Republican scumbags in the Senate

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

What made you think that; some of teh worst years America has suffered were at that time? It's probably unprecedented to have a president not veto anything for 5.5 years. Just think, if GWB would have not been elected in 2004, he would be one of the few presidents to never veto 1 thing; this should have been a clue to voters that GWB was incompetent.

But anyway, the original point was Even when Pelosi assumed Speaker role and Reid became Senator Majority Leader in 2007, they still couldn't make Bush do anything. I have illustrated that this is patently wrong.

You didn't manage to read past the summary of that article, did you? (big surprise, everyone).

If you had actually read it, you'd see that two of the 4 Bush overrides were a farm bill (and the second was merely merely to fix a clerical error). One was a water bill, another was for Medicare. Translated: pork and senior benefits. Not surprising they got a few votes.

Which ones didn't get overridden? The ones that matter -the defense ones. Our soldiers are still overseas, you'll note. Couldn't pass stem cell research, or HC for kiddies.

And if you had read the article (or remembered your political history at all), you'd quickly see that Reagan went the last 6 years of his office without a veto. You don't see it happening with the Democrats for such a length because you have to go back to JFK/LBJ for an 8 year stretch where the Senate was also in Democratic hands.

[Andy9o8 2]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Even when Pelosi assumed Speaker role and Reid became Senator Majority Leader in 2007, they still couldn't make Bush do anything.

More evidence that you are unaware of the congressional relationship between GWB and congress 2001 to 2007 VERSUS GWB and teh congress from 2007 to 2009.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_presidential_vetoes

George W. Bush 11(vetoes) 1(pocket veto) 12(total vetoes) 4(overrides) 33%(override ratio)

I believe only 1 of these vetoes occurred under the first 6 years, so the Dem-controlled House and tied senate, 49-49-2, did quite a bit with the limited power they had. Try again.

He did not use it enough in my opinion. During the early or later years

The only things Bush didn't use enough of were alcohol and cocaine.

[ridestrong 1]

Quote

I think people here should start calling them re-PUBE-corpo-con-clown-fasci-scum-li-urrr-urrrrrrr-urrrrrrrrrrrrrrr and say that out loud to themselves as they type it.

They automatically look childish when typing that crap.

*I am not afraid of dying... I am afraid of missing life.*
----Disclaimer: I don't know shit about skydiving.----

[Amazon 7]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Even when Pelosi assumed Speaker role and Reid became Senator Majority Leader in 2007, they still couldn't make Bush do anything.

More evidence that you are unaware of the congressional relationship between GWB and congress 2001 to 2007 VERSUS GWB and teh congress from 2007 to 2009.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_presidential_vetoes

George W. Bush 11(vetoes) 1(pocket veto) 12(total vetoes) 4(overrides) 33%(override ratio)

I believe only 1 of these vetoes occurred under the first 6 years, so the Dem-controlled House and tied senate, 49-49-2, did quite a bit with the limited power they had. Try again.

He did not use it enough in my opinion. During the early or later years

The only things Bush didn't use enough of were alcohol and cocaine.

Well ACTUALLy...he used them plenty in his life....

[Andy9o8 2]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Even when Pelosi assumed Speaker role and Reid became Senator Majority Leader in 2007, they still couldn't make Bush do anything.

More evidence that you are unaware of the congressional relationship between GWB and congress 2001 to 2007 VERSUS GWB and teh congress from 2007 to 2009.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_presidential_vetoes

George W. Bush 11(vetoes) 1(pocket veto) 12(total vetoes) 4(overrides) 33%(override ratio)

I believe only 1 of these vetoes occurred under the first 6 years, so the Dem-controlled House and tied senate, 49-49-2, did quite a bit with the limited power they had. Try again.

He did not use it enough in my opinion. During the early or later years

The only things Bush didn't use enough of were alcohol and cocaine.

Well ACTUALLy...he used them plenty in his life....

Yeah, but not nearly enough... you know?

[jgoose71 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Even when Pelosi assumed Speaker role and Reid became Senator Majority Leader in 2007, they still couldn't make Bush do anything.

