Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Not only did the GOP negotiate those cuts under the pretext that they would support the bill, which they didn't, they dragged out the negotiations and stalled passage so long, UE was already over 8% by the time the bill finally passed, which obviously was the GOP plan all along.It was a prediction you fool and then the Rs demanded it be shrunk, so you see it was not the bill that was passed that he made that claim on.
Lie somemore why dont you?
Remember, at the time, GOP shill Stuttering LimpTard said outright that he hoped ALL hard working American "Joes" suffered the loss of their jobs.
Oh yeah...the all powerful Republicans with only 40 votes held up the passage of the Bill...right you stupid ass window licker?
Really? Since 1945 the Democrats have controlled both houses of congress for 17 congresses.
The Republicans for 6 and the house and senate were split 5 times.
I would say todays mess is clearly created by those in power most of the time.
Actually, an intelligent person would look at their body of work instead of their time in office. Time means little if you don't or can't get things done when compared to those that do and did.
So you are making excuses for the Democrats the past 65 years? Ok as long as we know where you are coming from. Twist away.
Not only did the GOP negotiate those cuts under the pretext that they would support the bill, which they didn't, they dragged out the negotiations and stalled passage so long, UE was already over 8% by the time the bill finally passed, which obviously was the GOP plan all along.
Remember, at the time, GOP shill Stuttering LimpTard said outright that he hoped ALL hard working American "Joes" suffered the loss of their jobs.
Oh yeah...the all powerful Republicans with only 40 votes held up the passage of the Bill...right you stupid ass window licker?
Hey moron, thanks for showing us what you truly look like. However, it only takes 40 votes to hold up a bill when the democrats, if you count the two independents as democrats, only had 59 votes. Al franken did not get sworn in until July 2009 the stimulus bill was passed in Feb 2009.
So care to explain your spin?
Actually, an intelligent person would look at their body of work instead of their time in office. Time means little if you don't or can't get things done when compared to those that do and did.
So you are making excuses for the Democrats the past 65 years? Ok as long as we know where you are coming from. Twist away.
Where did I make ANY excuses for anyone?? I merely pointed out that an intelligent person would look at the body of work as apposed to the time in office. I am sorry that you read something into it that was not there.
Oh yeah...the all powerful Republicans with only 40 votes held up the passage of the Bill...right you stupid ass window licker?
Hey moron, thanks for showing us what you truly look like. However, it only takes 40 votes to hold up a bill when the democrats, if you count the two independents as democrats, only had 59 votes. Al franken did not get sworn in until July 2009 the stimulus bill was passed in Feb 2009.
So care to explain your spin?
Wrong dumb fuck....the healthcare bill wasn't even written back before Franken stole the Senate seat....and that happens to be a picture of your mother.
So you are making excuses for the Democrats the past 65 years? Ok as long as we know where you are coming from. Twist away.
Where did I make ANY excuses for anyone?? I merely pointed out that an intelligent person would look at the body of work as apposed to the time in office. I am sorry that you read something into it that was not there.
When you look at the body of work brought into law by the Democrats since the 1930's one realizes that they and they alone are responsible for the crushing debt that will be the downfall of our country in the future....it is too bad you are too blind to see that.
Where did I make ANY excuses for anyone?? I merely pointed out that an intelligent person would look at the body of work as apposed to the time in office. I am sorry that you read something into it that was not there.
When you look at the body of work brought into law by the Democrats since the 1930's one realizes that they and they alone are responsible for the crushing debt that will be the downfall of our country in the future....it is too bad you are too blind to see that.
Changing dates, 45 to 30s, and then making unsubstantiated claims. Imagine that. LOL
When you look at the body of work brought into law by the Democrats since the 1930's one realizes that they and they alone are responsible for the crushing debt that will be the downfall of our country in the future....it is too bad you are too blind to see that.
Changing dates, 45 to 30s, and then making unsubstantiated claims. Imagine that. LOL
Show me where I changed any dates dingleberry...
Please pay attention to history and stop ignoring the facts.
The democrats, even IF you decided to count the two independents as demcorats, did not have a super majority until Al Franken was signed into office on July 7, 2009 and yet the stimulus bill was signed into law on Feb 17, 2009.
So republicans DID have enough votes to stop it because democrats did not have enough votes to prevent a filibuster. 57+2 does not equal 60.
Well, why didn't they sign it on July 8? or 9 or any other fucking day since? This constant whining about the GOP is laughable. They are a lame duck of a party and STILL the fucking left can't pass a bill.
And..... what about Obama stating that he will absolutely not use reconciliation to pass healthcare? What about what he said about any POTUS who used that these techniques to pass something as massive as healthcare would be going against the Constitution, against the very founding principles of this nation? What about what he said about any President who used this practice had lost his authority?
Obama has lost his Presidential authority and he should resign. Now.
Do you read BEFORE you try to respond??
The bill in question in this post was NOT the healthcare bill but instead it was the stimulus bill.
YOU tried to FALSELY argue that they had a supper majority when passing the stimulus bill and that the republicans couldn't block it and yet the FACT is that the dems did not yet have the supermajority because al franken, the 60th vote, had not yet been sworn into office.
That is why I meantioned the stimulus in my post.
