You know there is more then one way to block legislation tenguy.

What about this.......

During the 1995-1996 legislative years, radical, right-wing Republican Members of Congress engaged in subversive, anti-American actions that shut down the U.S. Government.



The anti-American actions included failure--or refusal--to provide timely appropriations for national programs established by Congress resulting in:

• Obstructing administration of programs established by law for national defense, citizen-service, and national well-being programs
• Denial of right-to-work and other human rights for millions of Americans
• Jeopardy of benefits and services--often life-critical--for citizens, such as social security, Medicare, veterans benefits, food and nutrition, anti-poverty, and other programs
• Subversive undermining of confidence of the American people in their Government
• Anti-American damaging of reputation and stature of the United States in the eyes of the world

If the involved Members of Congress had engaged in military power--rather than political subversion--to shut down the Government, the act would have been treason.

Under the existing Constitution, Amendment XIV, Section 3, reads:
"No person shall be a Senator or Representativein Congress…who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress…to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same…."

Logically and unequivocally, shutting down the U.S. Government represents "…insurrection or rebellion…." against the United States of America.


http://www.rules.house.gov/archives/98-844.pdf
http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/cha...nts_11-27.html

 

And the Republicans are blocking heathcare reform in what manner?

You can spout all of the Labor Union rhetoric that you want, but the facts remain that the US pays more in labor to build finish products than the Asians. Jobs were lost for one reason only, we charge too much for our sweat and others are willing to do it cheaper. And in the end, hypocrites, like you, are buying the cheaper product.

 

all politicains are crooked, evil, low down theives in my opinion. there for they all are wrong dem or rep

 

?????? You know there are more ways to block things on Capital Hill.....

Republicans Seek to Delay Passage of an Unemployment Insurance Extension Bill, Hurting Thousands of American Families. Republicans delayed a bill that would extend unemployment benefits by 14 weeks for workers who have used their regular 26 weeks of state compensation and provide an additional six weeks to workers in states with unemployment rates higher than 8.5 percent. [Senate Vote 332, HR 3548, 11/2/09]


Republicans Tried to Keep the Senate from Debating a Bill to Provide Women Equal Pay for Equal Work. Republicans forced a cloture vote on the motion to proceed to a bill allowing employees to file charges of pay discrimination within 180 days of the last received paycheck affected by the alleged discriminatory decision. [Senate Vote 4, S. 181, 1/15/09]

Republicans Sought to Block a Bill Protecting Consumers from Credit Card Companies. The measure Republicans tried to block imposes restrictions on credit card company lending practices, including prohibiting companies from raising rates on cardholders during an account's first year. It requires companies to give at least 45 days notice before increasing an annual percentage rate or changing an open-ended contract, and restricts companies from computing interest charges on balances based on more than one billing cycle. [Senate Vote 193, HR 627, 5/19/09]

Republicans Forced a Cloture Vote on a Bill to Reign in Mortgage Fraud. The bill Republicans sought to block expands federal fraud laws to cover funds paid under the economic stimulus package and the 2008 Troubled Asset Relief Program, as well as mortgage lenders not directly regulated or insured by the federal government. [Senate Vote 170, S 386, 4/27/09]


Republicans Delayed Passage of the War Supplemental Bill, Seeking to Block Funds for the Nation’s Troops. Republicans forced a cloture vote on the bill that appropriated $91.3 billion in emergency supplemental funds for fiscal 2009, including funding for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and pandemic flu preparations. [Senate Vote 200, HR 2346, 5/21/09]

In a Time of Two Wars, Republicans Twice Delayed Passage of the Defense Authorization Bill. The conference report authorized $680.2 billion in discretionary funding for defense programs in fiscal 2010, including approximately $130 billion for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and other operations. [Senate Vote 233, S 1390, 7/16/09; Senate Vote 326, HR 2647, 10/22/09]

Republicans Continue to Stall Obama Administration Nominees. Currently, the Senate has confirmed 367 of President Obama’s nominees – that’s less than the past two administrations had gotten confirmed by this point in their administrations. By the end of October, President Bush had 421 nominees confirmed; President Clinton had 379 confirmed. [Senate Nominations, accessed 11/3/09 <http://senate.gov/pagelayout/legislative/a_three_sections_with_teasers/nominations.htm> ]


