Will be served up in January by the new Republican Congress. Democrats not invited. The new jesus will be there striking any Democrat dead that tries to get in.
Original Post
Replies sorted oldest to newest
As opposed to Big Rock Candy Mountain -- the source of Obama's stash.
The new jesus will be there striking any Democrat dead that tries to get in.
As nice as that sounds I really don't see it happening.
Originally Posted by prissy442:
Will be served up in January by the new Republican Congress. Democrats not invited. The new jesus will be there striking any Democrat dead that tries to get in.
____
And how will all those RINOS and traditional, sensible Republicansfare, who are so despised by the shrill, inflexible, cantankerous, disruptive, my-way-or-the-highway TEA Party morons? Will the mainstream Republicans tell those fools to go pound sand or to take a hike to the more torrid regions of the nether world? Will the GOP be STEWED in its own jangling juices? Let the fun and feuding begin!
None of the RINOs voted for Obamacare. The Republicans are once more aiming for Reagan's big tent.
Originally Posted by direstraits:
None of the RINOs voted for Obamacare. The Republicans are once more aiming for Reagan's big tent.
____
But the TEAParty nutjobs and other radicals refuse to get under that tent.
We will see.
reagan would be considered a 'liberal' by the tea party standards.. good luck trying to herd cats.
once the republicans show they're not going to make the extremists of the 'tea party' happy... they'll 'primary' every republican candidate the feel wronged them. this could turn out to be a great thing for the democrats , in 2016.
Originally Posted by Contendah:
Originally Posted by direstraits:
None of the RINOs voted for Obamacare. The Republicans are once more aiming for Reagan's big tent.
____
But the TEAParty nutjobs and other radicals refuse to get under that tent.
________________________________________________________
Condie,
The TEA party groups mainly wish to cut government spending and taxes. They will have may allies among the rest of the party.
The Democrats have Reid and Pelosi (who was just caught in a blatant lie) -- two progressive radicals who helped produce the present Republican majority.
Rainbow stew for NASA Is that the trade Sen. Ted Cruz has in mind for Sessions and Shelby?
Texas Sen. Ted Cruz, the top Republican on the Senate Subcommittee on Science and Space, expressed interest in the potential role the private sector could play which, he said, could “generate opportunities for commercialization that can generate economic growth and jobs.”
Officials told members of the Senate Subcommittee on Science and Space efforts are on track in developing the Space Launch System (SLS), a heavy launch vehicle, and the Orion spacecraft, being built by Texas company Lockheed Martin, that will one day explore beyond-lower-earth-orbit with manned missions to the Moon, Mars, and asteroids.
Originally Posted by Contendah:
Originally Posted by direstraits:
None of the RINOs voted for Obamacare. The Republicans are once more aiming for Reagan's big tent.
____
But the TEAParty nutjobs and other radicals refuse to get under that tent.
__________________________________________________________________
The real fun will be seeing the remaining Democrat Senators fighting over scraps of power like hyenas over carrion,. They're use to running the place for the last eight years -- minority status sucks. Be interesting to see if any swap parties. I expect that to happen in the House.
But, remember, newbies, if you see Harry Reid napping, its not right to call the DC coroner.
Dimcrats had control for the first two years of odumas presidency and only managed to pass the unaffordable care act.
Originally Posted by mad American:
Dimcrats had control for the first two years of odumas presidency and only managed to pass the unaffordable care act.
______________
i've proven this to be a lie about three times, on these forums.. yet, the republicans keep posting it.. anyone else shocked?
Originally Posted by Crash.Override:
Originally Posted by mad American:
Dimcrats had control for the first two years of odumas presidency and only managed to pass the unaffordable care act.
______________
i've proven this to be a lie about three times, on these forums.. yet, the republicans keep posting it.. anyone else shocked?
_______
Not I. Once a lying weasel, always a lying weasel. No cure for that condition.
If you say it's a lie that democrats had control, you're a liar. If you continue to spew that lie, you're ignorant. How else did odumacare get passed? No wonder he got reelected, democratic voters are ignorant of facts. The only good that may come from the last election is that bayrak hoosain does not have as much control as he had in the past.
