Tea Party protesters heckle man with Parkinson’s

[likearock 1]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

You said the Dems controlled congress from 07 to 09, are you standing by that or not? Quit skating, answer the question.

You *were* answered - your inability to accept it isn't my problem.

In which post (#) was it answered?

#53:

Quote

Quote

You said the Dems controlled congress from 07 to 09, are you standing by that or not?

If you don't agree with it, you should discuss it with SPEAKER Pelosi or with MAJORITY LEADER Reid, not me.

IOW: Since they both held those posts since 2007, the Dems controlled congress since then.

I guess your definitions of "control" and "answer" are not the same as mine.

Of course, you can "win" any argument if you dispute the definitions its component words. So what is your definition of "control"?

In the Senate, having at minimum 51 senators from your party, or 50 + the VP. Anything less (the DEMS had 49 at the time in question here) and you have to rely on others, which means you don't have control.

Simple, really.

Wikipedia disagrees:

Quote

Following the elections, the party balance for the Senate stood at 51-49 in favor of the Democrats (including independent Bernie Sanders and Independent Democrat Joe Lieberman, who caucused with the Democrats). The Democrats needed 51 seats to control the Senate because the Vice President of the United States, Republican Dick Cheney, would have broken a 50-50 tie in favor of the Republicans.

The fact that the majority leader post switched hands to the Democrats indicated effective control.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

You said the Dems controlled congress from 07 to 09, are you standing by that or not? Quit skating, answer the question.

You *were* answered - your inability to accept it isn't my problem.

In which post (#) was it answered?

#53:

Quote

Quote

You said the Dems controlled congress from 07 to 09, are you standing by that or not?

If you don't agree with it, you should discuss it with SPEAKER Pelosi or with MAJORITY LEADER Reid, not me.

IOW: Since they both held those posts since 2007, the Dems controlled congress since then.

I guess your definitions of "control" and "answer" are not the same as mine.

Of course, you can "win" any argument if you dispute the definitions its component words. So what is your definition of "control"?

In the Senate, having at minimum 51 senators from your party, or 50 + the VP. Anything less (the DEMS had 49 at the time in question here) and you have to rely on others, which means you don't have control.

Simple, really.

Right, and with Cheney breaking 8 ties, ranking 11th of 47 of all time, the 49-49 tie was significant.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

You said the Dems controlled congress from 07 to 09, are you standing by that or not? Quit skating, answer the question.

You *were* answered - your inability to accept it isn't my problem.

In which post (#) was it answered?

#53:

Quote

Quote

You said the Dems controlled congress from 07 to 09, are you standing by that or not?

If you don't agree with it, you should discuss it with SPEAKER Pelosi or with MAJORITY LEADER Reid, not me.

IOW: Since they both held those posts since 2007, the Dems controlled congress since then.

I guess your definitions of "control" and "answer" are not the same as mine.

Of course, you can "win" any argument if you dispute the definitions its component words. So what is your definition of "control"?

In the Senate, having at minimum 51 senators from your party, or 50 + the VP. Anything less (the DEMS had 49 at the time in question here) and you have to rely on others, which means you don't have control.

Simple, really.

Wikipedia disagrees:

Quote

Following the elections, the party balance for the Senate stood at 51-49 in favor of the Democrats (including independent Bernie Sanders and Independent Democrat Joe Lieberman, who caucused with the Democrats). The Democrats needed 51 seats to control the Senate because the Vice President of the United States, Republican Dick Cheney, would have broken a 50-50 tie in favor of the Republicans.

The fact that the majority leader post switched hands to the Democrats indicated effective control.

Because turncoat Lieberman caucased with the Dems that gave them majority status. If you want to call his voting record liberal or Democratic I wish you a good time. Lieberman:

- In 06 his own state the Dem party ousted him in the primaries. Lieberman ran as an Indep and of the peopel who elected him, 2/3 were registered Repubs.

- Lieberman was hardcore pro-war even as teh Dems backed off.

