At What Point Did You Decide That You Were Against Obama No Matter What?

[Darkwind]

clearly, this is directed to the republicans and self-proclaimed conservatives of usmb.

When, exactly, did you realize that you really didn't like obama and were going to be against him no matter what?

I'll answer the question in the reverse as an example. Some years ago, when bush was first elected, i disliked him. I didn't like what he stood for, didn't like what he said, i didn't even like the way he sounded, he sounds dumb and he's proven himself to be such. Anyway, i wasn't totally or automatically against him. What turned me against him permanently, was what he did with the good will of the american people after the country was attacked.

He lied about the wmds, he kept the country in state of constant fear, and he waged two unnecessary wars. To top it off, he didn't pay for it at the time and sent the bill to our kids and grandkids.

To be precise, from the instant he began that fear campaign war campaign, he lost me forever. I will never forgive him for that.

So, when did you republicans, conservatives and other assorted rwers of usmb decide to be against obama no matter what?

C'mon, be honest.

1542

 

[Gadawg73]

I see you're too young for Ding Dong School. My background is Chemistry, but I've wondered into business.

Can you explain how you can assess Obama's parents from the limited information about them? I doubt Obama would have all the facts. My question is, why wouldn't a reasonable person just treat such a thing as an unknown? I choose not to treat my beliefs or opinions as knowledge, so why wouldn't it be smarter to deal with it that way? You can mention it's possible that Obama's parents were hedonists and speculate how that could affect Obama, but it isn't reasonable to treat that as a fact, because obviously you can't know it for a fact.

I guess they don't teach you that in business school, but in science, things require proof.

You are dumb as a brick if you do not know that Obama's father abandoned a family in Kenya when he married BO's mother in 1961.
But we already know you are ignorant.
1964 they divorce and his mother runs off with Lolo Soetoro and BO's father runs off abandoning Barack Obama Jr. and goes back to Africa with Ruth Nidesand.
Having a hard time 2W understanding undisputed facts here?
1967 BO moves to Indonesia.
1971 Obama's mother abandons him and sends him to live with her parents in Hawaii. She separates from Soetero in Indonesia and plays the field. 2 years later she moves back to Hawaii. She plays the field and waits another 10 years to dovorce Soetero who is still in Indonesia. Her parents raise Obama as she is involved with the scene getting her masters in under water basket weaving that she had been working on for 14 years.
During that entire time Obama's father made ONE VISIT to see him.
Amazing you do not know these facts.
That is why I admire BO. Father abandoned him and his mother was a swinger and he made it.

You are the one who is dumb as a brick if you think you can take certain facts about someone's life and get the full picture. If you can't treat people you don't know as an unknown, then you are a fool. Even relatives may not know the full story about why a person does this or that. It's wise not to speculate and judge other people, fool! There is a way of using judgment and not being judgmental, so why don't you try to figure it out!

There isn't enough details in the lives of Obama's parents to know that much about them. You don't know Obama's mother was a swinger and are just saying it. You may believe it, but common sense says there is no way you could know that. Common sense should tell a person to not treat an unknown as if it is a known fact. I don't know what life demanded from Obama's father, but I can conceive it's possible to have a child in Hawaii and not be able to see them, particularly if the person has to be involved elsewhere. I can also conceive that the relationship between adults is complex, so things can happen to prevent a father from seeing their child. It becomes a big "what if" story and since the details aren't going to be known, what the hell is the sense in speculating about it?

Facts have nothing to do with how I "treat" Obama.
I have never met him to treat him.
I admire Obama for being raised in a dysfunctional family and coming through it, being mixed race and not being ashamed of it, graduating college then editor of Harvard law and now President.

I do credit his mother for her valuing a good education for her children and taking the steps to assist them with that. Professionally she accomplished a lot.
His father was a piece of shit.

 

[Oldstyle]

That's what happens when an unscrupulous political party abuses the rules of the Senate and then decides to change the rules when they believe they have a chance to get control of the Senate and don't want the same practices done to them.

You support the party behaving like communists and they were the party that opened up China, so why don't you go there? You behave just like the commies and have no respect for the majority of Americans.