Originally Posted by Crash.Override:
Originally Posted by mad American:
Dimcrats had control for the first two years of odumas presidency and only managed to pass the unaffordable care act.
______________
i've proven this to be a lie about three times, on these forums.. yet, the republicans keep posting it.. anyone else shocked?
How can it be a lie when it is a matter of fact as being true?
The Repubs never had a chance to stop Obamadon'care. The dems had sixty votes with the two independents who caucused with them and the temporary appointment of Paul Kirk to fill in for Ted Kennedy. There was no way that the Republicans in the Senate could stop the first draft of Obamadon'care. Because of the election of Scott Brown, the Dems had to pass the Senate bill in the House as is and make a few changes using the budget reconciliation process craftily to avoid the possibility of a filibuster.
With every other Democrat now in favor and every Republican now opposed, the White House and Reid moved on to addressing Nelson's concerns in order to win filibuster-proof support for the bill;[97] they had by this point concluded "it was a waste of time dealing with [Snowe]"[98] because, after her vote for the draft bill in the Finance Committee, she had come under intense pressure from the Republican Senate leadership.[99] After a final 13-hour negotiation, Nelson's support for the bill was won with two concessions: a compromise on abortion, modifying the language of the bill "to give states the right to prohibit coverage of abortion within their own insurance exchanges", which would require consumers to pay for the procedure out of pocket if the state so decided; and an amendment to offer a higher rate of Medicaid reimbursement for Nebraska.[70][100] The latter half of the compromise was derisively called the "Cornhusker Kickback"[101] and was repealed in the subsequent reconciliation amendment bill.
On December 23, the Senate voted 60–39 to end debate on the bill: a cloture vote to end the filibuster. The bill then passed, also 60–39, on December 24, 2009, with all Democrats and two independents voting for it, and all Republicans against (except Jim Bunning, who did not vote).[102]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P..._Affordable_Care_Act
The procedure for "invoking cloture", or ending a filibuster, is as follows:
- A minimum of sixteen senators must sign a petition for cloture.
- The petition may be presented by interrupting another Senator's speech.
- The clerk reads the petition.
- The cloture petition is ignored for one full day during which the Senate is sitting. For example, if the petition is filed on Monday, it is ignored until Wednesday. (If the petition is filed on a Friday, it is ignored until Tuesday, assuming that the Senate did not sit on Saturday or Sunday.)[13]
- On the second calendar day during which the Senate sits after the presentation of the petition, after the Senate has been sitting for one hour, a "quorum call" is undertaken to ensure that a majority of the Senators are present. However, the mandatory quorum call is often waived by unanimous consent.
- The President of the Senate or President pro tempore presents the petition.
- The Senate votes on the petition; three-fifths of the whole number of Senators (sixty with no vacancies) is the required majority; however, when cloture is invoked on a question of changing the rules of the Senate, two-thirds of the Senators voting (not necessarily two-thirds of all Senators) is the requisite majority. This is commonly referred to in the news media as a "test vote"
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloture#United_States
bahahahaha... one asks how it can be not be true.. the next one posts a link proving it's not true. bahahhaha! i doesnt' get any better than this.
The link posted by hy flyer stated that the democrats had a majority in both houses the first two years of odumas presidency.
rt. wingnut stupidity at its finest.. the entire post of stanky's shows there wasn't a democrat majority.
Joe Lieberman was one of the independents who caucused with the dems. He was a dem in sheep's clothing because he lost in the Democratic primary but he won in the general election as an independant. Bernie Sander is a honest socialist who caucuses with the less honest socialists and reports indicate that he is considering running for president as a dem. So tell me, when did the repubs have a chance in stopping the bill when they only got to 41 members after the Senate's vote?
how did the republicans get so few senators? oh yea, the majority of people decided to make it that way... none the less, there was NO DEMOCRAT MAJORITY... feel free to congratulate yourself for finally acknowledging it and to educate your rt. wingnut brethren.