More evidence that you are unaware of the congressional relationship between GWB and congress 2001 to 2007 VERSUS GWB and teh congress from 2007 to 2009.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_presidential_vetoes

George W. Bush 11(vetoes) 1(pocket veto) 12(total vetoes) 4(overrides) 33%(override ratio)

I believe only 1 of these vetoes occurred under the first 6 years, so the Dem-controlled House and tied senate, 49-49-2, did quite a bit with the limited power they had. Try again.

He did not use it enough in my opinion. During the early or later years

The only things Bush didn't use enough of were alcohol and cocaine.

Well ACTUALLy...he used them plenty in his life....

Yeah, but not nearly enough... you know?

I'm thinkin you should re-read Obama's Autobiography. Especially the chapter concerning his college years.

"There is an art, it says, or, rather, a knack to flying. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss."
Life, the Universe, and Everything

[jgoose71 0]

Quote

Quote

Generally speaking, it does seem that Congressional Republicans are better at political chess, and poker, than the Democrats.

Generally speaking, at this time, the Republicans have way more public support than the Dems

Was just a month ago the Dems did not need the R's.

what happened?

I just thought this needed to be mentioned again. I'm still confused on how the Republicans filibustered a filibuster proof majority. Did they hire a hypnotist to make a couple of Democrats think they were Republicans for a day?

"There is an art, it says, or, rather, a knack to flying. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss."
Life, the Universe, and Everything

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Generally speaking, it does seem that Congressional Republicans are better at political chess, and poker, than the Democrats.

Generally speaking, at this time, the Republicans have way more public support than the Dems

Was just a month ago the Dems did not need the R's.

what happened?

I just thought this needed to be mentioned again. I'm still confused on how the Republicans filibustered a filibuster proof majority. Did they hire a hypnotist to make a couple of Democrats think they were Republicans for a day?

It is a fact those who post here constantly blaming the R's want to overlook.

At least many here are not posting comments that would indicating they wish someone would have died instead of making it to the office.

But of course it was all meant in good humor and not childishness

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[Andy9o8 2]

Quote

I'm thinkin you should re-read Obama's Autobiography. Especially the chapter concerning his college years.

I'm thinkin u missed the point. The hint is in "didn't use enough of ...". In other words, maybe if Bush had stayed off the wagon he'd-a stayed outta the White House.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

You didn't manage to read past the summary of that article, did you? (big surprise, everyone).

You mean read past the data. Republicans are like teh fonz in that he couldn't say he was wrong; the R's can't address data.

Quote

If you had actually read it, you'd see that two of the 4 Bush overrides were a farm bill (and the second was merely merely to fix a clerical error). One was a water bill, another was for Medicare. Translated: pork and senior benefits. Not surprising they got a few votes.

Then let's look at all the vetoes and overrides:

VETOES NOT OVERRIDEN

1. July 19, 2006: Vetoed H.R. 810, Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2005, a bill to ease restrictions on federal funding for embryonic stem cell research. Override attempt failed in House, 235-193 (286 needed).

2. May 1, 2007: Vetoed H.R. 1591, U.S. Troop Readiness, Veterans' Care, Katrina Recovery, and Iraq Accountability Appropriations Act, 2007. Override attempt failed in House, 222-203 (284 needed). A later version of the bill that excluded certain aspects of the initial legislation that the President disapproved of... H.R. 2206, was enacted as Pub.L. 110-28 with the President's approval.

3. June 20, 2007: Vetoed S. 5, Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2007. No override attempt made.

4. October 3, 2007: Vetoed H.R. 976, Children's Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act of 2007 ("SCHIP"). Override attempt failed in House, 273-156 (286 votes needed).



6. November 13, 2007: Vetoed H.R. 3043, Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act of 2008. Override attempt failed in House, 277-141 (279 votes needed).

7. December 12, 2007: Vetoed H.R. 3963, Children's Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act of 2007.[25] Override attempt failed in House, 260-152 (275 votes needed).

8. December 28, 2007: Pocket Vetoed H.R. 1585, National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008[26]. A later version of the bill that changed a minor provision of which the President disapproved was quickly passed by Congress (H.R. 4986) and was enacted with the President's approval as Pub.L. 110-181 on 28 January 2008.