Hey genius. Just because you insist something to be true does not make it true.
You're beating a dead horse.
BTW, was is not the DEMOCRATS who in violation of Senate rules used the filibuster to prevent confirmation votes on three Bush 43 SCOTUS nominees? What's that ya say?
Crickets, right.
Liberal hypocrisy knows no bounds.
The filibuster was created to keep the majority party in check.

The facts insist the Republicans have obstructed government. Common sense says a filibuster can be used and not obstruct government, but at some point government can be obstructed when enough tactics to obstruct government are used, meaning enough filibusters or rules tactics, like proposing too much legislation or amendments to legislation that require debate and votes. You obviously lack the common sense or honesty to deal with this subject and treat apples and oranges as the same. The Senate has a finite amount of time to do it's job and if a minority wastes enough time, the Senate can't do it's job and is being obstructed. Why is that picture too complex for your simple mind? An individual Senator can create his own filibuster. Again, that is not obstructing government, it's delaying the business of the Senate. It's only when there is enough of the Senate's time wasted that it becomes obstruction of government.

Here is a perfect example of obstruction of government and it has been done by the Republicans during recent sessions of the Senate, although I'm presenting it as a hypothetical example. Let's say some legislation is in the works and it has bipartisan support. It could even be legislation that all the Republican Senators will vote for and has unanimous support, but a Republican Senator signals he wants it debated and amended. The Senate leaders of both parties consult with each other and agree to schedule it before the Senate. The Majority Leader anticipates this will be legislation that will be quickly passed, because it has the unanimous support of Republican Senators. When it gets to the floor of the Senate though, the minority party keeps adding all kinds of amendments to the legislation. The amendments can be trivial changes, like I think this sentence should include a comma after a particular word and broken down into two sentences, or I think you should add this sentence. It doesn't make a difference if it is a trivial change, the Senate rules require debate and a vote on the amendment. Even if the majority doesn't use it's debate time, the minority can still use all their time. Finally, the amendment gets a vote and no one wants to change the wording or very few do. That can go on for 46 amendments until even the Republicans get tired of wasting time on it. It's possible nothing was changed or maybe there was some minor change. Weeks later the legislation is passed unanimously by a vote.

The Senate is not the only way to confirm an appointment by the President, so if for some reason appointments aren't confirmed, the jobs can be filled by a President using recess appointments. The job is then filled until the next Senate session is over. If the Senate still hasn't confirmed the appointment, another recess appointment can be made by the President. Explain how that obstructs government! Do you like crickets?

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t-qakWaqnwg]Small Plastic Boxes With Golden Chirping Crickets - YouTube[/ame]

So that explains why Harry Reid has kept over 40 House bills from coming to the floor of the Senate...and why the Senate hasn't passed a budget in over two years? "Common sense" tells me that this has nothing to do with Republicans obstructing government and EVERYTHING to do with Harry not wanting Democrats to be on the record voting against certain legislation including any budgets that would show the true cost of the Obama agenda. There is no excuse other than partisan politics for what Reid has done and you know it. When one side won't even allow the other's bills on the floor how exactly is it that a compromise is going to be reached? The answer to that...using "common sense"...is NEVER! The GOP has constantly called for spending cuts to rein in an out of control Federal Government. THAT is the source of the majority of their filibusters but Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi and the President have consistently refused to allow that to happen all the while complaining vociferously that it's the Republicans that won't compromise with them. So let's look at what just happened with the "deal" to avert the so called fiscal cliff. We got $43 dollars in tax increases for every $1 we got in spending cuts. Who compromised with who, Dubya? If you didn't have your head planted deep in Barry's butt you'd realize through "common sense" that it was the GOP that compromised and the Democrats that refused to budge.

 

[Oldstyle]

Barack Obama promised repeatedly that he would cut the size of the Federal deficit in half by the end of his first term. So show me what cuts he's proposed that would accomplish that? Show me the changes to any entitlements that he's proposed? Show me a spending cut that Barry has proposed that doesn't come years down the road and isn't guaranteed?

You can't because he hasn't...

And THAT is about as "common sense" as it gets!

