• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Merged Scalia is dead

They are voted in by people who think it is best for the country. Regardless of what we conclude here, they are serving as representatives.


Did any of the current Senate campaign on a platform of refusing to consider Supreme Court nominations in an election year? If not, it's difficult to say that this is what people voted for.
 
Everything.

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tan...ivity-congress-avoids-least-productive-title/

You must know that congress does more than hold votes to repeal the ACA. It should, at least. As it turns out, not much more.

LOL. It's nice to see that Pew Research lives in the same bubble as uke2se and Argumemnon, where it is believed that the number of laws passed is a mark of how productive a lawmaking body is. As I pointed out before, the 3rd Reich was extraordinarily productive by this measure. They completely remade German society in less than six years and then sparked a conflagration that snuffed out 60 million lives in just six more. If only our Congress was as hard-working as those guys ...
 
LOL. It's nice to see that Pew Research lives in the same bubble as uke2se and Argumemnon, where it is believed that the number of laws passed is a mark of how productive a lawmaking body is. As I pointed out before, the 3rd Reich was extraordinarily productive by this measure. They completely remade German society in less than six years and then sparked a conflagration that snuffed out 60 million lives in just six more. If only our Congress was as hard-working as those guys ...
According to John Boehner, the effectiveness of Congress should be measured by how many laws it repeals. How many laws did it repeal while he was Speaker? LOL.
 
But that doesn't get us any closer to figuring out if Republicans are opposing policies they normally support for political gain or if they legitimately disagree with the president and inaction is better than anything he would not veto.

Yes it does. That was the stated policy of the GOP. As I said, it's history.
 
According to John Boehner, the effectiveness of Congress should be measured by how many laws it repeals. How many laws did it repeal while he was Speaker? LOL.

For technical reasons, I can't quote the post you quoted, so I'll just respond here.

Sunmaster is, as usual, completely missing the point. The fact that congress is among the least productive in history is not the proof that they are being obstructionists for political gain. Instead, their stated desire to obstruct have lead to congress being among the least productive in history.

Conservatives seem to live in Oppositeville.
 
Then name these conservative policies they refused to send through because Obama would not veto them and they wanted to hurt him instead.

Why? It's enough that their stated policy was to obstruct. We have the final tally now.
 
Why? It's enough that their stated policy was to obstruct. We have the final tally now.

Obstruction of a liberal president who is not putting forth conservative policies is a conservative politician doing what they think is best for the country. Just because they had the foresight to see re writing on the wall doesn't change that.
 
Obstruction of a liberal president who is not putting forth conservative policies is a conservative politician doing what they think is best for the country. Just because they had the foresight to see re writing on the wall doesn't change that.

You just don't get it, do you? It was their stated policy on day 1. They had no idea what policies would come forward in the following four years. This isn't like looking at a proposal and going "no, it's not conservative enough for me to vote yes". This is a blanket refusal to look at anything simply because of the person proposing it, who happens to be a conservative (yes, blew your mind, didn't I?) president of the USA.

Obama has reached across the aisle and attempted to compromise, but GOP congress critters don't compromise. They obstruct.
 
Last edited:
You just don't get it, do you? It was their stated policy on day 1. They had no idea what policies would come forward in the following four years. This isn't like looking at a proposal and going "no, it's not conservative enough for me to vote yes". This is a blanket refusal to look at anything simply because of the person proposing it, who happens to be a conservative (yes, blew your mind, didn't I?) president of the USA.

Obama has reached across the aisle and attempted to compromise, but GOP congress critters don't compromise. They obstruct.

Then your proposition can be tested. When put to the test, did they refuse to enact conservative policies put forth by the president? What were these or what were his efforts at compromise?
 
For years the Dems accuse the GOP of not compromising, and rejecting all of their ideas reflexively. Here the GOP reversed their previous position and now agree with Dem policy when they controlled the Judiciary Committee under a President of the opposite party, and now suddenly the Dems throw a fit.

You just can't please these people.
 
Then your proposition can be tested. When put to the test, did they refuse to enact conservative policies put forth by the president? What were these or what were his efforts at compromise?

Getting tired of spoon-feeding you:

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2013/10/01/what-happens-when-obama-tries-to-compromise-wit/196189

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/mar/14/barack-obama-compromise-republican-senators

http://www.themodestproposal.com/?p=151

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/gop-hostility-towards-compromise-runs-deep


And then of course, we have the stated GOP agenda:

http://www.politico.com/story/2010/10/the-gops-no-compromise-pledge-044311

http://swampland.time.com/2012/08/23/the-party-of-no-new-details-on-the-gop-plot-to-obstruct-obama/

Now, I'm done with your waffling. It's obvious that you will never admit what is blatantly obvious and a matter of public record. As such, there is no productive discussion to be had with you.

Have a nice day.
 

The GOP has 100% adopted the Dems position here, so what is your issue?
 
According to John Boehner, the effectiveness of Congress should be measured by how many laws it repeals. How many laws did it repeal while he was Speaker? LOL.

Here's a list with respect only to Obamacare through March of 2014. Some of the bills listed below only cut funding or tweaked Obamacare to make it less onerous. It's debatable whether or not to call that a repeal. But some of them do actually repeal specific provisions of Obamacare. More recently, I know that both the medical device tax and the Cadillac tax have been suspended for two years (and will probably never be implemented).

*12. March 3, 2011: The House passed the "Comprehensive 1099 Taxpayer Protection and Repayment of Exchange Subsidy Overpayments Act of 2011" that repealed some 1099 reporting requirements "that placed a financial burden on small businesses and independent contractors." Passed 314 to 112, with 76 Democrats supporting the bill.