56 Nominees Are Currently Pending on the Executive Calendar, Many Held Up for Purely Political Purposes. Currently, 56 nominees to the Obama Administration are pending on the Executive calendar. As the Washington Post noted, many of these holds have little to nothing to do with the job the nominee is will be doing. For example, Republican Senator Bunning is holding up the Deputy US Trade Representative nominee over a tobacco bill in Canadian Parliament. Senator Bond is holding up the nominee “to head the General Services Administration, because the agency has been balking at constructing a $175 million federal building for Kansas City. Johnson's nomination has been languishing on the Senate floor since June.” Senator Vitter is holding up a nominee to the “Environmental Protection Agency until the EPA agrees to delay issuing regulations on formaldehyde, which has been classified as a probable human carcinogen. The irony of Vitter's hold is that one of the biggest potential problems with the chemical involves Hurricane Katrina survivors exposed to formaldehyde in FEMA trailers.” [Senate Executive Calendar, accessed 11/2/09 <http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/executive_calendar/xcalv.pdf> ; Ruth Marcus column, Washington Post, 10/7/09 <http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/06/AR2009100602836.html?nav=emailpage> ]

 

ROFL, you just showed me and the forum you lost.....when you have to resort to personal name calling you have nothing else to debate with....just gave me the victory!! ty vm:excited:

 

You are in good company. After I wiped the floor with him, tenguy called me a f*cking Communist. :excited:

I could call him a reactionary windbag, but I would rather provoke him into revealing to everyone that he is one. :excited:

 

Victory?? In your dreams..you are talking in a fucking porn forum, not the school debate club.

It's assholes like you who rant and rave about the loss of jobs in the US while driving your Toyota Prius and wearing your Calvin Klien jeans.

Hypocrite, pure and simple.

 

You are a communist, the fucking part I guessed at.

I am what I am, just as you are what you are. Not what you pretend to be.

 

Thank you for your post.

I see it as accountability, something we have lacked over many years...

President Bush quietly claimed the authority to disobey more than 750 laws, asserting that he had the power to set aside any statute passed by Congress when it conflicts with his interpretation of the Constitution.

With the disclosure of Bush's domestic spying program, in which he ignored a law requiring warrants to tap the phones of Americans, many legal specialists said Bush is hardly reluctant to bypass laws he believes he has the constitutional authority to override.

Far more than any predecessor, Bush had been aggressive about declaring his right to ignore vast swaths of laws -- many of which he says infringe on power he believes the Constitution assigns to him alone as the head of the executive branch or the commander in chief of the military

When you talk about "Government bureaucrat that has the ability to dictate" think about the Homeland Security Act.....

There is a difference between accountabillity and control.

www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/hr_5005_enr.pdf

 

Congratulations TwoFeathers. This is a screaming declaration of defeat if I've ever seen one.

And it was posting all the Republican obstructionism that set him off. I thought that was great.:excited:

 

Now this is something else I wanted to point out on this thread because it gets back to what I was saying about the Republicans not doing anything to help actually solve our problems and instead try to block solutions and actively work for their failure.

Here's another example of that:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/11/24/ap-gop-spinning-hard-on-h_n_368791.html

Like I said they are acting far more like spoiled children than representatives elected to solve problems.

 

Thank you good Sir.

I thought it was funny ...the word he used.."Hypocrite"....


"Hypocrite"....

Presumptive Republican presidential nominee John McCain has enjoyed strong support from a lobbyist group that backs the Kosovo Liberation Army despite allegations the KLA is a Muslim terrorist group with ties to criminal drug networks and al-Qaida.

Was it al-Qaida that was given credit for 9/11?

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=57678

"Hypocrite"....

The phrases vary. Some days, Vice President Dick Cheney says Saddam Hussein had "long-established" ties to Al Qaeda. Other days, he says the former Iraqi dictator "had a relationship" with the terrorist group.

The bipartisan commission that investigated the Sept. 11 attacks said it had found no evidence of a "collaborative relationship" between Hussein and the terrorist organization led by Osama bin Laden. Its staff has said it had found "no credible evidence" that Iraq had cooperated with Al Qaeda in targeting the United States.....

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2004/10/03/cheney_presses_hussein_qaeda_link/

"Hypocrite"....

WAR ON IRAQ IS FOR OIL.....

Bush decided to invade Iraq in April 2001, six months before September 11th, and the official reason was to improve Western access to Iraqi oil.

• "President Bush's Cabinet agreed in April 2001 that 'Iraq remains
  a destabilising influence to the flow of oil to international markets
  from the Middle East' and because this is an unacceptable risk to
  the US 'military intervention' is necessary."

The decision for military action had nothing to do with 9/11, the war on terrorism, the UN weapons inspections, weapons of mass destruction, Iraqi human rights, or any of the factors that the US government would like you to believe are the true motives for war.