 

[beagle9]

You are dumb as a brick if you do not know that Obama's father abandoned a family in Kenya when he married BO's mother in 1961.
But we already know you are ignorant.
1964 they divorce and his mother runs off with Lolo Soetoro and BO's father runs off abandoning Barack Obama Jr. and goes back to Africa with Ruth Nidesand.
Having a hard time 2W understanding undisputed facts here?
1967 BO moves to Indonesia.
1971 Obama's mother abandons him and sends him to live with her parents in Hawaii. She separates from Soetero in Indonesia and plays the field. 2 years later she moves back to Hawaii. She plays the field and waits another 10 years to dovorce Soetero who is still in Indonesia. Her parents raise Obama as she is involved with the scene getting her masters in under water basket weaving that she had been working on for 14 years.
During that entire time Obama's father made ONE VISIT to see him.
Amazing you do not know these facts.
That is why I admire BO. Father abandoned him and his mother was a swinger and he made it.

You are the one who is dumb as a brick if you think you can take certain facts about someone's life and get the full picture. If you can't treat people you don't know as an unknown, then you are a fool. Even relatives may not know the full story about why a person does this or that. It's wise not to speculate and judge other people, fool! There is a way of using judgment and not being judgmental, so why don't you try to figure it out!

There isn't enough details in the lives of Obama's parents to know that much about them. You don't know Obama's mother was a swinger and are just saying it. You may believe it, but common sense says there is no way you could know that. Common sense should tell a person to not treat an unknown as if it is a known fact. I don't know what life demanded from Obama's father, but I can conceive it's possible to have a child in Hawaii and not be able to see them, particularly if the person has to be involved elsewhere. I can also conceive that the relationship between adults is complex, so things can happen to prevent a father from seeing their child. It becomes a big "what if" story and since the details aren't going to be known, what the hell is the sense in speculating about it?

Facts have nothing to do with how I "treat" Obama.
I have never met him to treat him.
I admire Obama for being raised in a dysfunctional family and coming through it, being mixed race and not being ashamed of it, graduating college then editor of Harvard law and now President.

I do credit his mother for her valuing a good education for her children and taking the steps to assist them with that. Professionally she accomplished a lot.
His father was a piece of shit.

This dysfunctional thing seems to be coming back out in his character a bit along the way, where as he is doing or saying some things that are not normal in many American peoples minds, otherwise it is not normal for those whom did not suffer the situation of being brought up in a so called dysfunctional family, (along with the scars that can come with that, in which are usually found in ones character later on in life or on down the road from it all), so they see it as abnormal when certain things are then being supported or is being said by such a person who has had this kind of background or past in which they know of. A person like this has to stay surrounded by people who can steer him or help him along the way in some areas or he will crash or fail the test that do keep coming his way in life now, and the only thing is, is that we all are involved in this persons dysfunction by his decision making now, especially if he makes the wrong decisions that affects us all, therefore placing this nation in a dysfunctional state of affairs just as well as he has experienced in his life.

We are seeing some of his test already in which he has failed, as his handlers have forsaken him in some areas now or they have steered him wrong into some areas and he knows it now. There is no telling what the coming years will bring, because Obama has to have help, and getting the right help always is a serious problem as we all know in life these days.

Is not having a person whom has a dysfunctional past (weakened by it), where as a person was grown up in such a past that comes out in his choices or decisions made, therefore having a signature of this past within them as we can see, and is this person a possible loose cannon for the nation as it's commander and chief in some ways ? Does all this show up within some very important issues, that if not handled correctly can lead to a collapse in some areas of the nation or a weakening of them ?

If some areas in the nations social fabric collapse or within it's overall structural integrity as well, could it not lead to a domino affect down the road, therefore taking a huge chunk of the other areas down along with them ? Does all this lead to a security failure or failures as we have now experienced in Benghazi or in the Fast and Furious scandals?

I am like all, hopeful that these family upheavals served to have strengthened his character instead of weakened his character, but by some of the decisions he has made or some of the talk that he has used, I am thinking that he has been wounded in character due to certain exposures or parts of his upbringing, and so this is why we see him saying some of the things that he says or does, and then standing up for them no matter what. Actually he knows no better, as parts of his wounded or scarred character is leading him in these ways. Now are these ways of thinking or things that he is doing in certain areas good for this nation on whole or does he need proper guidance in these areas, and if so who is filling that void for him ?

