Collarspace Discussion Forums


Home  Login  Search 

RE: 25 Violations of law.


View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: 25 Violations of law. Page: <<   < prev  3 4 5 [6] 7   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: 25 Violations of law. - 1/13/2016 10:05:04 AM   
mnottertail


Posts: 60698
Joined: 11/3/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux


quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

quote:


Wrong.
Democrats had a 60 vote supermajority until sept 25, 2009, because bernie sanders et.al. caucaus with the democrats.


Wrong. And fucking stupid, as well as factless. During the 110th congress, 2007-2009 it was 49-49 and 2. The 109th congress the senate was 44 dems, 55 nutsuckers and a tossup.

And just because nutsuckers nowadays caucus together in the bathrooms, does not mean they vote with the other nutsuckers who are in the middle of a felch.




Which for FUCK all sake has nothing to do with 111th Congress. If you can't be bothered to read the link look at the DAMN picture.

September 25, 2009. 111th Congress. 58 Democrats - 2 independents. that caucus with them.
http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/did-the-democrats-ever-really-have-60-votes-in-the-senate-and-for-how-long/



so, they had 57 democrats, 41 republican and 2 independents. and it showed. Never was there a super majority.

And therefore there was constant filibuster. It made the news, actually. (Probably not Faux, and the nutsucker slobber blogs, but the real news, nonetheless)


_____________________________

Have they not divided the prey; to every man a damsel or two? Judges 5:30


(in reply to Phydeaux)
Profile   Post #: 101
RE: 25 Violations of law. - 1/13/2016 10:14:51 AM   
Phydeaux


Posts: 4828
Joined: 1/4/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail


quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux


quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

quote:


Wrong.
Democrats had a 60 vote supermajority until sept 25, 2009, because bernie sanders et.al. caucaus with the democrats.


Wrong. And fucking stupid, as well as factless. During the 110th congress, 2007-2009 it was 49-49 and 2. The 109th congress the senate was 44 dems, 55 nutsuckers and a tossup.

And just because nutsuckers nowadays caucus together in the bathrooms, does not mean they vote with the other nutsuckers who are in the middle of a felch.




Which for FUCK all sake has nothing to do with 111th Congress. If you can't be bothered to read the link look at the DAMN picture.

September 25, 2009. 111th Congress. 58 Democrats - 2 independents. that caucus with them.
http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/did-the-democrats-ever-really-have-60-votes-in-the-senate-and-for-how-long/



so, they had 57 democrats, 41 republican and 2 independents. and it showed. Never was there a super majority.

And therefore there was constant filibuster. It made the news, actually. (Probably not Faux, and the nutsucker slobber blogs, but the real news, nonetheless)



All this time, I honestly thought your execrable manners were just because you were a diehard partisan. Now I being to see you really can't read.

Try one more time. Maybe after 4 times you'll get it right.

From July 7 - Aug 24 2009
and
From Sept 25 - February 3, 2010

the democrats had a supermajority of 60.

But you're not alone it seems. Dominant Hill Billy Wrestler still hasn't gotten it right.
And for the record hillbilly - it would be 6 years ago, not 30, not 7.

(in reply to mnottertail)
Profile   Post #: 102
RE: 25 Violations of law. - 1/13/2016 10:21:01 AM   
DominantWrestler


Posts: 338
Joined: 7/4/2010
Status: offline 		Fido, you stated the supermajority lasted for 7 years. You're still wrong

(in reply to Phydeaux)
Profile   Post #: 103
RE: 25 Violations of law. - 1/13/2016 10:38:30 AM   
Phydeaux


Posts: 4828
Joined: 1/4/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: DominantWrestler

Fido, you stated the supermajority lasted for 7 years. You're still wrong



You're the idiot that said 7 years. Post 97. Those words never crossed my keyboard.

Lets recap a bit, shall we:

Phydeaux: Post 81
quote:

upermajority - as in 60. Enough to break fillusters.

IdiotWrestler: Post 82
quote:

Last 60% majority was still 20 years ago in either house or senate

Phydeaux: Post 88
quote:

Wrong.
Democrats had a 60 vote supermajority until sept 25, 2009, because bernie sanders et.al. caucaus with the democrats.

IdiotWrestler: post 89
quote:

There were more republicans in both house and senate during that time period at the same time.

Phydeaux:post 91
quote:

Again, simply not true.
http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/did-the-democrats-ever-really-have-60-votes-in-the-senate-and-for-how-long/

As the attached https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Party_divisions_of_United_States_Congresses shows, Democrats outnumbered Republicans in the house 2007-2011.


IdiotWrestler: 92
quote:

109th United States Congress had 55 Republican Senators Fido. Do you expect that you can get the same support most republicans get when lying? And don't forget the majority in the house during the same time period. Do you expect that ripping people off in business makee your BS more convincing to those fronting the bill?


Phydeaux 93:
quote:


Which has dick all to do what we are talking about. The 109th Congress was 2005 -2007!

