Ultimate College Softball
Register Calendar Latest Topics
 
 
 


Reply
  Author   Comment   Page 3 of 51      Prev   1   2   3   4   5   6   Next   »
PDad

Registered:
Posts: 4,062
Reply with quote  #61 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dewey
For some reason Lost-1 believes I said Reid doesn't block votes.  I said Reid blocks legislation the President won't sign.  Won't waste the time.

Reid provides cover for Obama because blocked votes are less visible than vetoes.
Lost_1

Registered:
Posts: 2,859
Reply with quote  #62 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dewey
For some reason Lost-1 believes I said Reid doesn't block votes.  I said Reid blocks legislation the President won't sign.  Won't waste the time.





Yet, only Republicans are obstructionists.......

__________________
If we are not careful, our colleges will produce a group of close-minded, unscientific, illogical propagandists, consumed with immoral acts. - Dr. Martin Luther King


“Everyone is in favor of free speech. Hardly a day passes without its being extolled, but some people's idea of it is that they are free to say what they like, but if anyone else says anything back, that is an outrage.” Winston S. Churchill


Dewey

Registered:
Posts: 24,423
Reply with quote  #63 
Lost - If you don't hold a vote on a bill the President won't sign anyway, how is that obstruction?
Lost_1

Registered:
Posts: 2,859
Reply with quote  #64 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dewey
Lost - If you don't hold a vote on a bill the President won't sign anyway, how is that obstruction?



Should have known better,


DOWN

The

Rabbit


Hol
e
e
e
e
e


__________________
If we are not careful, our colleges will produce a group of close-minded, unscientific, illogical propagandists, consumed with immoral acts. - Dr. Martin Luther King


“Everyone is in favor of free speech. Hardly a day passes without its being extolled, but some people's idea of it is that they are free to say what they like, but if anyone else says anything back, that is an outrage.” Winston S. Churchill


Dewey

Registered:
Posts: 24,423
Reply with quote  #65 
If you block a vote on a bill the President will sign, it's obstruction.  You've stopped an event from going forward and being successful.

If you block a vote on a bill the President will not sign, it's not obstruction as no successful legislation, or action, going forward was possible.

It's not a rabbit hole, it's clear to most folks.
ForeverInBlue

Registered:
Posts: 10,016
Reply with quote  #66 
If you defy a Congressional subpoena for documents, it's obstruction.
Lost_1

Registered:
Posts: 2,859
Reply with quote  #67 
I will let the readers decide:



Simple Definition of obstruction

  • : something that blocks something else and makes it difficult for things to move through

  • : the condition of being blocked so that things cannot move through easily

  • : the act of making it difficult for something to happen or move forward


__________________
If we are not careful, our colleges will produce a group of close-minded, unscientific, illogical propagandists, consumed with immoral acts. - Dr. Martin Luther King


“Everyone is in favor of free speech. Hardly a day passes without its being extolled, but some people's idea of it is that they are free to say what they like, but if anyone else says anything back, that is an outrage.” Winston S. Churchill


Dewey

Registered:
Posts: 24,423
Reply with quote  #68 
Lost - I trust readers understand the context from which we're speaking.  smh

We're talking about political parties preventing the other side from initiating some kind of action on behalf of the American people.  For example, we will not have hearings on a SC nominee because the GOP will not allow them.  We did not get immigration reform because the House wouldn't allow the vote.  We didn't get a Congressional approval of the use of military force against ISIS because the GOP wouldn't vote on it, despite the fact they asked the President to send one over.  A lot of action would have happened on behalf of this Country if there were no obstruction.  If you want to argue obstruction was necessary because these actions were poor, fell free.  But it's still obstructing the desired action.

To the contrary, if Reid allows a vote on repealing Obamacare, it won't happen.  If he doesn't allow a vote, it still won't happen.  What the majority leader does is irrelevant, as it relates to the intended action of repealing a prior law, and he has not obstructed any action that would have otherwise occurred..  Considering all the times the GOP tried to repeal Obamacare, ignoring votes was good legislative practice and not obstruction as it relates to moving some intended action forward.
keepinitreal

Registered:
Posts: 24,285
Reply with quote  #69 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ForeverInBlue
If you defy a Congressional subpoena for documents, it's obstruction.