A weakened man in character can easily be mistaken as to who his friends and allies are in life, and therefore there will be plenty who will try and use Obama for their own ends in order to justify their means, and this while he is their representing President, then after that he will be tossed under the bus just like everyone else is when used in these ways. Now there is knowledge by some sometimes, of knowing these things in which we all know in life, but as long as the person see's themselves coming out rewarded in the end, then it matters not to them that they are used in these ways, because they can just fade away into the background wealthy in the end, and that is all that matters to them. However, if the nation is damaged enough by it all, there will be no place this time to seek peace in or to live out the rest of our lives in peace in, because the areas that could be damaged might have a lasting impact on that peace for America's coming generations.

 

[Redfish]

when did I become opposed to Obama? The first time I heard him speak and it was very apparent that he is nothing but an actor who can read a speech quite well.

He is basically an empty shell with a good delivery of material written by someone else.

He is the Denzel Washington of politics. No discredit to Denzel because he knows that he is an actor.

 

[beagle9]

when did I become opposed to Obama? The first time I heard him speak and it was very apparent that he is nothing but an actor who can read a speech quite well.

He is basically an empty shell with a good delivery of material written by someone else.

He is the Denzel Washington of politics. No discredit to Denzel because he knows that he is an actor.

Might be why Hollywood loves him so much eh?

 

[beagle9]

when did I become opposed to Obama? The first time I heard him speak and it was very apparent that he is nothing but an actor who can read a speech quite well.

He is basically an empty shell with a good delivery of material written by someone else.

He is the Denzel Washington of politics. No discredit to Denzel because he knows that he is an actor.

If he is just an actor, and therefore someone else is controlling or using him (writing his scripts), then what are their final goals in their using him ? This is the predicament the nation may have placed itself in once again, but weren't we in this situation in this nation for some years before now looking back ? How many bad actors does it take to destroy a nation I wonder ? What are we batting now on average ?

It isn't looking good is it ?

 

[ScreamingEagle]

When did i first become opposed to Obama no matter what? Before he was even nominated the first time around when i realized he was a marxist muslim by looking at his history, his influences, and his associates.....i used to post warnings about him which were sent off to the conspiracty threads....

 

[beagle9]

When did i first become opposed to Obama no matter what? Before he was even nominated the first time around when i realized he was a marxist muslim by looking at his history, his influences, and his associates.....i used to post warnings about him which were sent off to the conspiracty threads....

Yes when he ran for President, I did the same with the warnings as well, but people were determined to replace what they had, and they didn't care what they replaced it with, just as long as it was with something because they didn't understand these things being spoken of or the things that were being fought for in the world for the last 25 years or better, and so Obama just stepped right on in to fill their minds with what they wanted to hear in a very smooth and calming way...Brilliant...

 

[Oldstyle]

Bottom line is it takes more than the ability to give a great stump speech to be an effective leader.

Both Reagan and Clinton were admirable speakers but what made them great Presidents was that they were able to effect compromise across the aisle...Reagan with Tip O'Neil and Clinton with Newt Gingrich. Now contrast that with four years of blaming the GOP for everything that's wrong in America by this President. It may have worked to get him reelected but the truth is...it's not worked at all to solve the country's problems.

 

[thereisnospoon]

I did not like President Obama from the get go . Guilt by association with Bill Ayers and the rest of the terrorist crowd. then there is his socialist if not communist leanings. then there is his lying whenever his lips move. add to all of this his AFCA which is unaffordable.then there is his hate of Israel and hate of England . then there is his hate of America . who else would want to completely transform the USA.
Love it or Leave it. Need I go on? he is a BUM pure and simple .Attack my ideas but dont attack me.
Thank you Viking

Needless to say, with liberals everything is personal.

 

[beagle9]

I did not like President Obama from the get go . Guilt by association with Bill Ayers and the rest of the terrorist crowd. then there is his socialist if not communist leanings. then there is his lying whenever his lips move. add to all of this his AFCA which is unaffordable.then there is his hate of Israel and hate of England . then there is his hate of America . who else would want to completely transform the USA.
Love it or Leave it. Need I go on? he is a BUM pure and simple .Attack my ideas but dont attack me.
Thank you Viking

Needless to say, with liberals everything is personal.