9. March 8, 2008: Vetoed H.R. 2082, Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008.[27][28] Override attempt failed in House, 225-188.

10. May 21, 2008: Vetoed H.R. 2419, 2007 U.S. Farm Bill.[29][30] Overridden by House, 316-108 (283 votes needed). Overridden by Senate, 82-13 (64 votes needed). Enacted as Pub.L. 110-234 over the President's veto. Due to a clerical error, this act was repealed by Pub.L. 110-246.

11. 18 June 2008: Vetoed H.R. 6124, 2007 U.S. Farm Bill, re-passed by Congress to correct a clerical error in HR 2419.[31] Overridden by House, 317-109 (284 votes required). Overridden by Senate, 80-14 (63 votes needed). Enacted as Pub.L. 110-246 over the President's veto.

12. July 15, 2008: Vetoed H.R. 6331, Medicare Improvements for Patients and Providers Act.[32] Overridden by House, 383-41 (283 votes required.) Overridden by Senate, 70-26 (64 votes required). Enacted as Pub.L. 110-275 over the President's veto.

KELP'S HERO HAD THESE VETOES OVERRIDEN

5. November 2, 2007: Vetoed H.R. 1495, Water Resources Development Act of 2007. Overridden by House, 361-54 (277 votes needed). Overridden by Senate, 79-14 (62 needed), and enacted as Pub.L. 110-114 over President's veto.

10. May 21, 2008: Vetoed H.R. 2419, 2007 U.S. Farm Bill.[29][30] Overridden by House, 316-108 (283 votes needed). Overridden by Senate, 82-13 (64 votes needed). Enacted as Pub.L. 110-234 over the President's veto. Due to a clerical error, this act was repealed by Pub.L. 110-246.

11. 18 June 2008: Vetoed H.R. 6124, 2007 U.S. Farm Bill, re-passed by Congress to correct a clerical error in HR 2419.[31] Overridden by House, 317-109 (284 votes required). Overridden by Senate, 80-14 (63 votes needed). Enacted as Pub.L. 110-246 over the President's veto.

12. July 15, 2008: Vetoed H.R. 6331, Medicare Improvements for Patients and Providers Act.[32] Overridden by House, 383-41 (283 votes required.) Overridden by Senate, 70-26 (64 votes required). Enacted as Pub.L. 110-275 over the President's veto.


So to break down your usual nonsense:

...two of the 4 Bush overrides were a farm bill (and the second was merely merely to fix a clerical error).

Yes, these 2 were connected, your hero wanted to nix aid to farms and many other provisions: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:HR02419:@@@D&summ2=m&

...One was a water bill,...

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-110publ114/html/PLAW-110publ114.htm

Yep, what a bad idea, water resource: To provide for the conservation and development of water and related
resources, to authorize the Secretary of the Army to construct various
projects for improvements to rivers and harbors of the United States,
and for other purposes.


...another was for Medicare....

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:HR06331:@@@D&summ2=m&

Yea, another bad idea; "Medicare Improvements for Patients and Providers Act of 2008 - Title I: Medicare - Subtitle A: Beneficiary Improvements - Part 1: Prevention, Mental Health, and Marketing - (Sec. 101) Amends title XVIII (Medicare) of the Social Security Act (SSA), as amended by the Medicare, Medicaid, and SCHIP Extension Act of 2007, to cover additional preventive services."

I mean, don't we have some ME country or some military contractor to give this to?

Quote

Translated: pork and senior benefits. Not surprising they got a few votes.

TRANSLATION: Water resource, farm aid, and aid to seniors is a joke, there is no need to subsidize these, we have all kinds of military necessity out there and then we could further pad teh pockets of the rich.

Quote

Couldn't pass stem cell research,...

Obviously you didn't read my post (big surprise). This was during the years where your heroes were in office, genius. You want to blame the Dems for the dealings of the R's, as usual. The first veto was before Pelosi/Reid, override failed. They were short 51 votes, the Dems likely figured why run this again, override will fail.

Quote

...HC for kiddies. ...