You mean like obama's DOJ?

__________________
"I like to establish the parameters of my own thoughts and don't think I need a director."

"This is not debate class. And this is not about politeness. We're talking about the damn future of our country"

"It is not just simply yelling out a name and yelling down dissenters........................... and I'll defend your right to even insult me" 
ForeverInBlue

Registered:
Posts: 10,016
Reply with quote  #70 
Quote:
Originally Posted by keepinitreal
You mean like obama's DOJ?


Or the State Department, or the White House itself defying subpoenas, which directly led to the creation of the Benghazi Committee. Anybody opposed to the Select Committee has no on to blame but Barack Obama.
ForeverInBlue

Registered:
Posts: 10,016
Reply with quote  #71 
Here's more obstruction from Obama. He just signed a law, then immediately announced he would only enforce the sections he wants to.

President Obama Signs Anti-BDS Law, Immediately Announces Intent to Ignore It

Feb 25, 2016  
Press Release 

Washington, D.C. — Yesterday evening, President Obama signed into law the Trade Facilitation and Trade Enforcement Act of 2015. U.S. Representative Peter J. Roskam authored key provisions that protect American companies doing business in Israel.

President Obama singled out the Roskam provisions in his signing statement, writing that he will “interpret and implement [them] in a manner that does not interfere with [his] diplomacy.”

Rep. Roskam released the following statement:

“This law – including the anti-BDS provisions I was proud to author – passed with overwhelming bipartisan support in both the House and the Senate.

“Incredibly, President Obama has already announced his intention to prioritize his misguided notions of legacy over the law of the land.

“We did not provide a statutory menu from which President Obama can pick and choose provisions to enforce.

“The president has signed this bill into law – it is now his responsibility to fully and faithfully execute it in its entirety.

“I'm sorry to hear that fighting efforts to delegitimize Israel interferes with his diplomacy, but rest assured that I intend to use my authority as chairman of the Ways and Means Subcommittee on Oversight to vigorously review and hold the administration accountable to duly execute our nation’s laws.”

TylerDurden

Registered:
Posts: 3,869
Reply with quote  #72 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ForeverInBlue
Here's more obstruction from Obama. He just signed a law, then immediately announced he would only enforce the sections he wants to.

President Obama Signs Anti-BDS Law, Immediately Announces Intent to Ignore It

Feb 25, 2016  
Press Release 

Washington, D.C. — Yesterday evening, President Obama signed into law the Trade Facilitation and Trade Enforcement Act of 2015. U.S. Representative Peter J. Roskam authored key provisions that protect American companies doing business in Israel.

President Obama singled out the Roskam provisions in his signing statement, writing that he will “interpret and implement [them] in a manner that does not interfere with [his] diplomacy.”

Rep. Roskam released the following statement:

“This law – including the anti-BDS provisions I was proud to author – passed with overwhelming bipartisan support in both the House and the Senate.

“Incredibly, President Obama has already announced his intention to prioritize his misguided notions of legacy over the law of the land.

“We did not provide a statutory menu from which President Obama can pick and choose provisions to enforce.

“The president has signed this bill into law – it is now his responsibility to fully and faithfully execute it in its entirety.

“I'm sorry to hear that fighting efforts to delegitimize Israel interferes with his diplomacy, but rest assured that I intend to use my authority as chairman of the Ways and Means Subcommittee on Oversight to vigorously review and hold the administration accountable to duly execute our nation’s laws.”



Pssst - hey Dewey, this is why the GOP doesn't trust the President to implement ANYTHING as passed.  I am sure you come up with some kind of spin, but here is the proof.
mikec

Registered:
Posts: 8,380
Reply with quote  #73 
preposterous - it's because they're racist
Dewey

Registered:
Posts: 24,423
Reply with quote  #74 
Quote:
Originally Posted by TylerDurden
According to the families, she told them "we are going to arrest the filmmaker that was responsible for the death of your son." A day after the attack, she told the Egyptian Prime Minister "We know the attack in Libya had nothing to do with the film. It was a planned attack, not a protest."

