2 2
yobnoc

Impeach the MotherF%@KER!

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, RonD1120 said:

Liberals simply cannot comprehend the fact that passion is more powerful than liberal logic.

That's why liberals are doing so much better than conservatives. That's why the best countries in the world with the most wealth are liberal democracies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, billvon said:

So you don't know what the bill says or whether it's any good.  But you disagree with people who take positions on it.  And when Pelosi does something, she deserves to be outed.  But when the GOP does the same thing, it's just "politics."

You sure you're not a Trump supporter?

The answers given were in response to the Senate majority leader doing his job.  OR - another poster tried to twist it into that he's doing his job, but hes blocking the legislation.

His job is to decide what legislation is more important, and bring that up.  

But you knew that.

The whole argument is sour grapes.

If the shoe was on the other foot, and the Democrats had the power in the Senate, the republicans would be screaming that it wasn't fair, and throwing their OWN childish temper tantrums.

I think you already know that too, it's just much harder to see from your position on the political wheel.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, turtlespeed said:

The answers given were in response to the Senate majority leader doing his job.  OR - another poster tried to twist it into that he's doing his job, but hes blocking the legislation.

His job is to decide what legislation is more important, and bring that up.  

But you knew that.

The whole argument is sour grapes.

If the shoe was on the other foot, and the Democrats had the power in the Senate, the republicans would be screaming that it wasn't fair, and throwing their OWN childish temper tantrums.

I think you already know that too, it's just much harder to see from your position on the political wheel.

 

That's incorrect sir.

Read up on hearings and unanimous consent.

It was said very early in the Senate that no "one" is the senator. The idea was to hear issues and presented bills as a body.

Now insert your last sentence.

When viewed as a body, there is no applicable political wheel, which I believe was the intent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, turtlespeed said:

His job is to decide what legislation is more important, and bring that up.  

But you knew that.

And you stating that this is definitely all that he is doing and deciding on merit which bills are more important is hilariously biased.

 

But you knew that too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, jakee said:

And you stating that this is definitely all that he is doing and deciding on merit which bills are more important is hilariously biased.

 

But you knew that too.

Again - Sour grapes.

I know you don't LIKE the way he's doing his job, but he is doing it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In the Senate Rules and Proceedings it states:

The practice of "holds" (requests by senators to party leaders to delay floor consideration of legislation or nominations), which is nowhere recognized in Senate rules or precedents.

 

Yet that is what the current Russian Republican party is doing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(edited)
10 minutes ago, normiss said:

In the Senate Rules and Proceedings it states:

The practice of "holds" (requests by senators to party leaders to delay floor consideration of legislation or nominations), which is nowhere recognized in Senate rules or precedents.

 

Yet that is what the current Russian Republican party is doing.

113th senate did the same thing.

The only reason that some of the bills that were heard were from the Republicans, is because they were found to be relevant by the senate majority leader.

It may not have been as severe, but then again, maybe better more non partisan bills should be introduced.

Edited by turtlespeed
Added content

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, turtlespeed said:

113th senate did the same thing.

The only reason that some of the bills that were heard were from the Republicans, is because they were found to be relevant by the senate majority leader.

It may not have been as severe, but then again, maybe better more non partisan bills should be introduced.

Well, then, like now, they were the majority party, and given their party power over oaths and country, are you surprised they've repeated the same behavior?

Pretty much how we ended up with the version of the ACA we ended up with, they were intent on poisoning it so as to blame the party that submitted the whole idea.

Party power over the country is damn near treasonous to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, normiss said:

Well, then, like now, they were the majority party, and given their party power over oaths and country, are you surprised they've repeated the same behavior?

Pretty much how we ended up with the version of the ACA we ended up with, they were intent on poisoning it so as to blame the party that submitted the whole idea.

Party power over the country is damn near treasonous to me.

Umm, 

The Democrats had Senate majority then.

Republicans had the House.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, turtlespeed said:

Again - Sour grapes.

I know you don't LIKE the way he's doing his job, but he is doing it.

No, I don’t like your hypocrisy. It was you that said the bills were being passed over for more important ones - even though you have no idea which ones are important. 
 

You just assume it’s being done honestly because a Republican man is doing it. The exact opposite of the way you treat Pelosi.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(edited)
36 minutes ago, turtlespeed said:

Umm, 

The Democrats had Senate majority then.

Republicans had the House.

Yup, my bad - had it bassakwards.

Same shoes, different feet.

 

But for less than 2 years, and no real blocking like we're seeing now.

Edited by normiss
clipped off my typing for some reason

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, jakee said:

You said the bills were being passed over for more important ones. That’s what on merit means.

 
 
I did say that.  Since when does Importance HAVE to equal Merit?
 
LAW
the intrinsic rights and wrongs of a case, outside of any other considerations.
plural noun: merits
"a plaintiff who has a good arguable case on the merits"
 
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, normiss said:

Yup, my bad - had it bassakwards.

Same shoes, different feet.

 

But for less than 2 years, and no real blocking like we're seeing now.

When the ACA was pushed through - it opened the door to these tactics.

I have seen it build and build on that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, wmw999 said:

 Many liberals also disagree with the thought that passion is the best way to pick the leader of the most powerful, richest, nation in the world. 

I wouldn’t use passion to pick a doctor, either. 

Wendy P. 

However, the above arguments go nowhere because emotions are not being addressed only put down. So the arguments go on and on and on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(edited)
8 hours ago, gowlerk said:

That's why liberals are doing so much better than conservatives. That's why the best countries in the world with the most wealth are liberal democracies.

And that is why your arguments mean nothing. Emotional passionate people do not give a flip about what the others are doing. 

Don't F***k with my rice bowl.

"Sour grapes" mentioned but not addressed.

Edited by RonD1120

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, turtlespeed said:
I did say that.  Since when does Importance HAVE to equal Merit?
 
LAW
the intrinsic rights and wrongs of a case, outside of any other considerations.
plural noun: merits
"a plaintiff who has a good arguable case on the merits"

Why did you just quote the legal definition of merit when we are neither in a courtroom nor discussing one?

 

Anyway, in this case importance should mean merit otherwise your entire point is pointless.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, jakee said:

Why did you just quote the legal definition of merit when we are neither in a courtroom nor discussing one?

 

Anyway, in this case importance should mean merit otherwise your entire point is pointless.

Last I checked - we were discussing the lawmakers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, turtlespeed said:

Last I checked - we were discussing the lawmakers.

I thought we were discussing the people who weren’t making law. Anyway, balls in your court, what does ‘important’ mean?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, RonD1120 said:

And that is why your arguments mean nothing. Emotional passionate people do not give a flip about what the others are doing. 

Don't F***k with my rice bowl.

"Sour grapes" mentioned but not addressed.

Sour grapes? Due to treason and unequal treatment, which is a founding cornerstone of the Constitution. People seem to be pretty fed up with both.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, normiss said:

Sour grapes? Due to treason and unequal treatment, which is a founding cornerstone of the Constitution. People seem to be pretty fed up with both.

Some people are fed up.

Some are just fine with it, as long as what they want happens.

That can be appointing judges who will roll back rights for women and minorities.
That can be cutting taxes for the rich.
That can be simply 'pissing off the left'.

They simply ignore or deny the danger that Trump and his minions represent to our democracy. 

The funniest (not really) part is that so many 'Trumpettes' are afraid of 'communism and socialism', yet ignore Russian involvement, despite the fact that Putin was head of the KGB in the old Soviet Union, and most of those in power in Russia are the same ones that were behind most of it during the Soviet era.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

2 2