Yeah when they have so much to hide and don't want it revealed... LOL

 

[thereisnospoon]

Name a bill that Republicans wanted that Reid prevented and it would have passed the Senate! The Republicans didn't have legislation held up that the majority of Senators supported. Don't you know that the Senate's time can also be wasted by have endless bills proposed by a minority party that have no chance of passing? You can do it with endless amendments requiring debate and vote too. The Republicans were the only obstruction and you think making up bullshit is going to convince anyone differently?

Just because a bill may not pass in the form it was sent over from the House doesn't mean that it shouldn't be brought to the Senate floor and debated. The Senate's "job" is to take what the House sends them, debate the parts of it that they don't agree with and then work out a compromise or totally reject it. That is the way our system is supposed to work but it hasn't for years now under Harry Reid's "leadership". Mister Reid is more concerned with protecting his fellow Democratic Senator's re-election efforts by shielding them from voting AGAINST legislation that would have put people back to work and from having to vote FOR a budget that huge deficits and no spending cuts.

You actually have the gall to declare that Harry Reid tabled all those House bills and prevented budgets from being voted on because he didn't want to waste the Senate's time? What are they THERE for if not to deal with EXACTLY those things?

The time of the Senate was deliberately being obstructed. Bills that the Republicans unanimously voted for were drug out to last as long as possible. That means there isn't time to do all the business the Senate needs to do and you idiots what to blame the people who were being obstructed, while supporting the people who did the obstruction? It doesn't fly to anyone who spent the time watching it happen. I watched the Senate on C-Span in those early days and you could see what was happening.

You're a partisan hack with no regards for the truth, so kiss my ass and bug off! Figure out why America doesn't buy your bullshit anymore!

"America" Do not speak for others.
There is no obstruction. Use of that term in this context is nothing more than a liberal talking point.
The fact is you are just pissed because Obama cannot move forward on his lib/progressive/socialist agenda.
Although for two years your side had the bully pulpit. So while the dems could have done whatever they wished, they were too busy trying to sucker the GOP into their schemes for the purpose of getting political cover.

 

[Dubya]

Hey genius. Just because you insist something to be true does not make it true.
You're beating a dead horse.
BTW, was is not the DEMOCRATS who in violation of Senate rules used the filibuster to prevent confirmation votes on three Bush 43 SCOTUS nominees? What's that ya say?
Crickets, right.
Liberal hypocrisy knows no bounds.
The filibuster was created to keep the majority party in check.

The facts insist the Republicans have obstructed government. Common sense says a filibuster can be used and not obstruct government, but at some point government can be obstructed when enough tactics to obstruct government are used, meaning enough filibusters or rules tactics, like proposing too much legislation or amendments to legislation that require debate and votes. You obviously lack the common sense or honesty to deal with this subject and treat apples and oranges as the same. The Senate has a finite amount of time to do it's job and if a minority wastes enough time, the Senate can't do it's job and is being obstructed. Why is that picture too complex for your simple mind? An individual Senator can create his own filibuster. Again, that is not obstructing government, it's delaying the business of the Senate. It's only when there is enough of the Senate's time wasted that it becomes obstruction of government.

Here is a perfect example of obstruction of government and it has been done by the Republicans during recent sessions of the Senate, although I'm presenting it as a hypothetical example. Let's say some legislation is in the works and it has bipartisan support. It could even be legislation that all the Republican Senators will vote for and has unanimous support, but a Republican Senator signals he wants it debated and amended. The Senate leaders of both parties consult with each other and agree to schedule it before the Senate. The Majority Leader anticipates this will be legislation that will be quickly passed, because it has the unanimous support of Republican Senators. When it gets to the floor of the Senate though, the minority party keeps adding all kinds of amendments to the legislation. The amendments can be trivial changes, like I think this sentence should include a comma after a particular word and broken down into two sentences, or I think you should add this sentence. It doesn't make a difference if it is a trivial change, the Senate rules require debate and a vote on the amendment. Even if the majority doesn't use it's debate time, the minority can still use all their time. Finally, the amendment gets a vote and no one wants to change the wording or very few do. That can go on for 46 amendments until even the Republicans get tired of wasting time on it. It's possible nothing was changed or maybe there was some minor change. Weeks later the legislation is passed unanimously by a vote.

