Harry Reid's grab for power

There's nothing wrong with my comprehension skills. Your first paragraph was a weak rebuttal.

About what the Republicans want is likely less liberal nominees. What Cruz wants is to repeal Obamacare. When the President meets behind closed doors with Congressional leadership from both sides it widely reported that he won't deal or deals in bad faith.

He's already a lame duck President. His unwillingness to deal and his misunderstanding of political capital along with his tone deafness has put him in this position. Here's the rub: it was easily predicted.

Really.

I already put the facts blatantly in your face. In 2005, Republicans shied away from the nuclear option. . Originally Posted by lustylad

They shied away because the Dems caved.

Here's the rub: it was easily predicted.

Really. Originally Posted by gnadfly

You think the President wanted this to happen?

Of course it was easily predicted ... on both sides. The GOP wanted it more than the Dems because they think they are winning over the Senate in 2014. Obama did not want it to happen but it had to happen....the GOP is glad it happened. Personally, I wished it had happened sooner, like when they were trying to pass the ACA. Would have gotten a much better bill.

There's nothing wrong with my comprehension skills. Your first paragraph was a weak rebuttal.

About what the Republicans want is likely less liberal nominees. What Cruz wants is to repeal Obamacare. When the President meets behind closed doors with Congressional leadership from both sides it widely reported that he won't deal or deals in bad faith.

He's already a lame duck President. His unwillingness to deal and his misunderstanding of political capital along with his tone deafness has put him in this position. Here's the rub: it was easily predicted.

Really. Originally Posted by gnadfly

Then maybe the Reps should put forth electable platforms and candidates.

As to bargaining in bad faith, I would say that is the hallmark of both sides right now. It has become very personal. Obama, Cruz, and most the leaders on both sides are failing miserably. The LWWs can't see it in Obama, you and the other RWWs can't see it in Saint Teddy.

I understand why people are upset with this historic senate rule change. I can't say that I'm thrilled with it myself. However, most of you are missing a very big point:

Senate Republican Obstructionism is unprecedented and just as historic. It's never been done like this folks. EVER. Originally Posted by MrGoodBar

Is that a fact? Well, actually no, at least not where overall judicial nominees are concerned.

http://news.yahoo.com/are-republican...001414638.html

"According to a May report from the Congressional Research Service, President Obama had 71.4% of his circuit court nominees approved during his first term, which is slightly better than George W. Bush’s 67.3% level of success during his first term.

President Obama also didn't fare the worst when it comes to district court nominees. During his first term, 82.7% of Obama’s district court nominees were approved, George H.W. Bush had 76.9% of his nominees approved."


These overall numbers tell us a helluva lot more than the number of cloture votes (which most Obama nominees cleared, by the way). Another fine example of how Dems and libtards can always be trusted to point to the wrong data to spin and manipulate the truth.

Then maybe the Reps should put forth electable platforms and candidates.

As to bargaining in bad faith, I would say that is the hallmark of both sides right now. It has become very personal. Obama, Cruz, and most the leaders on both sides are failing miserably. The LWWs can't see it in Obama, you and the other RWWs can't see it in Saint Teddy. Originally Posted by Old-T

You've changed Old T, you've changed. Care to say what part of the GOP platform is so unelectable? I don't recall anyone chanting slogans about Cruz, making posters of him, invoking his name like either a mantra or prayer. Do not confuse the worship of Obama with the gratitude that Cruz is taking a stand.

According to a May report from the Congressional Research Service, President Obama had 71.4% of his circuit court nominees approved during his first term, which is slightly better than George W. Bush’s 67.3% level of success during his first term.

President Obama also didn't fare the worst when it comes to district court nominees. During his first term, 82.7% of Obama’s district court nominees were approved, George H.W. Bush had 76.9% of his nominees approved."

1st term being the keywords... care to post the % of nominees appointed during round 2?


nah, sure you dont

"According to a May report from the Congressional Research Service, President Obama had 71.4% of his circuit court nominees approved during his first term, which is slightly better than George W. Bush’s 67.3% level of success during his first term.

President Obama also didn't fare the worst when it comes to district court nominees. During his first term, 82.7% of Obama’s district court nominees were approved, George H.W. Bush had 76.9% of his nominees approved."

1st term being the keywords... care to post the % of nominees appointed during round 2?

nah, sure you dont Originally Posted by CJ7

Hey dumbfuck, we're only 10 months into Odumbo's second term, remember? Did you miss the graph showing the average number of days it took to approve Bush's first-term nominees was 277 - compared with 240 days for Obama?

Why can't you admit the obvious - when it comes to obstructing federal court appointees, the Dems blazed the trail!

CBJ7 can only admit what the Obamatron allows. He's not allowed to say anything critical of Emperor Obama I.

Can you tell me what the democratically controlled Senate has done at all in the last ten months? Still no budget in almost five years.

http://www.senate.gov/pagelayout/ref...tureCounts.htm Originally Posted by CJ7

Thanks for the link, quite a bit of interesting stuff in it.

Hey dumbfuck, we're only 10 months into Odumbo's second term, remember? Did you miss the graph showing the average number of days it took to approve Bush's first-term nominees was 277 - compared with 240 days for Obama?

Why can't you admit the obvious - when it comes to obstructing federal court appointees, the Dems blazed the trail! Originally Posted by lustylad

awwwww..... a rightie brings up Bush ... so post the fucking #'s from the second term

Thanks for the link, quite a bit of interesting stuff in it. Originally Posted by slingblade

welcome ...


open that link crustylad?


let me help again trailblazer

http://www.senate.gov/pagelayout/ref...tureCounts.htm

awwwww..... a rightie brings up Bush ... so post the fucking #'s from the second term Originally Posted by CJ7

Are you deaf? For the second time, I said we're ten months into Odumbo's second term. You insinuate (without any facts) that the data for 4 years + 10 months are materially different from the hard numbers I just provided for 4 years. Where are your numbers, you lazy dumbfuck?

You are also so lazy and incapable of thoughtful analysis that you toss out a tally of "cloture" votes without any explanation or interpretation and pretend it somehow rebuts my hard data on judicial nominees.

Keep trying, asshole.

Are you deaf? For the second time, I said we're ten months into Odumbo's second term. You insinuate (without any facts) that the data for 4 years + 10 months are materially different from the hard numbers I just provided for 4 years. Where are your numbers, you lazy dumbfuck?

You are also so lazy and incapable of thoughtful analysis that you toss out a tally of "cloture" votes without any explanation or interpretation and pretend it somehow rebuts my hard data on judicial nominees.

Keep trying, asshole. Originally Posted by lustylad

the explanation of the cloture motions are in the link if you bothered to notice ... HR#'s and all... study up, dumbass.

10 months in to the second term Ried filed 56 motions to shut the senate republicans up..

http://www.senate.gov/pagelayout/ref...tureCounts.htm

The difference is that the GOP was blocking the court who has the important cases to be ruled on via Obamacare.