Who is not telling the truth?
 


All your answers can be found below, other than why we can't believe the suspect Khattala when he said the video played a role.

Rubio claimed Hillary was a liar and got two pinocchios.  Feel free to list which statements this article made which you want to dispute.


https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2015/10/30/is-hillary-clinton-a-liar-on-benghazi/

Ex:

Can Rubio really attribute this to a “lie” rather than the fog of war? A “lie” suggests a deliberate effort to deceive, while the documentary evidence suggests there were few hard answers available then to policymakers. Even the Senate report signed by Rubio says the reports from the intelligence community “caused confusion and influenced the public statements” of policymakers.

Rubio is certainly within his rights to point out Clinton’s contradictory statements — and the remarks of the family members give us pause — but he does not have enough evidence to label Clinton a liar.

keepinitreal

Registered:
Posts: 24,285
Reply with quote  #75 
The American people by an 80/20 split, say that the bloody pantsuit is a liar. Walks like a duck, quacks like a duck
__________________
"I like to establish the parameters of my own thoughts and don't think I need a director."

"This is not debate class. And this is not about politeness. We're talking about the damn future of our country"

"It is not just simply yelling out a name and yelling down dissenters........................... and I'll defend your right to even insult me" 
DietCoke

Registered:
Posts: 2,197
Reply with quote  #76 
Quote:
Originally Posted by keepinitreal
The American people by an 80/20 split, say that the bloody pantsuit is a liar. Walks like a duck, quacks like a duck


And......... what about Trump?

__________________
"The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated communist, but people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists."

-- Hannah Arendt, “The Origins of Totalitarianism” (1951)

keepinitreal

Registered:
Posts: 24,285
Reply with quote  #77 
I was countering directly dewy bullschitt in post 74.  What about Trump, there are several threads on Trump.  Dewy's views says he doesn't think hilLIARy is a liar.

 Follow along with the thread topic we are on dietwatereddown coke.  dewy has a Trump thread as do I.

__________________
"I like to establish the parameters of my own thoughts and don't think I need a director."

"This is not debate class. And this is not about politeness. We're talking about the damn future of our country"

"It is not just simply yelling out a name and yelling down dissenters........................... and I'll defend your right to even insult me" 
Dewey

Registered:
Posts: 24,423
Reply with quote  #78 
Here's an idea for a new fantasy game.  Which will be the first video taped comments aired on TV for the general election?


1)  He's a choker.
2)  He's a liar.
3)  He's a con artist.
keepinitreal

Registered:
Posts: 24,285
Reply with quote  #79 
4)  She's a Liar for 600
__________________
"I like to establish the parameters of my own thoughts and don't think I need a director."

"This is not debate class. And this is not about politeness. We're talking about the damn future of our country"

"It is not just simply yelling out a name and yelling down dissenters........................... and I'll defend your right to even insult me" 
ForeverInBlue

Registered:
Posts: 10,016
Reply with quote  #80 
Hey kiir, or woody, or pabar, in post 78 Dewey is referring to Bernie Sanders, right? Or is it Bill Clinton?

Dewey

Registered:
Posts: 24,423
Reply with quote  #81 
"Hey everybody, can you come help me here.  It's mock a Democrat time." 
ForeverInBlue

Registered:
Posts: 10,016
Reply with quote  #82 
Now, now, don't be upset. I'm just testing the reliability of your belief that it's better to ask others for clarification of statements than ask the person who actually made the statements.

 

keepinitreal

Registered:
Posts: 24,285
Reply with quote  #83 
No, no Wednesdays are "Laugh at a Libtard Wednesdays".  Fridays are "Pop a top Fridays"

Source:  Michael Berry Show

__________________
"I like to establish the parameters of my own thoughts and don't think I need a director."

"This is not debate class. And this is not about politeness. We're talking about the damn future of our country"

"It is not just simply yelling out a name and yelling down dissenters........................... and I'll defend your right to even insult me" 
Dewey

Registered:
Posts: 24,423
Reply with quote  #84 
FIB - I've given you many opportunities to supply the readers with something new that would raise eyebrows.  Tell them what Susan Rice might have said that's a game changer.  Give us a possibility that should make me change my position.  If it's 80/20 between premeditated or spontaneous attack, thanks to a video, and they decide go with spontaneous until they have ample time to make 100% certain, it's still no big deal to me. Politicians are known to put best front forward until they're certain of the facts.  I think Reagan held out a long time on Iran/Contra, in fact, probably long after he knew the precise facts.  In any event, what could the finding be that would make readers upset?