The Senate is not the only way to confirm an appointment by the President, so if for some reason appointments aren't confirmed, the jobs can be filled by a President using recess appointments. The job is then filled until the next Senate session is over. If the Senate still hasn't confirmed the appointment, another recess appointment can be made by the President. Explain how that obstructs government! Do you like crickets?

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t-qakWaqnwg]Small Plastic Boxes With Golden Chirping Crickets - YouTube[/ame]

So that explains why Harry Reid has kept over 40 House bills from coming to the floor of the Senate...and why the Senate hasn't passed a budget in over two years? "Common sense" tells me that this has nothing to do with Republicans obstructing government and EVERYTHING to do with Harry not wanting Democrats to be on the record voting against certain legislation including any budgets that would show the true cost of the Obama agenda. There is no excuse other than partisan politics for what Reid has done and you know it. When one side won't even allow the other's bills on the floor how exactly is it that a compromise is going to be reached? The answer to that...using "common sense"...is NEVER! The GOP has constantly called for spending cuts to rein in an out of control Federal Government. THAT is the source of the majority of their filibusters but Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi and the President have consistently refused to allow that to happen all the while complaining vociferously that it's the Republicans that won't compromise with them. So let's look at what just happened with the "deal" to avert the so called fiscal cliff. We got $43 dollars in tax increases for every $1 we got in spending cuts. Who compromised with who, Dubya? If you didn't have your head planted deep in Barry's butt you'd realize through "common sense" that it was the GOP that compromised and the Democrats that refused to budge.

If you had common sense, you would know no one is buying your bullshit. I told you how government could be obstructed and was. Republicans don't make legislation worth passing, so don't give me that excuse. Writing a bill has never meant it will be given floor time in the Senate, so your point is bullshit. Obstructing government has been defined and not putting a bill on the floor that won't pass is not obstructing government. The Republicans are the reason a budget bill hasn't passed and you know it.

Play your Republican bullshit games, because who cares! Let's see if America buys your bullshit in the next election. You have nearly four years before you can change the government and that's four more years of minorities growing up. They sure aren't going to support you idiots. If you keep feeling something jabbing you, it's that fork telling you you're done.

 

[Dubya]

Just because a bill may not pass in the form it was sent over from the House doesn't mean that it shouldn't be brought to the Senate floor and debated. The Senate's "job" is to take what the House sends them, debate the parts of it that they don't agree with and then work out a compromise or totally reject it. That is the way our system is supposed to work but it hasn't for years now under Harry Reid's "leadership". Mister Reid is more concerned with protecting his fellow Democratic Senator's re-election efforts by shielding them from voting AGAINST legislation that would have put people back to work and from having to vote FOR a budget that huge deficits and no spending cuts.

You actually have the gall to declare that Harry Reid tabled all those House bills and prevented budgets from being voted on because he didn't want to waste the Senate's time? What are they THERE for if not to deal with EXACTLY those things?

The time of the Senate was deliberately being obstructed. Bills that the Republicans unanimously voted for were drug out to last as long as possible. That means there isn't time to do all the business the Senate needs to do and you idiots what to blame the people who were being obstructed, while supporting the people who did the obstruction? It doesn't fly to anyone who spent the time watching it happen. I watched the Senate on C-Span in those early days and you could see what was happening.

You're a partisan hack with no regards for the truth, so kiss my ass and bug off! Figure out why America doesn't buy your bullshit anymore!

"America" Do not speak for others.
There is no obstruction. Use of that term in this context is nothing more than a liberal talking point.
The fact is you are just pissed because Obama cannot move forward on his lib/progressive/socialist agenda.
Although for two years your side had the bully pulpit. So while the dems could have done whatever they wished, they were too busy trying to sucker the GOP into their schemes for the purpose of getting political cover.