The only people who will benefit from the war on Iraq are the elite wealthy oil men who finance Bush's election campaigns, and people like Bush who have huge personal investments in the oil industry. Oil company profits have already increased by fifty percent this year because of the war, and the invasion hasn't even started yet!

• "Profits in the fourth quarter soared 50% to $4.09bn (£2.5bn),
  beating analyst expectations."

War-time propaganda tells you what you want to hear; that your politicians have noble motives for the war on Iraq.

"Hypocrite"....

US VICE-PRESIDENT CHENEY SHARES OUT IRAQ'S OIL ......




Halliburton, an oil services company based in Bush's home-state of Texas, which was formerly run by US Vice-President Dick Cheney, has already been awarded a contract by the US government to operate in post-war Iraq.

• "Reports in the Wall Street Journal suggested the
  contracts could be worth as much as $900m."

Haliburton "has a history of government contracts" and will be a "leading beneficiary" of the war on Iraq. Mr Cheney should receive huge financial rewards for the war on Iraq through substantial investments in the corporation he once headed.

Iraq is currently the world's second largest source of oil, but the majority of subterranean oil reserves have never been tapped. After the war, when US oil corporations have fully developed the oil industry's potential, Iraq is expected to become the largest single supply of oil on Earth.

• "The new oilfields, when developed, could produce up
  to eight million barrels a day within a few years - thus
  rivalling Saudi Arabia, the present kingpin of oil."

The world's largest oil corporations are lining-up to exploit what could be the world's greatest supply of oil, and the US government has ensured that companies owned and heavily invested in by America are first in the queue.


Before you choose what to believe, have you considered the facts for yourself?


Sunday Herald newspaper (UK), "Official: US oil at the heart of Iraq crisis", 6 October 2002.

BBC News (UK), "Oil prices lift ExxonMobil", 30 January 2003.

Council on Foreign Relations, "Strategic Energy Policy Challanges for the 21st Century", April 2001.

Evening Standard (UK), "Cheney under fire over spoils of war", 11 March 2003.

• "THE company once headed by US Vice-President
  Dick Cheney is set to be a big corporate winner in the
  event of a war with Iraq that ended in US victory."

BBC News (UK), "US firms vie to rebuild Iraq", 10 March 2003.

• "Aside from Halliburton unit Kellogg Brown and Root,
  they include Bechtel, Fluor, Louis Berger and Parsons.
  All five are US-owned and headquartered."

Evening Standard, "Is this war all about oil?", 11 March 2003 (PM).

• "In the past few days the United States has brought
  unprecedented financial pressure on other members
  of the UN Security Council - particularly Russia, so
  far without success - to join the war on Iraq."

Evening Standard, "Giants see post-war oil bonanza", 10 March 2003.

• "President Saddam Hussein is believed to be sitting on
  reserves of at least 115bn barrels, the second-biggest in
  the world after Saudi Arabia."

FURTHER READING

BBC News, "Oil firms 'discuss Iraqi stake'", 12 March 2003.

• "Oil firms BP and Shell [both owned primarily by big
  investors in the US and the UK] have held discussions
  with the government over a possible stake in Iraq's oil
  reserves..."

Washington Post (USA), "Companies Selected to Bid on Iraq Reconstruction", 11 March 2003.

• "The Bush administration, preparing what would be
  the most ambitious U.S. rebuilding project since the
  aftermath of World War II, expects in coming days to
  award a construction contract worth hundreds of
  millions of dollars to begin remaking Iraq, U.S. officials
  said yesterday."
  
  "A few U.S. construction giants -- including the Bechtel
  Group Inc., Halliburton Co. and Fluor Corp. -- were
  invited to bid for the work..."

BBC News, "Analysis: Oil and the Bush cabinet", 29 January 2001.

• "What makes the new Bush administration different
  from previous wealthy cabinets is that so many of
  the officials have links to the same industry - oil."

BBC News, "Dick Cheney: Leading hawk", 10 September 2002.

• "The vice president has also been deeply involved in the
  oil industry for much of his career."

BBC News, "New Enron sleaze allegations", 8 October 2002.

• "The 'creative' accountancy of Arthur Andersen in Dick
  Cheney's firm Halliburton is now under official
  investigation."

 

I really enjoyed this post.:excited:

 

Yes among others Both O'Reily and Lumbaugh have made the statement with a slivery tongue.

Thank you for your view point..keep em coming.