...

*14. April 14, 2011: The defense appropriations bill included provisions that repealed “Free Choice Voucher” program, cut $2.2 billion in funding for the Consumer Operated and Oriented Plan and blocked new money to hire additional IRS agents to enforce the law's "individual mandate." The bill passed the House 260 to 167 with 81 Democrats in support and 59 Republicans opposed.

...

*20. Aug. 1, 2011: The House passed the "Budget Control Act of 2011" that cut some mandatory and discretionary spending tied to the law. It passed 269 to 161, cleared the Senate and was later signed by Obama.

...

*22. Nov. 16, 2011: The House passed -- and Obama later signed into law -- a measure that required certain benefits to be included in the calculation of modified adjusted gross income (MAGI) for determining eligibility for certain health care programs under the law. Passed 405 to 16, with 170 Democrats voting for it.

...

*24. Dec. 16, 2011: The House approved -- and Obama later signed -- the 2012 consolidated appropriations bill that cut $400 million from the Consumer Operated and Oriented Plan and $10 million from the Independent Payment Advisory Board. The measure also cut IRS funding by $305 million from the previous fiscal year. It passed 411 to 5 -- the "no" votes were from fiscally conservative Republicans.

...

*26. Feb. 17, 2012: The House passed -- and Obama later signed into law -- the "Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act" that cut $11.6 billion from the law, including $5 billion from the Public Prevention and Health Fund and $2.5 billion in special funding for Louisiana's Medicaid program, which Republicans labeled as a modern-day "Louisiana Purchase." The measure passed 234 to 193, with 10 Democrats in support and 14 Republicans opposed.

...

*32. June 29, 2012: The House voted on a highway funding bill signed by Obama that made changes to a Medicaid formula that helped Louisiana's Medicaid program and saved $670 million that counted towards the cost of the bill. The measure passed 293 to 127, with 69 Democrats in support.

...

*35. Jan. 1, 2013: The "fiscal cliff" deal passed the House and included provisions repealing the CLASS Act and rescinding $2.3 billion in unobligated funding for the Consumer Operated and Oriented Plan. The measure passed 256 to 171 with 19 Democrats in support.

...

*46. Oct. 17, 2013: As part of the fiscal 2014 continuing resolution that reopened the federal government, the House voted to require that accurate income verification systems be put in place before the law's exchange subsidies are dispersed. The measure passed 285 to 144 and was later signed by Obama.
 

Aside from Politico, every single one of your links is to an article in a liberal rag written by a liberal partisan. And the Politico article discusses Boehner's rhetoric before the mid-term election in 2010 and hence in the middle of a campaign where he was hoping to be, but not yet, the Speaker of the House. Note that he was openly pledging to obstruct Obama's liberal agenda in the heat of a campaign, and the voters gave the Republicans the biggest mid-term victory since 1938, and a majority in the House. I guess you could say that the voters wanted Republicans to block Obama's liberal agenda. Well, you would if you were honest.
 
For technical reasons, I can't quote the post you quoted, so I'll just respond here.

Sunmaster is, as usual, completely missing the point. The fact that congress is among the least productive in history is not the proof that they are being obstructionists for political gain. Instead, their stated desire to obstruct have lead to congress being among the least productive in history.

Conservatives seem to live in Oppositeville.

That is THE point, an unproductive congress gives me another year of low stress.

Its not oppositeville when you aren't looking for the government to wipe your ass.
 
Getting tired of spoon-feeding you:

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2013/10/01/what-happens-when-obama-tries-to-compromise-wit/196189

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/mar/14/barack-obama-compromise-republican-senators

http://www.themodestproposal.com/?p=151

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/gop-hostility-towards-compromise-runs-deep


And then of course, we have the stated GOP agenda:

http://www.politico.com/story/2010/10/the-gops-no-compromise-pledge-044311

http://swampland.time.com/2012/08/23/the-party-of-no-new-details-on-the-gop-plot-to-obstruct-obama/

Now, I'm done with your waffling. It's obvious that you will never admit what is blatantly obvious and a matter of public record. As such, there is no productive discussion to be had with you.

Have a nice day.[/QUpledgeThe first two deal with debt ceiling talks combined with tax hikes. Considering how many congressmen have signed the Grover norquist tax pledge, any tax hike is bad for America and a non starter.

3 discusses healthcare and the president simply never offered a conservative plan. Any compromise is a non starter on a dangerous bill. If also mentions that Obama did extend Bush tax cuts. So, when a conservative item did come up, congress agreed.

4 is about the constituents saying compromise hurts them.
 
For years the Dems accuse the GOP of not compromising, and rejecting all of their ideas reflexively. Here the GOP reversed their previous position and now agree with Dem policy when they controlled the Judiciary Committee under a President of the opposite party, and now suddenly the Dems throw a fit.

You just can't please these people.

Except that they never held such a position. The idea that Democrats ever decided to oppose a president even nominating a SCOTUS appointee is a lie.
 
Aside from Politico, every single one of your links is to an article in a liberal rag written by a liberal partisan. And the Politico article discusses Boehner's rhetoric before the mid-term election in 2010 and hence in the middle of a campaign where he was hoping to be, but not yet, the Speaker of the House. Note that he was openly pledging to obstruct Obama's liberal agenda in the heat of a campaign, and the voters gave the Republicans the biggest mid-term victory since 1938, and a majority in the House. I guess you could say that the voters wanted Republicans to block Obama's liberal agenda. Well, you would if you were honest.

The majority of voters did not. Republicans only control the house because of gerrymandering. They lost the popular votes in the house.
 

Back
Top Bottom