Altho it wasn't overriden, the Dems did try and fell only 13 votes short; too bad the maggoted Republicans didn't care more about kids. So the Dems try to override your heroes striking it down and fell just short. Of course, to your dismay, the Dems passed ti when they got more humans back in congress: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_Children's_Health_Insurance_Program You just can't help but to step it time and time again.

2009 reauthorization
In the wake of President Barack Obama's inauguration and the Democrats' increased majorities in both houses of Congress, legislative leaders moved quickly to break the political stalemate over SCHIP expansion. On January 14, 2009, the House passed H.R. 2 on a vote of 290-138. The bill authorized spending an added $32.8 billion to expand the health coverage program to include about 4 million more children, including coverage of legal immigrants[42] with no waiting period for the first time. A cigarette tax increase of 62 cents—bringing the total tax on a pack of cigarettes to $1.01—an increase of tax on chewing tobacco from $0.195/lb. to $0.50/lb.—as well as tax increases on other tobacco products[43] will fund the program's expansion. On January 29, the Senate passed the house bill by a 66-32 margin, with two amendments.[44] The House accepted the amended version on a vote of 290 to 135,[42] and President Obama signed the bill into law as Pub.L. 111-3 on February 4, 2009.[45]


Wow, that took 2 weeks after the humans took control of the government; sociopathy is in danger.

Quote

Which ones didn't get overridden? The ones that matter -the defense ones. Our soldiers are still overseas, you'll note.

Let's look at the attempted overrides that failed after the Dems had the House and tied the senate:

2. May 1, 2007: Vetoed H.R. 1591, U.S. Troop Readiness, Veterans' Care, Katrina Recovery, and Iraq Accountability Appropriations Act, 2007. Override attempt failed in House, 222-203 (284 needed). A later version of the bill that excluded certain aspects of the initial legislation that the President disapproved of... H.R. 2206, was enacted as Pub.L. 110-28 with the President's approval.

4. October 3, 2007: Vetoed H.R. 976, Children's Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act of 2007 ("SCHIP"). Override attempt failed in House, 273-156 (286 votes needed).

6. November 13, 2007: Vetoed H.R. 3043, Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act of 2008. Override attempt failed in House, 277-141 (279 votes needed).

7. December 12, 2007: Vetoed H.R. 3963, Children's Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act of 2007.[25] Override attempt failed in House, 260-152 (275 votes needed).

9. March 8, 2008: Vetoed H.R. 2082, Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008.[27][28] Override attempt failed in House, 225-188.


OK, so it's the Dems fault that these bills were passed by congress, vetoed by your hero and the attempt to override failed withteh Dems small lead in teh House and tie in the senate? Brilliance. They tried to override the 6th worst president of all time for worthy bills, and the rest of the garbage Republicans blocked it and you want to blame the D's with their tiny House lead and tie in the senate. Again, you continue to step in it.

Quote

And if you had read the article (or remembered your political history at all), you'd quickly see that Reagan went the last 6 years of his office without a veto.

You're hysterical. Ypu've just made my argument. POINT IS: IT IS NOT A GOOD THING WHEN PRESIDENTS FAIL TO VETO, IT MEANS THE CHECK/BALANCE THINGY ISN'T WORKING, YET YOU WANT TO CELEBRATE THE OTHER GARBAGE PRESIDENT JUST SAT THERE TWIDDLING HIS THUMBS. Kinda supports my argument that fascist ronnie was incompetent early on, whereas GWB was incompetent from day 1.

Quote

You don't see it happening with the Democrats for such a length because you have to go back to JFK/LBJ for an 8 year stretch where the Senate was also in Democratic hands.

I don't care which president has which session of congress on his side or against; you're surely showing strict partisanship. Regardless of the party alighment or not, it is not a good thing when there are no vetoes by teh president, the congress is then running the government with a rubber stamp from the president; DON'T YOU UNDERSTAND?

[funjumper101 15]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

The scumbags caved.