Furthermore, I thought they were "ramming" the healthcare bill through?? If that were true then they would ahve already vorted on it and had it passed and we would be talking about something else by now. LOL
His Excellency did his best to duck the questions.
Bret did a great job he was respectful but persistent.
Bush's interview was a farewell interview, Obama has 3 years (almost) to go. Makes a difference. Besides the obvious that Obama wasn't answering shit.
Bush's interview was a farewell interview, Obama has 3 years (almost) to go. Makes a difference. Besides the obvious that Obama wasn't answering shit.
OK, fair point.
So let's grab some other interviews FoxNews conducted with President Bush and see if your theory holds:
Here's Brit Hume:
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zC1uqGjUJGY&feature=related]YouTube - President Bush Commits to Winning in Iraq[/ame]
No, no interruptions there. Brit gives the president plenty of time to talk and softballs for questions.
Here's a nice little puff piece they did with Bush and his Father:
Father and Son - FOXNews.com
No, no interruptions there.
Well, let's see how they did with Dick Cheney. Hell, he's only the former Vice President at the time this was done:
Fox News Interview with Dick Cheney Video
Definitely no interruptions there.
Now, let's compare those to Fox's treatment of Bill Clinton:
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UaNIBFSMjb8]YouTube - Chris Wallace Interviews Bill Clinton Pt 1[/ame]
Wow, would you look at that! Wonder why they took a "hardball" approach with both Clinton and Obama, but not with the others?
Well, My guess is either you didn't really watch the interviews or you are blinded by your bias. Bush (during the 1:31 minutes) was actually answering the questions. Therefore he was not interrupted. And how is asking him about his Objectives in Iraq not a hardball question?
I don't see how the Father and Son interview can be compared with Obama so I didn't bother much with it.
And Clinton again was actually answering the questions and was not interrupted. At least not from the parts I actually watched. Rather boring.
Really, the fact is that Obama did his best to stay in campaign mode and avoid answering anything that couldn't be changed by his staff at a latter time.
Well, My guess is either you didn't really watch the interviews or you are blinded by your bias. Bush (during the 1:31 minutes) was actually answering the questions. Therefore he was not interrupted. And how is asking him about his Objectives in Iraq not a hardball question?
The interviewer was giving Bush a chance to rephrase his objectives in Iraq, allowing him to gloss over the fact that there had been many other objectives that were not met, like the non-existent WMD, or the existence of a pre-war Al-Qaeda presence.
I don't see how the Father and Son interview can be compared with Obama so I didn't bother much with it.
The point of that was that this is type of interview FoxNews would do with Bush, family, softball interviews to make him look good.
And Clinton again was actually answering the questions and was not interrupted. At least not from the parts I actually watched. Rather boring.
Oh yes, he was. Clinton had to talk forcefully to Wallace, to over-rule his interruptions, and enable himself to answer the loaded questions Wallace was asking him. He then went off on Wallace angrily.
Really, the fact is that Obama did his best to stay in campaign mode and avoid answering anything that couldn't be changed by his staff at a latter time.
You can't constantly interrupt someone and then say "they weren't answering the questions". Especially when each question was framed in such a hostile manner.
In a court of law, there's specific terms to describe these specific types of behavior. They are called "Leading the Witness" and "Badgering the Witness".
Changing dates, 45 to 30s, and then making unsubstantiated claims. Imagine that. LOL
Show me where I changed any dates dingleberry...
They were talking about 1945 which was 65 years ago and YOU jumped back to the 30s. Please tell me that you didn't mess up that simple arithmetic?? LOL
BTW nice avoidance of the previous post where you attacked me based on YOUR own ignorance and lack of attention to detail. LOL
Well, why didn't they sign it on July 8? or 9 or any other fucking day since? This constant whining about the GOP is laughable. They are a lame duck of a party and STILL the fucking left can't pass a bill.
And..... what about Obama stating that he will absolutely not use reconciliation to pass healthcare? What about what he said about any POTUS who used that these techniques to pass something as massive as healthcare would be going against the Constitution, against the very founding principles of this nation? What about what he said about any President who used this practice had lost his authority?
Obama has lost his Presidential authority and he should resign. Now.
Do you read BEFORE you try to respond??
The bill in question in this post was NOT the healthcare bill but instead it was the stimulus bill.
YOU tried to FALSELY argue that they had a supper majority when passing the stimulus bill and that the republicans couldn't block it and yet the FACT is that the dems did not yet have the supermajority because al franken, the 60th vote, had not yet been sworn into office.
That is why I meantioned the stimulus in my post.
Furthermore, I thought they were "ramming" the healthcare bill through?? If that were true then they would ahve already vorted on it and had it passed and we would be talking about something else by now. LOL
2/3rds of 99 is 59.4 so they had 59 and the Reps had 39 How would that figure 59.4% vs 39,6%. My bet is they could have passed anything they wanted to. And the 39 Republicans couldn't have stopped them.
Show me where I changed any dates dingleberry...
They were talking about 1945 which was 65 years ago and YOU jumped back to the 30s. Please tell me that you didn't mess up that simple arithmetic?? LOL
BTW nice avoidance of the previous post where you attacked me based on YOUR own ignorance and lack of attention to detail. LOL
Who the fuck is they....shut your panty wearing piehole...PLEASE!!!