- Lieberman heavily campaigned for McCain in the 08 pres race.

- With the HC vote, Lieberman was the last onboard as the Dems whittled all the Dem stuff out, like public option. He threatened fillibuster many times. I bet he will vote no on HC now and denounce reconcilliation even tho it is a Repiblican tool, IOW's he will still be acting like a Republican as he hangs with the Dems.

So if you want to hang in Wikipedia's every word and saythe Dems had a majority, have a good one. WHen a person campaigns for the Republican president hopeful, I have a hard time calling that person a Dem. Again, Harry Reid only became the Dem majority leader due to them having 51 members incl both indeps, caucasing with them. Truely a facade as a year later threw his support behind McCain and 2 years later threatened to block the fillibuster by the Dems.

Calling Lieberman a Dem is like calling a drag queen a woman; he may look like one, but he really isn't one underneath.

[Airman1270 0]

...Let's see. We could keep the blacks out of proper schools and keep them from marrying white women....
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Please research this and report back: Who exactly has proposed such policies?

... We could fire people because they were gay or disabled...
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
More ridiculousness. Business owners are not eager to replace people who are doing the job well, regardless of their personal imperfections. At the same time, they should have the right to hire & fire as they please, without having to explain their decisions to a judge. Private property rights.

Just because a guy might be gay or disabled does not render him immune from the normal ebb & flow of real life. If someone decides he doesn't want you to work for him, then go work somewhere else. Why must a court be involved?


...We could keep "undesirables" from voting by using poll taxes and literacy tests. If you were a woman and got an abortion, you'd end up in prison...
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

(Sigh.) Do your homework and report back: Who is proposing such policies?


...And if people like you have your way, my friends will end up being kicked out of school because they're black, and imprisoned because they're gay or think they own their own bodies...
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
What are you talking about? Who is suggesting such laws?

Cheersw,
Jon

[billvon 2,435]

>Who exactly has proposed such policies?

Conservatives circa 1960.

> Business owners are not eager to replace people who are doing the job well . . .

Sure they are. Why hire someone you are afraid of when you can hire someone who will be your buddy? Back then it was blacks, now it's Muslims. Fortunately we now have laws that prevent someone from being fired based on their religion.

>Do your homework and report back: Who is proposing such policies?

Generally conservatives. They're the ones trying to repeal Roe v. Wade, trying to tear married couples apart, and trying to get people fired for being gay. (Ironically, they are as likely as anyone else to be gay, get abortions or get divorced.)

[Airman1270 0]

Nah "chistians" ... or the zyclon b they used before burning the bodies ...
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
What's really amusing/frightening is that this country is teeming with people running loose with college degrees who consider themselves "educated," yet actually believe that the mass murder that occurred in Europe some 70-odd years ago was driven by people who regularly attended Bible study.

Having made such an offensive accusation, please back it up. How was Christianity responsible for the Holocaust?

(Extra credit: Site New Testament references which condone the actions of the German leadership.)

Cheers,
Jon

[Airman1270 0]

...Business owners are not eager to replace people who are doing the job well . . .

Sure they are...
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Rarely, if ever. But the point is that they have the right to make these decisions. Liberty. Freedom. If Steve doesn't want you working for him, it doesn't matter why. Instead, go work for DeShawn. If you understand this and don't make a fuss you'll likely get a good reference from Steve. But nobody owes you a job.

Besides, do you really want to work for someone who only has you on staff because a judge is forcing the situation?


...Fortunately we now have laws that prevent someone from being fired based on their religion...
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Good. Tell that to the Christian guy who was fired after his supervisor forced a conversation about homosexuality, then objected when he explained his views on the matter.


>Do your homework and report back: Who is proposing such policies?

Generally conservatives...
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Specifics, please.


...They're the ones trying to repeal Roe v. Wade...
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Two reasons: 1) Abortion, by its very definition, is the murder of a baby by its own mother, and 2) RvW was plain bad law. Period. This matter was not voted on by the people's repesentatives. It was shoved down our throats by a handful of liberal judges.