Once more, we have a slippage from a sidereal universe. What else could explain memories false to this one?
Party standings in the Senate for most of this Congress
57 Democrats
2 Independents, caucusing with Democrats
41 Republicans
<small>(The Democrats controlled a 60-vote supermajority in the latter half of 2009)</small>
bahahahah... not a one can produce proof of the 60 democrats.. yet they sure do keep trying. 
Well this was in the link
The apportionment of seats in the House was based on the 2000 U.S. Census. In the November 4, 2008 elections, the Democratic Party increased its majoritiesin both chambers, giving President Obama a Democratic majority in the legislature for the first two years of his presidency
Everyone will line up for the rainbow stew in January as promised by the republicans. Bless their hearts.
obama was sworn in on jan. 20, 2009...
58 democrat senators....after the republicans contested al franken, in minnesota, he wasn't 'seated' for another 7 months... in april, specter switched parties giving the democrats 59.. still not the 'super majority' need to break the 'do nothing republican' filibusters.. used over 400 times, thus far, under obama...
in may, byrd, of west virgina, was hospitalized.. back down to 58..
in july, franken was sworn in.. however, with byrd out.. still at 59...
august, the passing of ted kennedy and the subsequent 'seating' of a republican in feb. 2010 negates any concept of a 'super majority'. thus ends the 'rt. wingnut' lie of 'two years'.. what else you got?
58 is more than 40. That is a majority. No wonder you're an obama worshipper.
i knew one of the rt. wingnuts would latch on to that deflection... thanks for showing just exactly how stupid the rt. wing has become.
We were not talking "super majority" just majority which the demos had! Right or did I miss something?
Originally Posted by mad American:
Dimcrats had control for the first two years of odumas presidency and only managed to pass the unaffordable care act.
_________________
FLYER2
no laws could be passed because of the 'do nothing republicans'. it took a 'super majority' to do anything... i've shown where that didn't exist in SEVERAL threads, on these forums... that's where this whole thing started... now, what was your question?
Originally Posted by Crash.Override:
bahahahah... not a one can produce proof of the 60 democrats.. yet they sure do keep trying.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Here, we have an excellent example of progressive education -- in which, a majority is less than 50 percent. Since Thomas Jefferson wrote the parliamentary rules for the Senate, a super majority of 60 percent was required for many final votes. The operative word is "super majority/" The Democrats breached this limit by declaring a reconciliation, requiring less than a super majority.
The progressives posting in this thread have no idea of what I write. Watch them squirm!
Originally Posted by Crash.Override:
Originally Posted by mad American:
Dimcrats had control for the first two years of odumas presidency and only managed to pass the unaffordable care act.
_________________
FLYER2
no laws could be passed because of the 'do nothing republicans'. it took a 'super majority' to do anything... i've shown where that didn't exist in SEVERAL threads, on these forums... that's where this whole thing started... now, what was your question?
__________________________________________________________
Actually, a number of bills have passed and become law, else government would have ceased almost four years ago.
even when shown the entire basis for this discussion, they can't/won't face facts..
_Originally Posted by Crash.Override:
even when shown the entire basis for this discussion, they can't/won't face facts..
___________________________________________________
So, no laws or appropriation bills have passed since 2008 have passed and the president has operated in contravention with the constitution! That is the only conclusion one may arrive at, if your statements are to be considered.
dire, there have been shutdowns... did you forget? then we get to deal with the rt. wingnut tendency to go to the extreme and not acknowledge common sense.
Crash,You are the one who won't face facts. How did the unaffordable care act get passed without a democrat majority? Also, is 58 more than 40? The truth is, obumma had what he wanted the first two years of his presidency, and accomplished nothing good for America.
you've been shown how it took the two independents to pass the act... now, you rt. wingnuts are trying to convince the american people having insurance is a bad thing.. your guys have control, now... we'll see how wonderful they are.. i'm gonna bet the american people suffer because of it... and in 2016 will correct the issue.