The record use of filibusters to block all 290 plus bills passed by the House may be coming to an end. This egregious and irresponsible misuse of the Senate rules to block EVERYTHING by filibustering every item, including routine matters, is why almost NOTHING has been accomplished by Congress in this session.
The Rescums have no shame. The Rescums pitched a bitch in 2005 and threatened the "Nuclear Option" when the Dems blocked judicial appointments by Shrub, using the filibuster as it was designed. The Rescums are massively abusing the rules, so much so that even Faux News is starting to call them on it.

All the right wing folks that support these clowns should do a bit of self education on the reality of what has happened for the past year, in comparison to previous Congresses. Once you know the facts, gather up your pitchfotks and torches and demand a stop to the severe abuse of the filibuster.

The good news is "Senate Votes 70-28 to Approve $15 Billion Jobs Bill", "Thirteen Republicans joined 55 Democrats and two independents voting in favor". It is high time that the Rescums got out of the way of the nation's business.

Don't you rightys feel any shame for supporting the asshole Rescums? Why not?
Blithering ignorance is the only logical explanation...

The Constitution calls for an up or down vote for apointments. I think Obamas should get that as well.

Did you have as much of a problem with the filibuster when the R's had the Senate?

The tactic being called for today has no precedent. The Senate is working , for the most part, as the founders intended. Very very slow so bs does not get quickly pushed through by either side

And did you see this link in another thread?

In case you didn't

http://www.breitbart.tv/obama-dems-in-2005-51-vote-nuclear-option-is-arrogant-power-grab-against-the-founders-intent/

In a completly unsurprising post, Marc reveals a breathtaking lack of knowlege of the history of the filibuster, the use of the filibuster, and the immensely dangerous misuse of the filibuster by the Rescums in the current senate session.

Perhaps you could read up on the use of the filibuster in recent times. Try 2005, for starters. Then read up on how many times the filibuster was invoked in the last 20 sessions. Then read up on how many times it has been invoked during THIS session.

Once you actually know what you are talking about, post again.

Maybe you could come up with a reasonable explanation as to why the senate is sitting on over 290 bills that have been passed by the house.
Bills that have been approved in the Hosue with a "yes" vote of over 400, in some cases. It is one thing to obstruct those bills that your party has actual objections to. It is a disgusting and despicable tactic to block EVERYTHING possible, even when the house rescums voted in favor of the bill.

This shit has got to stop.

Dude, where did I say it has not been used?

Fact, they both use it
Fact, the constitution calls for an up or down vote of presidential appointments and the filibuster historically was not used for appointments (notice I did not say never)
Fact, reconciliation or the nuclear option as it is called was intended for budget bills

Your ranting is what should stop dude

Did you investigate the hypocrisy you are supporting by the Dems as demonstrated in the link provided above?

You can't tell the difference between 64 and 129 plus and counting?
There is use, and egregious misuse. The rescums have long since passed into the egregious misuse area.

Facts are facts, Marc. Even when the facts make your heros look really, really bad.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

The scumbags caved.

The record use of filibusters to block all 290 plus bills passed by the House may be coming to an end. This egregious and irresponsible misuse of the Senate rules to block EVERYTHING by filibustering every item, including routine matters, is why almost NOTHING has been accomplished by Congress in this session.
The Rescums have no shame. The Rescums pitched a bitch in 2005 and threatened the "Nuclear Option" when the Dems blocked judicial appointments by Shrub, using the filibuster as it was designed. The Rescums are massively abusing the rules, so much so that even Faux News is starting to call them on it.

All the right wing folks that support these clowns should do a bit of self education on the reality of what has happened for the past year, in comparison to previous Congresses. Once you know the facts, gather up your pitchfotks and torches and demand a stop to the severe abuse of the filibuster.

The good news is "Senate Votes 70-28 to Approve $15 Billion Jobs Bill", "Thirteen Republicans joined 55 Democrats and two independents voting in favor". It is high time that the Rescums got out of the way of the nation's business.

Don't you rightys feel any shame for supporting the asshole Rescums? Why not?
Blithering ignorance is the only logical explanation...

The Constitution calls for an up or down vote for apointments. I think Obamas should get that as well.

Did you have as much of a problem with the filibuster when the R's had the Senate?

