No more excuses

For the last two years the left has used the election as an excuse for everything. If you don't pass Obama's jobs bill then it is about the election. If you don't extend the debt ceiling then it is the election. If you want answers to Fast and Furious then it is about the election. If you want answers to Benghazi then it is about the election. If you blame the democrats for not creating a budget then it is about the election.

That excuse is gone. You own it all now. It will be interesting to hear how you whine and cry now about how unfair people have been to Obama BECAUSE OF THE ELECTION.

Your post makes no sense - unless you're suggesting Obama somehow "owns" the Republican obstructionism because he got re-elected.

For the last two years the left has used the election as an excuse for everything. If you don't pass Obama's jobs bill then it is about the election. If you don't extend the debt ceiling then it is the election. If you want answers to Fast and Furious then it is about the election. If you want answers to Benghazi then it is about the election. If you blame the democrats for not creating a budget then it is about the election.

That excuse is gone. You own it all now. It will be interesting to hear how you whine and cry now about how unfair people have been to Obama BECAUSE OF THE ELECTION. Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

We'll leave the whining and crying to you guys. You're the experts. And, now you get four more years of practice.

For the last two years the left has used the election as an excuse for everything. If you don't pass Obama's jobs bill then it is about the election. If you don't extend the debt ceiling then it is the election. If you want answers to Fast and Furious then it is about the election. If you want answers to Benghazi then it is about the election. If you blame the democrats for not creating a budget then it is about the election.

That excuse is gone. You own it all now. It will be interesting to hear how you whine and cry now about how unfair people have been to Obama BECAUSE OF THE ELECTION. Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

I never blamed the election only the comment of our agenda is to be sure Obama is a one term president.And they did their best.

See Doove just demonstrated my point. He is blaming the "obstructionism" of the GOP but he denies, by exclusion, that niggling little fact that Obama owned the Congress for two years. If he did, then Doove would have to explain why Obama didn't do more during that time.

Two political parties: Harry Reid said essentially the same thing last week.

See Doove just demonstrated my point. He is blaming the "obstructionism" of the GOP but he denies, by exclusion, that niggling little fact that Obama owned the Congress for two years. If he did, then Doove would have to explain why Obama didn't do more during that time.

Two political parties: Harry Reid said essentially the same thing last week. Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

how many times do you need to be reminded of the niggling little fact the republicans set record rumbers for filibusters AND it wasnt a SUPER majority dem congress?

scratch that, reminding you of anything is like a mouse pissing in the ocean

See Doove just demonstrated my point. He is blaming the "obstructionism" of the GOP but he denies, by exclusion, that niggling little fact that Obama owned the Congress for two years. Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

I think you need to re-review the examples you used. Not one of them is from the time when the Dems controlled the House or had 60 votes in the Senate.

You got busted for making a stupid point, so you change it to a different stupid point. Or something. I'm not really sure what your 2nd post was intended to suggest, frankly.

President Obama was sworn in on January 20, 2009 with just 58 Senators to support his agenda.
He should have had 59, but Republicans contested Al Franken's election in Minnesota and he didn't get seated for seven months.
The President's cause was helped in April when Pennsylvania's Republican Senator Arlen Specter switched parties.
That gave the President 59 votes -- still a vote shy of the super majority.
But one month later, Democratic Senator Byrd of West Virginia was hospitalized and was basically out of commission.
So while the President's number on paper was 59 Senators -- he was really working with just 58 Senators.
Then in July, Minnesota Senator Al Franken was finally sworn in, giving President Obama the magic 60 -- but only in theory, because Senator Byrd was still out.
In August, Senator Ted Kennedy of Massachusetts died and the number went back down to 59 again until Paul Kirk temporarily filled Kennedy's seat in September.
Any pretense of a supermajority ended on February 4, 2010 when Republican Scott Brown was sworn into the seat Senator Kennedy once held.Do you see a two-year supermajority?

I didn't think so.

OMG facts that will baffle him...

I think you need to re-review the examples you used. Not one of them is from the time when the Dems controlled the House or had 60 votes in the Senate.