If you think abortion should be legal, fine. Offer your arguments, persuade people to agree, and encourage your elected representatives to vote for it.


...trying to tear married couples apart...
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
This is irrational hysteria. What are you talking about?

Cheers,
Jon

[skymiles 3]

Do you know nothing about American history? Stupid question, you already answered it.

[billvon 2,435]

>But the point is that they have the right to make these decisions.

Employers do not have the same rights as anyone else. You have the right to ask a friend of yours to drive your crappy car to pick you up because he can say no. You do not have the right to tell your employee to drive the truck with no brakes to make a delivery, because he can't say no as easily.

Likewise, you can't fire someone because they're black, or because they're catholic. You recently told us how annoyed you'd be if someone fired you because you were wearing a cross. You said you might even sue them. Other people feel the same way you do - and that has been codified into law.

>Tell that to the Christian guy who was fired after his supervisor forced a
>conversation about homosexuality, then objected when he explained his
>views on the matter.

Got a link?

>This matter was not voted on by the people's repesentatives. It
>was shoved down our throats by a handful of liberal judges.

That's how the US works. The judiciary enforces the constitution against people who want to violate it to get their way. At least here in the US, you don't get to violate other people's rights because of your religious beliefs, even if you are really, really mad about something.

>f you think abortion should be legal, fine. Offer your arguments,
>persuade people to agree, and encourage your elected representatives to
>vote for it.

Why? We live under a Constitution. You can't vote on things that are prohibited by the US Constitution. You can't decide to bring slavery back, or outlaw FOX News, or make Catholicism illegal just because it's a popular thing to want to do.

OTOH, if you feel it's important, by all means, amend the Constitution to make abortion illegal. That's the right way to do it.

>This is irrational hysteria. What are you talking about?

A conservative group here in California recently tried to get legally married gays forcibly separated. They failed (fortunately.)

[Amazon 7]

Quote

Nah "chistians" ... or the zyclon b they used before burning the bodies ...
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
What's really amusing/frightening is that this country is teeming with people running loose with college degrees who consider themselves "educated," yet actually believe that the mass murder that occurred in Europe some 70-odd years ago was driven by people who regularly attended Bible study.

Having made such an offensive accusation, please back it up. How was Christianity responsible for the Holocaust?

(Extra credit: Site New Testament references which condone the actions of the German leadership.)

Cheers,
Jon

You REALLLY hate it that all of them who brought us "The Final Solution WERE Christians and were raised as such... but you as a good little denier will stick to your great fear of being led to those cattle cars... DUDE.. seek help... preferably someone who has a grip on some semblance of reality

Quote

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

A member of Einsatzgruppe D is about to shoot a man sitting by a mass grave in Vinnitsa, Ukraine, in 1942. Present in the background are members of the German Army, the German Labor Service, and the Hitler Youth.[16] The back of the photograph is inscribed "The last Jew in Vinnitsa".Prior to WWII, Germany was not only in an economic crisis but also a political struggle between various political parties. The struggle between these parties often played out in open brawls on the streets of cities. Two of these parties dominated the struggle: the Nazi party and the Communist party. The 13 leaders of the German Communist party were all Jewish. The German people were even more afraid of communism infecting their country than western democracies were and communism became synonymous with Judaism. The Nazi leadership had a largely Christian background (people such as Hitler, Himmler, Goebbels and Höß were Roman Catholic apostates[17]), and a large majority of the German population were Christian. Some Christians blamed Jews for the murder of Jesus, deicide. The combination of communism, deicide, racism, and the many other problems Jewish people were made the scapegoat for, aligned the Nazis and many non-Nazi Germans against the Jews in a deadly way. A key proponent of such antisemitism was the propagandist Ulrich Fleischhauer who operated internationally through the notorious Welt-Dienst (World-Service) media operation based in Erfurt, Germany.