warren buffet

[Ursa Majoris]

um...no. You have no evidence of that. Not that it matters to you.

Oh dear, you're quite right.

 

Well, actually, no you're not. Not that it matters to you.

 

The frequency of filibusters — plus threats to use them — are measured by the number of times the upper chamber votes on cloture. Such votes test the majority's ability to hold together 60 members to break a filibuster.

 

Last year, the first of the 111th Congress, there were a record 112 cloture votes. In the first two months of 2010, the number already exceeds 40.

 

That means, with 10 months left to run in the 111th Congress, Republicans have turned to the filibuster or threatened its use at a pace that will more than triple the old record. The 104th Congress in 1995-96 — when Republicans held a 53-47 majority — required 50 cloture votes.

[Azazello1313]

hey ursa, which party brings a cloture vote?

[Perchoutofwater]

hey ursa, which party brings a cloture vote?

 

You mean someone has done a bunch of political grandstanding to try to paint someone else as obstructionist, and a lot of people on the left bit hook line and sinker?

[caddyman]

You mean someone has done a bunch of political grandstanding to try to paint someone else as obstructionist, and a lot of people on the left bit hook line and sinker?

Not possible...all of the guys here on the left are independent thinkers. They never watch TV or listen to the radio. They just make up their own mind without any outside media influence. It is just us on the right who have time all day to listen to Shawn and Rush.

[The Mucca]

If they could just change Obamas tittle from President to Dictator, they could just get rid

of the little pests standing in their way of ruling the Country.

[yo mama]

If they could just change Obamas tittle from President to Dictator, they could just get rid

of the little pests standing in their way of ruling the Country.

[yo mama]

Not possible...all of the guys here on the left are independent thinkers. They never watch TV or listen to the radio. They just make up their own mind without any outside media influence. It is just us on the right who have time all day to listen to Shawn and Rush.

[Ursa Majoris]

hey ursa, which party brings a cloture vote?

Your point?

[yo mama]

hey ursa, which party brings a cloture vote?

The Disco Dance Fever Party?

Edited March 3, 2010 by yo mama

[westvirginia]

The Disco Dance Fever Party?

 

 

Burn, baby burn!

[bushwacked]

[Duchess Jack]

IMO, the only real thing shrub got right was letting slick willie's gun ban sunset. That and on-balance I like the guy he put up as chief justice of SCOTUS. Other than that, I see slick willie as being better than shrub was.

 

that reminds me of something I was thinking the other day.

 

So first there's eight years of Reagan and four years of Bush. Bush the first wasn't all that bad of president - he wasn't very good, but he wasn't all that bad. He had broad support on the Gulf War and didn't spit in too many people's eye (as far as I remember). He pulled out too early - but I don't see very much domestic conflict with his single term.

 

Clinton was fairly moderate. He had more leftist social views and more centrist economic views - but the right still went crazy after him. I would have loved to have seen what the guy could have done if he didn't have to deal with the whole Ken Star thing in his second term. Clinton's term seems to be where a lot of this new age of politics began.

 

Then there was George 'you are with us or against us' Bush and now Obama. Its odd - because if you take Obama out of the mix - the last few decades have been fairly good to the right, but the GOP seem to carry their indignation like they have been a second class citizen since the country first began.

Edited March 4, 2010 by Duchess Jack

[caddyman]

that reminds me of something I was thinking the other day.

 

So first there's eight years of Reagan and four years of Bush. Bush the first wasn't all that bad of president - he wasn't very good, but he wasn't all that bad. He had broad support on the Gulf War and didn't spit in too many people's eye (as far as I remember). He pulled out too early - but I don't see very much domestic conflict with his single term.

 

Clinton was fairly moderate. He had more leftist social views and more centrist economic views - but the right still went crazy after him. I would have loved to have seen what the guy could have done if he didn't have to deal with the whole Ken Star thing in his second term. Clinton's term seems to be where a lot of this new age of politics began.

 

Then there was George 'you are with us or against us' Bush and now Obama. Its odd - because if you take Obama out of the mix - the last few decades have been fairly good to the right, but the GOP seem to carry their indignation like they have been a second class citizen since the country first began.

You make your own point. As you can see where the country has been for over thirty years...the the right or right of center at the very least. Now this admin is trying to swing that all the way to the other side in the worst time possible. It will not work. They are also doing this with a blind eye toward reality. When you are going bankrupt, you don't make plans to spend even more money. You try and tighten up.

[Square]

When you are going bankrupt, you don't make plans to spend even more money. You try and tighten up.

Is that what the right or center of right has done in recent years? I was dumb enough to vote for Bush twice but I really can't give him props for tightening the belt during rough economic times.

[westvirginia]

that reminds me of something I was thinking the other day.

 

So first there's eight years of Reagan and four years of Bush. Bush the first wasn't all that bad of president - he wasn't very good, but he wasn't all that bad. He had broad support on the Gulf War and didn't spit in too many people's eye (as far as I remember). He pulled out too early - but I don't see very much domestic conflict with his single term.

 

Clinton was fairly moderate. He had more leftist social views and more centrist economic views - but the right still went crazy after him. I would have loved to have seen what the guy could have done if he didn't have to deal with the whole Ken Star thing in his second term. Clinton's term seems to be where a lot of this new age of politics began.

 

Then there was George 'you are with us or against us' Bush and now Obama. Its odd - because if you take Obama out of the mix - the last few decades have been fairly good to the right, but the GOP seem to carry their indignation like they have been a second class citizen since the country first began.

 

You have to remember that elder Bush, honorable man that he was (and I mean that), was WAYYYY more moderate than either Reagan or shrub. Bush signed a big tax increase, and he also signed an executive order banning importation of surplus WWII bolt-action rifles.