I keep telling you guys to stop looking for fool, you've got them all. No one will buy your bullshit, so figure it out and stop wasting your time trying to sell it. Your party is going down.

 

[Oldstyle]

The facts insist the Republicans have obstructed government. Common sense says a filibuster can be used and not obstruct government, but at some point government can be obstructed when enough tactics to obstruct government are used, meaning enough filibusters or rules tactics, like proposing too much legislation or amendments to legislation that require debate and votes. You obviously lack the common sense or honesty to deal with this subject and treat apples and oranges as the same. The Senate has a finite amount of time to do it's job and if a minority wastes enough time, the Senate can't do it's job and is being obstructed. Why is that picture too complex for your simple mind? An individual Senator can create his own filibuster. Again, that is not obstructing government, it's delaying the business of the Senate. It's only when there is enough of the Senate's time wasted that it becomes obstruction of government.

Here is a perfect example of obstruction of government and it has been done by the Republicans during recent sessions of the Senate, although I'm presenting it as a hypothetical example. Let's say some legislation is in the works and it has bipartisan support. It could even be legislation that all the Republican Senators will vote for and has unanimous support, but a Republican Senator signals he wants it debated and amended. The Senate leaders of both parties consult with each other and agree to schedule it before the Senate. The Majority Leader anticipates this will be legislation that will be quickly passed, because it has the unanimous support of Republican Senators. When it gets to the floor of the Senate though, the minority party keeps adding all kinds of amendments to the legislation. The amendments can be trivial changes, like I think this sentence should include a comma after a particular word and broken down into two sentences, or I think you should add this sentence. It doesn't make a difference if it is a trivial change, the Senate rules require debate and a vote on the amendment. Even if the majority doesn't use it's debate time, the minority can still use all their time. Finally, the amendment gets a vote and no one wants to change the wording or very few do. That can go on for 46 amendments until even the Republicans get tired of wasting time on it. It's possible nothing was changed or maybe there was some minor change. Weeks later the legislation is passed unanimously by a vote.

The Senate is not the only way to confirm an appointment by the President, so if for some reason appointments aren't confirmed, the jobs can be filled by a President using recess appointments. The job is then filled until the next Senate session is over. If the Senate still hasn't confirmed the appointment, another recess appointment can be made by the President. Explain how that obstructs government! Do you like crickets?

Small Plastic Boxes With Golden Chirping Crickets - YouTube

So that explains why Harry Reid has kept over 40 House bills from coming to the floor of the Senate...and why the Senate hasn't passed a budget in over two years? "Common sense" tells me that this has nothing to do with Republicans obstructing government and EVERYTHING to do with Harry not wanting Democrats to be on the record voting against certain legislation including any budgets that would show the true cost of the Obama agenda. There is no excuse other than partisan politics for what Reid has done and you know it. When one side won't even allow the other's bills on the floor how exactly is it that a compromise is going to be reached? The answer to that...using "common sense"...is NEVER! The GOP has constantly called for spending cuts to rein in an out of control Federal Government. THAT is the source of the majority of their filibusters but Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi and the President have consistently refused to allow that to happen all the while complaining vociferously that it's the Republicans that won't compromise with them. So let's look at what just happened with the "deal" to avert the so called fiscal cliff. We got $43 dollars in tax increases for every $1 we got in spending cuts. Who compromised with who, Dubya? If you didn't have your head planted deep in Barry's butt you'd realize through "common sense" that it was the GOP that compromised and the Democrats that refused to budge.

If you had common sense, you would know no one is buying your bullshit. I told you how government could be obstructed and was. Republicans don't make legislation worth passing, so don't give me that excuse. Writing a bill has never meant it will be given floor time in the Senate, so your point is bullshit. Obstructing government has been defined and not putting a bill on the floor that won't pass is not obstructing government. The Republicans are the reason a budget bill hasn't passed and you know it.

Play your Republican bullshit games, because who cares! Let's see if America buys your bullshit in the next election. You have nearly four years before you can change the government and that's four more years of minorities growing up. They sure aren't going to support you idiots. If you keep feeling something jabbing you, it's that fork telling you you're done.

