Harry Truman was considered a huge disappontment when he left office. Now he is in the top ten on almost every list. Most of it is about having the courage to make a decision and popularity be damned. That is why Obama will fall very close to Jimmy Carter near the bottom.

[joe bloe]

Originally Posted by waverunner234

I can agree with that

Carter was a far worse president than George W Bush, and far less popular. Bush got re-elected. Carter lost his re-election bid to Reagan, in a humiliating defeat; the Electoral College vote was 489 to 49.

It's silly to say that Bush was less popular than Carter.

[Little Stevie]

Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

A threat is not an attack.

Look, Barleybrains, you and the wingnuts seem only to be capable of splitting hairs in a futile attempt to defend the indefensible. Every one of your posts is an attempt to divert the point I made in my opening post in this thread.

No matter how you choose to parse Cloture and the Filibuster, the obstructionist Teapublicans were the ones who used it to block a 51% majority PROVING exactly what I said - that Ryan, Rmoney, McConnell and the rest LIED ON CAMERA while saying the Dems had a 60-vote majority in the Senate and thus, total control of the Senate and House for the first two years.

You scream, "Maddow!" when it was clear that McConnell, Rmoney, Ryan, Rubio and the rest LIED when they said on camera and for the record, "The President got everything he wanted for the first two years."

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by Little Stevie

Look, Barleybrains, you and the wingnuts seem only to be capable of splitting hairs in a futile attempt to defend the indefensible. Every one of your posts is an attempt to divert the point I made in my opening post in this thread.

No matter how you choose to parse Cloture and the Filibuster, the obstructionist Teapublicans were the ones who used it to block a 51% majority PROVING exactly what I said - that Ryan, Rmoney, McConnell and the rest LIED ON CAMERA while saying the Dems had a 60-vote majority in the Senate and thus, total control of the Senate and House for the first two years.

You scream, "Maddow!" when it was clear that McConnell, Rmoney, Ryan, Rubio and the rest LIED when they said on camera and for the record, "The President got everything he wanted for the first two years."

The 111th Congress was dominated by the Dims, Little Blind Boy. You lie when you state otherwise.

The 111th Congress January 3, 2009, until January 3, 2011

The Senate . . . . . Dims. . Repubs
Final voting share. . . . . . .58% . . . . 42%

The House. . . . . . Dims. . Repubs
Final voting share . . . . . . 58.8% . . . 41.2%

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/111th_U...tates_Congress

[i'va biggen]

Amazing the petubs hold a majority in the house,but the dems have a 58.8% voting share.