 

And I found 42 threads about President Obama in the first three pages of my search, so you remain buried by the preponderance of evidence, and obviously wrong as I said several posts ago.

I'll say it again. In my experience on this forum there was not a steady stream of anti-Bush propaganda like there is in the case of President Obama.

And by the way don't embarrass yourself using terms you don't understand like; "the Socratic" method.

I've seen lots of direct opinions on this forum hoping for President Obama and the solutions being crafted to by the democrats to fail.

Plus when people oppose every solution offered by the Democrats but have none of their own, then yes they are hoping the country fails.

No you don't have any personal honor El Casanova. If you did you would have the integrity to admit on your own when your statements have been proven false.

Its obvious that simply finding six anti-Bush threads does not prove that people on the liberal side were equally as critical of President Bush as you conservative/Republicans are about President Obama.

A ratio of 5 to 1 cannot be equated El Casanova.

And now you're going to try and change you argument 180 degrees and try and argue the point I've been making all along. You can't get away with that El Casanova. I've been saying from the beginning that disliking a leader or speaking out against them is anti-American.

What I've said is when republicans instead of trying to solve problems only obstruct solutions and work and hope for failure that is anti-American. And the same goes for people even on this forum that believe it is more important for Obama to fail than it is to solve the very real problems facing us,

Oh man, you said "it is only rational to think."

ROFLCOPTERS
​

Now that is hilarious. Tell me rational thinker: Where is the proposal for "Universal Heakthcare"?

You're doing a really good job of pissing me off this morning tenguy.

Get the fuck out of here with your unions caused labor costs in the US to be so expensive compared to Asians. Fucking A, Americans working for 35 cents aday is the solutioin is that it tenguy?

 

The originator of this thread asked where the "death panel" lie came from. I explained it. No need to get rude or pissy.

 

But that's not what I pointed out. What I pointed out was that it was really funny to me that someone would say that it was only rational to think that once there is "Universal" healthcare, these mandates will become system wide," when that would be the result of something that is not even being purposed.

Like I said that's what bothers me. People can't see the fallacies their beliefs are based on.

 

This is what I mean. If someone disagrees with you and shows you what they base their opinion on, you become rude, combative, and put on an air of superiority. This is still another example of why debating on the internet is pointless. You never change peoples mind, all you can do it hope to bate someone into freaking out and becoming belligerent so as to stand back and say....


"See. This is how the people who oppose my views and opinions act. Surely you can see that everyone on that side of the debate are crazy, stupid, and ignorant."

...or whatever adjective you place before or after their name in hopes of discrediting them in the eyes of those who care little about the subject. Some on this site are able to debate a subject and in the end walk away with a greater appreciation for the other sides point of view. Others find any reason they can to ridicule and mock those who do not fall in lock step with their view.

 

Yeah, yeah, yeah, sure, sure, sure.

But I'm going to point something out here which is this response does not have a damn thing to do with you going around regurgitating pre-programmed propaganda that will not stand up to a logical and rational test.

So instead of just bitching about me why don't you defend your statements and prove me wrong or admit I have a point and discuss the realities instead of the pre-programmed response.

Now my attitude and style aside if the statements you make are true and based in reality you should have no trouble at all demonstrating that. But if you can't you're spouting off things you've never thought about let alone investigated for validity.

Ok now look Kevin I'm calling a double bullshit here. First when you voice your "views" and they are not based in reality they should be challenged, they must be challenged because believing irrational and illogical thoughts and ideas not only seriously impedes human progress its down right dangerous.

But second, your response is a classic example of an ad homenim fallacy because rather than elaborating on the actual points discussion you instead try to divert the topic to your claim to be under attack.

Now here is another excuse and false accusation I see all the time and have really come to resent it because the charge is more than just false. It is also the most commonly used excuse when someone knows what they believe will not stand up to the test of being rational and logical, but cannot face that reality.

I also resent you personally at this point for trying to contend that I'm not really interested in this topic and instead only want to discredit you.

I'll ask you again. Do you really believe the US public education system has failed? And if so what criteria are you using to base statement on?

If that is a topic you have immersed yourself in. If its a topic you really know and understand. Then you should not have the slightest trouble giving the examples that will show me to be a fool.

But there is only one other possibility. If you can't then you're just believing what someone else has told you.

 

You have disappointed me, tenguy. I used to think of you as a civilized conservative. Unfortunately, when you get cornered you're just as vicious as any right wing nut case from the swamps of Dixie. I know a bar room bigot at a local tavern who has better debating skills than you do.