Edit:  Btw, November election, imo, was not even on their mind regardless what anyone thinks might have occurred.
ForeverInBlue

Registered:
Posts: 10,016
Reply with quote  #85 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dewey
FIB - I've given you many opportunities to supply the readers with something new that would raise eyebrows.  Tell them what Susan Rice might have said that's a game changer.  Give us a possibility that should make me change my position.  If it's 80/20 between premeditated or spontaneous attack, thanks to a video, and they decide go with spontaneous until they have ample time to make 100% certain, it's still no big deal to me. Politicians are known to put best front forward until they're certain of the facts.  I think Reagan held out a long time on Iran/Contra, in fact, probably long after he knew the precise facts.  In any event, what could the finding be that would make readers upset?

Edit:  Btw, November election, imo, was not even on their mind regardless what anyone thinks might have occurred.


What's this? Am I seeing things, or did Dewey post this exact same request for make-believe gamechanging eyebrow-raisers in another thread mere minutes ago?
Dewey

Registered:
Posts: 24,423
Reply with quote  #86 
Yeah, I posted it in the wrong thread.  I was trying to give you more exposure so these guys would comment.  Would somebody answer him already?  Hey, but do it in the Benghazi thread please.
ForeverInBlue

Registered:
Posts: 10,016
Reply with quote  #87 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dewey
Yeah, I posted it in the wrong thread.  I was trying to give you more exposure so these guys would comment.  Would somebody answer him already?  Hey, but do it in the Benghazi thread please.


Yes, folks, do it in the Benghazi thread. The guy who cross-threads practically every topic on the board seems to be all confused. [confused]
Dewey

Registered:
Posts: 24,423
Reply with quote  #88 
Just now watched another Republican spinning numbers again on how the top earners pay most of the taxes.  Of course they do, (here's an article suggesting 68%), but please allow me to give an example to slow that spin down.

Assume ten taxpayers earn a million a year and pay 10% in taxes, ($100M each), while ninety taxpayers earn $50,000 and pay 10% in taxes, ($5M each).  You could then go on TV and say the top ten percent of income earners pay 69% of the taxes and watch Conservatives roll their eyes, (works out the top earners pay $1 million of the $1.45 million in total taxes).  You'd think we were robbing those rich folks when everyone, in my example, was actually paying the exact same percentage.  Don't be fooled by the math until you know the whole picture.
keepinitreal

Registered:
Posts: 24,285
Reply with quote  #89 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dewey
Lost - I trust readers understand the context from which we're speaking.  smh



My dog shakes his head when he has a flareup with an oncoming ear infection. I'll find out the name of the ear drops we use

__________________
"I like to establish the parameters of my own thoughts and don't think I need a director."

"This is not debate class. And this is not about politeness. We're talking about the damn future of our country"

"It is not just simply yelling out a name and yelling down dissenters........................... and I'll defend your right to even insult me" 
pabar61

Registered:
Posts: 11,223
Reply with quote  #90 
Here is a graph showing how Dewey's example makes no sense.  The graph actually tries to support the socialist idea that the wealthy pay less in taxes.  The idea that everyone pays 10% is a non-starter because that's not how it works.  Notice how those past the 1% start to pay less in taxes?  The reason for that is that far more of their income comes in the form of capital gains.  In the year this graph was created, the capital gains tax was 15%.  Remember that the capital used to generate those capital gains was already taxed once.

So people, when Dewey posts his phony what-ifs, remember that they usually are based on false premises.

[image]
Previous Topic | Next Topic
Print
Reply

Quick Navigation:

Easily create a Forum Website with Website Toolbox.