You're so delusional at this point it's humorous to watch. You really don't have the faintest idea how our government is set up to function, do you?

Here's a little explanation...

The House drafts legislation...votes on it and if approved sends it over to the Senate. The Senate takes the House bill...debates it and then usually drafts its own version of the legislation. Then in a process called "reconciliation" representatives of the House and the Senate then hammer out a compromise between the two versions before sending a finished bill to the White House for the President's signature.

Now the House is doing it's job. It's crafting legislation and it's sending that legislation over to the Senate. When it gets there however, Harry Reid is preventing that GOP sponsored legislation from being brought to the floor for discussion or for a vote. Therefore there IS no Senate version that can be compromised with the House version in the reconciliation and the legislative process comes to a grinding halt.

It's the same thing with budgets. The House is sending over proposed budgets to the Senate. They've done their jobs. The Senate however has refused to draft a budget for well over two years now. Why? Purely for political reasons.

The White House has politicized the budget process even more than the Democratically controlled Senate. They've sent proposed budgets over to Congress that were so unrealistic that they were unable to get a single vote for them from Republicans OR Democrats!

But you continue to blame it all on GOP "obstructionism"...which proves how naive you really are.

 

[thereisnospoon]

The time of the Senate was deliberately being obstructed. Bills that the Republicans unanimously voted for were drug out to last as long as possible. That means there isn't time to do all the business the Senate needs to do and you idiots what to blame the people who were being obstructed, while supporting the people who did the obstruction? It doesn't fly to anyone who spent the time watching it happen. I watched the Senate on C-Span in those early days and you could see what was happening.

You're a partisan hack with no regards for the truth, so kiss my ass and bug off! Figure out why America doesn't buy your bullshit anymore!

"America" Do not speak for others.
There is no obstruction. Use of that term in this context is nothing more than a liberal talking point.
The fact is you are just pissed because Obama cannot move forward on his lib/progressive/socialist agenda.
Although for two years your side had the bully pulpit. So while the dems could have done whatever they wished, they were too busy trying to sucker the GOP into their schemes for the purpose of getting political cover.

I keep telling you guys to stop looking for fool, you've got them all. No one will buy your bullshit, so figure it out and stop wasting your time trying to sell it. Your party is going down.

You don't tell us SHIT..
Party? Please.
You libs are in such a minority now it's almost comical.
If the GOP was "going down, why then cannot the democrats retake the House. Why cannot they grab a super majority in the Senate. Why do 24 states have GOP majority houses. Why are there 30 GOP governors? Why is limited government sweeping the nation state by state? Why are states reining in public worker unions? Why are states going over to "right to work"?
Looks to me as though the democrats have gone as far as they can go.
Liberalism has hit a wall. Your side almost was able to run the table.
How selfish arrogant and elitist of you to believe your side is owed "it all"...

 

[Stephanie]

The Dear Leader wins a re-election and all of sudden it means, EVERYONE is GOING DOWN

I wonder if they were saying that when Bush won re-election...We the Democrat are HISTORY, we are going down

you have to laugh at Obamabots-liberals, they are just so cute

 

[squeeze berry]

The time of the Senate was deliberately being obstructed. Bills that the Republicans unanimously voted for were drug out to last as long as possible. That means there isn't time to do all the business the Senate needs to do and you idiots what to blame the people who were being obstructed, while supporting the people who did the obstruction? It doesn't fly to anyone who spent the time watching it happen. I watched the Senate on C-Span in those early days and you could see what was happening.

You're a partisan hack with no regards for the truth, so kiss my ass and bug off! Figure out why America doesn't buy your bullshit anymore!

"America" Do not speak for others.
There is no obstruction. Use of that term in this context is nothing more than a liberal talking point.
The fact is you are just pissed because Obama cannot move forward on his lib/progressive/socialist agenda.
Although for two years your side had the bully pulpit. So while the dems could have done whatever they wished, they were too busy trying to sucker the GOP into their schemes for the purpose of getting political cover.

I keep telling you guys to stop looking for fool, you've got them all. No one will buy your bullshit, so figure it out and stop wasting your time trying to sell it. Your party is going down.

"Pride goeth before destruction, and a haughty spirit before a fall."