You got busted for making a stupid point, so you change it to a different stupid point. Or something. I'm not really sure what your 2nd post was intended to suggest, frankly. Originally Posted by Doove

Who the fuck you been. I mean where the fuck you been...fucker

President Obama was sworn in on January 20, 2009 with just 58 Senators to support his agenda.
He should have had 59, but Republicans contested Al Franken's election in Minnesota and he didn't get seated for seven months.
The President's cause was helped in April when Pennsylvania's Republican Senator Arlen Specter switched parties.
That gave the President 59 votes -- still a vote shy of the super majority.
But one month later, Democratic Senator Byrd of West Virginia was hospitalized and was basically out of commission.
So while the President's number on paper was 59 Senators -- he was really working with just 58 Senators.
Then in July, Minnesota Senator Al Franken was finally sworn in, giving President Obama the magic 60 -- but only in theory, because Senator Byrd was still out.
In August, Senator Ted Kennedy of Massachusetts died and the number went back down to 59 again until Paul Kirk temporarily filled Kennedy's seat in September.
Any pretense of a supermajority ended on February 4, 2010 when Republican Scott Brown was sworn into the seat Senator Kennedy once held.Do you see a two-year supermajority?

I didn't think so. Originally Posted by CJ7

This post has to be one of the most pathetic whines in history. The Dems had the presidency, the House of Representives, and 58-60 Senators, depending on what day it was, and you are acting like they were impotent and helpless. The GOP was hanging on by a thread, barely 40 votes in the Senate and you talk about them like they were the Incredible Hulk.

You just highlighted the fact that neither Obama nor the Democratic in Congress was able to sway even ONE Republican senator. Or so it would appear.

But you left something important out, didn't you?

On March 23, 2010 - if you're keeping score at home that's AFTER February 4, 2010 when the pretense of a supermajority supposedly ended - the Senate passed "Obamacare" with the necessary 60 votes.

Obamacare - the signature achievement of the Obama administration - somehow got passed, despite that fact that it was loathed by the Republicans.

So, if he could get the 60 votes needed to pass the bete noire of the GOP, what else was there that was so hated that he couldn't get 60 votes? What other great proposals did he have that were SO controversial that he couldn't overcome a threatened filibuster?

We weren't borrowing enough money? We weren't raising the debt ceiling enough?

The GOP didn't need a filibuster to stop that. Obama couldn't even get enough Democrats to sign off on it.

The House passed the bill with a vote of 219 to 212 on March 21, 2010, with 34 Democrats and all 178 Republicans voting against it.[192] The following day, Republicans introduced legislation to repeal the bill.[193] Obama signed the original bill into law on March 23, 2010.[194]


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv...atehealthcare/


if youre keeping score at home 58 votes is less than 60

More incorrect revisionist Dim history.

They were able to persuade Olympia Snowe. They had the 60 votes when you count the Independent Senators that caucused with the Dems. It took an incredible amount of arm twisting, parliamentary maneuvering and bribery to get Obamacare passed (as a tax that wasn't but then was).

The Dem Senators who were ill at the time could've resigned and appointed another Dem but didn't. Many of the Blue Dog Democrats and some non-BDD that voted for Obamacare didn't get re-elected.

So basically anytime during this period they could have passed a jobs bill. Or a budget. Or revoked the Bush tax cuts. Or made gay marriage law. Or legalized many classes of drugs. Or repealed the Patriot Act. Or provided a pathway to citizenship for illegal aliens.

But they didn't. Even though Obama said he was focused on jobs "like a LASER."

If someone on the SCOTUS hadn't switched their vote, Romney would be President. Now Barry has the opportunity to stack the court with libs.

More incorrect revisionist Dim history.

They were able to persuade Olympia Snowe. They had the 60 votes when you count the Independent Senators that caucused with the Dems. It took an incredible amount of arm twisting, parliamentary maneuvering and bribery to get Obamacare passed (as a tax that wasn't but then was).

The Dem Senators who were ill at the time could've resigned and appointed another Dem but didn't. Many of the Blue Dog Democrats and some non-BDD that voted for Obamacare didn't get re-elected.

So basically anytime during this period they could have passed a jobs bill. Or a budget. Or revoked the Bush tax cuts. Or made gay marriage law. Or legalized many classes of drugs. Or repealed the Patriot Act. Or provided a pathway to citizenship for illegal aliens.

But they didn't. Even though Obama said he was focused on jobs "like a LASER."

If someone on the SCOTUS hadn't switched their vote, Romney would be President. Now Barry has the opportunity to stack the court with libs. Originally Posted by gnadfly

yaaaaaaawn

and at the end of the day IF frogs had wings they wouldnt need to jump OR swim

You got nothin', do you, CBJ7?