Do Republicans Really mean what they say?

[The Rabbi]

US Senate total members 100
Democratic senators - 58
Republican Senators -40
Independent Senators -2

Supermajority = 60

Now, explain to me HOW the democrats had a supermajority? You're not thinking for yourself, you're regurgitating things from the media and the politicians. THINK!!!

because sanders and lieberman caucus with the democrats.

Bernie Sanders - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Joe Lieberman - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

nice try, though.

well, not really, but i feel bad for you.

you should take your own advice.

That means nothing. Lieberman is not a Democrat. He beat the Democrat to win re-election. He got 70% of the Republican vote. He endorsed John McCain for president.

Tell me, if an independent who ran against a Republican and won, and got 70% of the Democrat vote in the process, and then endorsed Barack Obama for president,

would you be calling him a Republican?

Newspapers typically call Colin Powell a Republican.

 

[NYcarbineer]

And do they VOTE with the Dems. Heck no....the dems don't necessarily vote with the dems. A supermajority is not a cacus number, it's a VOTING number.



So, please feel sorry for yourself.

so you're saying that even if sanders and lieberman were registered as dems, they still wouldn't have a supermajority in the senate?

damn, that's gold medal quality stupid you're exhibiting-too bad the flame's out. i hope you have better luck in soichi in 2014.

Yes. Anytime the senate gets at least 60 votes on any bill, it's a supermajority. If the bill doesn't get 60 votes, there is no supermajority. A supermajority cannot be determined in advance of a vote!!

Exactly.

 

[beowolfe]

um, obviously because they didn't "give" anything except for a handjob to the rich. Nothing came of that farce... no "booming economy", no jobs, nor a real reason for the invasion of Iraq for that matter...

Oh wait... the rich did get richer... my bad! MISSION ACCOMPLISHED!!!!

The rich did not get richer. If they had, they would be spending and hiring and contributing to the cash flow of the economy.

You might want to say that aloud to yourself so you can hear how silly it sounds.

 

[DE3]

Republicans want to champion the cause of less government and want to return to power in 2010 but if that was true why don't they mention one word about making the bush tax cuts perminant in 2010 when they are due to expire? Where were these same republicans who would not fully support them in 2002? I would think if they were damn serious they would make that a centerpiece for re-election but they are not.

What gives?

Probably because they all understand that those tax cuts bankrupted us.

For the first time in our history government jobs created outpaced private sector jobs, all under the largest tax cut in US history, under Bush.

 

[DE3]

google: government job growth bush

I don't have enough posts yet to post a link.

Job Growth Where Bush Didn’t Want It


IT is not exactly a distinction that he had in mind, but seven years into his presidency, George W. Bush is in line to be the first president since World War II to preside over an economy in which federal government employment rose more rapidly than employment in the private sector.

 

[beowolfe]

Republicans want to champion the cause of less government and want to return to power in 2010 but if that was true why don't they mention one word about making the bush tax cuts perminant in 2010 when they are due to expire? Where were these same republicans who would not fully support them in 2002? I would think if they were damn serious they would make that a centerpiece for re-election but they are not.

What gives?

Probably because they all understand that those tax cuts bankrupted us.

For the first time in our history government jobs created outpaced private sector jobs, all under the largest tax cut in US history, under Bush.

You might want to go back and check your history book. Or get a more accurate one.

 

[DE3]

I am perfectly confident in what I just posted.

 

[beowolfe]

I am perfectly confident in what I just posted.

Then you shouldn't be. Dubya's administration wasn't the first time that job creation in the public sector outpaced job creation in the private sector. See The Great Depression.

 

[DE3]

Okay, since WWII. Does that make you feel better?