 

I actually think Clinton's moderation was what saved him from being a one-termer too. He got into office and there was the HC mess with the hildebeast, his gun-ban, gays in the military, and he was on the ropes for a while. He hired Dick Morris after losing all those congressional seats and moderated his message and style of governance. He worked with that republican congress and together they did some good things.

 

Why the obamessiah can't learn from this makes me just shake my head in wonder. If he'd just co-opt some of the heffalump ideas for HC, he'd get all the credit for it not to mention actually solving the f'n problem of cost. Instead he's talking about another monstrosity of a bureaucracy which won't solve the problem. And I really wonder who's giving him advice about his tax policy? Raising taxes with the economy right now would be dumb both politically and economically.

[driveby]

It would have loved to have seen what the guy could have done if he hadn't diddled Monica Lewinsky in his second term.

fixed

[bpwallace49]

You have to remember that elder Bush, honorable man that he was (and I mean that), was WAYYYY more moderate than either Reagan or shrub. Bush signed a big tax increase, and he also signed an executive order banning importation of surplus WWII bolt-action rifles.

 

I actually think Clinton's moderation was what saved him from being a one-termer too. He got into office and there was the HC mess with the hildebeast, his gun-ban, gays in the military, and he was on the ropes for a while. He hired Dick Morris after losing all those congressional seats and moderated his message and style of governance. He worked with that republican congress and together they did some good things.

 

Why the obamessiah can't learn from this makes me just shake my head in wonder. If he'd just co-opt some of the heffalump ideas for HC, he'd get all the credit for it not to mention actually solving the f'n problem of cost. Instead he's talking about another monstrosity of a bureaucracy which won't solve the problem. And I really wonder who's giving him advice about his tax policy? Raising taxes with the economy right now would be dumb both politically and economically.

 

+ a million.

 

When GWB swung the pendulum too far to the right, the resulting over-correction with Obama to the left is equally out of whack. If Obama actually stood up to Reid and Pelosi and started LEADING more from the middle instead of delegating to those whack jobs the whole country would be better served. Centrists are the ones that decide every election after the outliers for each party cast their "guaranteed" vote every year based on single plank platforms (abortions, military spending, etc.) the CENTRISTS and INDEPENDENTS elect every single pres every election . . .

Edited March 5, 2010 by bpwallace49

[westvirginia]

+ a million.

 

When GWB swung the pendulum too far to the right, the resulting over-correction with Obama to the left is equally out of whack. If Obama actually stood up to Reid and Pelosi and started LEADING more from the middle instead of delegating to those whack jobs the whole country would be better served. Centrists are the ones that decide every election after the outliers for each party cast their "guaranteed" vote every year based on single plank platforms (abortions, military spending, etc.) the CENTRISTS and INDEPENDENTS elect every single pres every election . . .

 

See, I think the obamessiah is, if not a "Have to agree here socialist", then very inclined toward socialist tendencies. He won't stand up to the far lefties, because he is one. I don't think he cares a whit for cost (in the HC bill), he wants fedgov control and "fairness". He's just harping on cost to try and sell it, the way a salesman does when he knows he's trying to sell an inferior product.

[Perchoutofwater]

See, I think the obamessiah is, if not a "Have to agree here socialist", then very inclined toward socialist tendencies. He won't stand up to the far lefties, because he is one. I don't think he cares a whit for cost (in the HC bill), he wants fedgov control and "fairness". He's just harping on cost to try and sell it, the way a salesman does when he knows he's trying to sell an inferior product.

 

+1

[Perchoutofwater]

Has anyone considered that if this bill was so good, why couldn't it be passed when the Dems has a super majority? If this bill is so good, why do Reid, Pelosi and Obama have to buy the votes of member of their own party ala the Louisiana Purchase, the Corn Husker Kickback, and the Beehive Buyout? If this is legislation is so good, why do the majority of American citizens want it to fail?

[westvirginia]

Has anyone considered that if this bill was so good, why couldn't it be passed when the Dems has a super majority? If this bill is so good, why do Reid, Pelosi and Obama have to buy the votes of member of their own party ala the Louisiana Purchase, the Corn Husker Kickback, and the Beehive Buyout? If this is legislation is so good, why do the majority of American citizens want it to fail?

 

That's because they just CLEARLY aren't as intelligent and enlightened as the obamessiah...

[caddyman]

Is that what the right or center of right has done in recent years? I was dumb enough to vote for Bush twice but I really can't give him props for tightening the belt during rough economic times.

One of the number one complaints many on the right had with W was he spent too damn much. However, just because he was a big spender does not mean that those who supported him condoned it. Also, as it stands now in 2020 the interest alone on our national debt will be 800 BILLION dollars. That is more than the average deficit of any year of the W admin.

[Azazello1313]

That's because they just CLEARLY aren't as intelligent and enlightened as the obamessiah...

 

it's pretty amusing to see the left wing shills throwing up their arms about republican obstructionism every chance they get, when the primary problem for the democratic leadership is getting their own troops in line.

[Perchoutofwater]

Is that what the right or center of right has done in recent years? I was dumb enough to vote for Bush twice but I really can't give him props for tightening the belt during rough economic times.

 

In his defense he had a tech bubble, 9/11, and war that were significant drains and yet deficits were falling until Reid and Pelosi took control of congress. Still Bush was horrible by any measure, if for no other reason than he promoted and signed Medicare D which is the single worst piece of legislation I can think of that a Republican president has ever promoted and signed.

[bpwallace49]

For all the right wing shills . . . quick question.

 

Do you think health care is absolutely fine the way it is with no changes? Not the bill, the current system? TIA . .