The tactic being called for today has no precedent. The Senate is working , for the most part, as the founders intended. Very very slow so bs does not get quickly pushed through by either side

And did you see this link in another thread?

In case you didn't

http://www.breitbart.tv/obama-dems-in-2005-51-vote-nuclear-option-is-arrogant-power-grab-against-the-founders-intent/

In a completly unsurprising post, Marc reveals a breathtaking lack of knowlege of the history of the filibuster, the use of the filibuster, and the immensely dangerous misuse of the filibuster by the Rescums in the current senate session.

Perhaps you could read up on the use of the filibuster in recent times. Try 2005, for starters. Then read up on how many times the filibuster was invoked in the last 20 sessions. Then read up on how many times it has been invoked during THIS session.

Once you actually know what you are talking about, post again.

Maybe you could come up with a reasonable explanation as to why the senate is sitting on over 290 bills that have been passed by the house.
Bills that have been approved in the Hosue with a "yes" vote of over 400, in some cases. It is one thing to obstruct those bills that your party has actual objections to. It is a disgusting and despicable tactic to block EVERYTHING possible, even when the house rescums voted in favor of the bill.

This shit has got to stop.

Dude, where did I say it has not been used?

Fact, they both use it
Fact, the constitution calls for an up or down vote of presidential appointments and the filibuster historically was not used for appointments (notice I did not say never)
Fact, reconciliation or the nuclear option as it is called was intended for budget bills

Your ranting is what should stop dude

Did you investigate the hypocrisy you are supporting by the Dems as demonstrated in the link provided above?

You can't tell the difference between 64 and 129 plus and counting?
There is use, and egregious misuse. The rescums have long since passed into the egregious misuse area.

Facts are facts, Marc. Even when the facts make your heros look really, really bad.

My heros?

Ya, only the R's abuse shit

Only when you dont get what you want it what is really burning your ass

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[funjumper101 15]

[reply
Ya, only the R's abuse shit

Only when you dont get what you want it what is really burning your ass

So come right out and say what you really think, Marc.

According to you, the filibuster is fantastic when used and abused by the rescums to stop anything and everything passed by the house during this session. According to you, the filibuster is a national disgrace when used as intended by the dems.

Two faced bullshit, thats what it is.

Have you been able to discern the difference between 64, and 129 and counting, yet?
Didn't think so...

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

Generally speaking, it does seem that Congressional Republicans are better at political chess, and poker, than the Democrats.

This is true. The Democrats could have filibustered all kinds of things, like the Patriot Act, the Bush Bailout, etc. But they didn't. Instead they chose to not only vote for them but to incude goodies of their own with it.

Thus, they could rail against bonuses for the bankers - bonuses that they specifically put int.

They could claim "I didn't know the Patriot Act would do that!" when, yep, everything those Democrats with actual balls said was true.

Personally, I'd like to see an experiement where Congress is deadlocked for six months and literally no laws get passed.
Also - please note - there is no such thing as a filibuster on a bipartisan effort. Democrats bitch about filibusters now. Republicans bitched about them then.

The whole "filibuster is bad" argument is so ripe with intellectual dishonesty that it is mere propoganda - no matter who says it. everything comes right back around.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

[reply
Ya, only the R's abuse shit

Only when you dont get what you want it what is really burning your ass

So come right out and say what you really think, Marc.

According to you, the filibuster is fantastic when used and abused by the rescums to stop anything and everything passed by the house during this session. According to you, the filibuster is a national disgrace when used as intended by the dems.

Two faced bullshit, thats what it is.

Have you been able to discern the difference between 64, and 129 and counting, yet?
Didn't think so...

Just exactly was significance do the numbers have dude?

They would be relative to the number of bills being pushed through.

and yes, I am ok with the filibuster. It gives the public time to learn before either party pushs crap like the HC bill through

Oh, and you would rather I beat around the bush and not say what I think out in the open? Hell, you would have call me kallend then

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

I don't care which president has which session of congress on his side or against; you're surely showing strict partisanship.

I love the irony in you writing about other people's strict partisanship. I'll just repeat a common theme - get a fact checker. Or read what you wrote.