You said it was done by a republican congress etc. etc. I said - no, the democrats had control of congress in 2009, and in fact they had a supermajority.
You said - the last supermajority was 30 years ago.

Of course it was not. ACA was forced through precisely because the democrats could defeat the filibuster.
In the 111th Congress, the democrats had 60 votes in the senate, and 257 votes in the house.


Mnotter post 95 - also gets it wrong.
IdiotWrest post 97:
quote:

That 7 year supermajority is completely false. You got lying again Fido. I was mistaken in my attempt to be polite to you


....


So here's the recap. Phydeaux was EXACTLY correct about the democrats having a supermajority. Both mnotter and Hilly bill were WRONG.

Idiot Wrestler accused Phydeaux of lying. And was wrong.

Idiot Wrestler said the republicans had the majority - and was wrong

Idiot Wrestler said Phydeaux said the democrats had control for 7 years - and was wrong. The only person to say that was.. idiot wrestler.



< Message edited by Phydeaux -- 1/13/2016 10:54:36 AM >

(in reply to DominantWrestler)
Profile   Post #: 104
RE: 25 Violations of law. - 1/13/2016 10:55:35 AM   
DominantWrestler


Posts: 338
Joined: 7/4/2010
Status: offline 		You took the bait. How many supermajorities was it then? Thank you for looking the post up for me. I didn't feel like sorting through and I knew you spent enough time under bridges to oblige

(in reply to Phydeaux)
Profile   Post #: 105
RE: 25 Violations of law. - 1/13/2016 10:57:35 AM   
mnottertail


Posts: 60698
Joined: 11/3/2004
Status: offline
quote:



All this time, I honestly thought your execrable manners were just because you were a diehard partisan. Now I being to see you really can't read.

Try one more time. Maybe after 4 times you'll get it right.

From July 7 - Aug 24 2009
and
From Sept 25 - February 3, 2010

the democrats had a supermajority of 60.

But you're not alone it seems. Dominant Hill Billy Wrestler still hasn't gotten it right.
And for the record hillbilly - it would be 6 years ago, not 30, not 7.


All this time I thought your shiteating was because you were a cretin. Turns out you are a toiletlicking retard.


This timeline shows the facts.

President Obama was sworn in on January 20, 2009 with just 58 Senators to support his agenda.

He should have had 59, but Republicans contested Al Franken's election in Minnesota and he didn't get seated for seven months.

The President's cause was helped in April when Pennsylvania's Republican Senator Arlen Specter switched parties.

That gave the President 59 votes -- still a vote shy of the super majority.

But one month later, Democratic Senator Byrd of West Virginia was hospitalized and was basically out of commission.

So while the President's number on paper was 59 Senators -- he was really working with just 58 Senators.

Then in July, Minnesota Senator Al Franken was finally sworn in, giving President Obama the magic 60 -- but only in theory, because Senator Byrd was still out.

In August, Senator Ted Kennedy of Massachusetts died and the number went back down to 59 again until Paul Kirk temporarily filled Kennedy's seat in September.

Any pretense of a supermajority ended on February 4, 2010 when Republican Scott Brown was sworn into the seat Senator Kennedy once held.Do you see a two-year supermajority?

I didn't think so.

(and just because someone caucuses with the dems, dont mean they vote it).


Never was a supermajority, there, inside guy with the Ass Garglers.

Provide a credible citation, not nutsucker asswipe.



_____________________________

Have they not divided the prey; to every man a damsel or two? Judges 5:30


(in reply to DominantWrestler)
Profile   Post #: 106
RE: 25 Violations of law. - 1/13/2016 11:00:59 AM   
Phydeaux


Posts: 4828
Joined: 1/4/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: DominantWrestler

You took the bait. How many supermajorities was it then? Thank you for looking the post up for me. I didn't feel like sorting through and I knew you spent enough time under bridges to oblige


Yep this is the way it goes arguing with a liberal.

Never enough class to admit they were wrong. Instead, once again it becomes personal attacks. And once again the liberal offends first.

I will hence forth give your posts the attention and merit they deserve. Ie., close to none. You have few facts; little interest in the truth; don't have the class to admit you are wrong; and are more interested in confirming your anti-right wing bias than discussion of issues.

(in reply to DominantWrestler)
Profile   Post #: 107
RE: 25 Violations of law. - 1/13/2016 11:04:22 AM   
Phydeaux


Posts: 4828
Joined: 1/4/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

(and just because someone caucuses with the dems, dont mean they vote it).



Of course it doesn't. But the fact they voted with the dems does. Bernie sanders voted with Harry Reed on every single filibuster vote in that congress.

Public record, asswipe.

(in reply to mnottertail)
Profile   Post #: 108
RE: 25 Violations of law. - 1/13/2016 11:21:13 AM   
DominantWrestler


Posts: 338
Joined: 7/4/2010
Status: offline 		im sorry that regardless of my remembering what you said incorrectly, you're still wrong

(in reply to Phydeaux)
Profile   Post #: 109
RE: 25 Violations of law. - 1/13/2016 11:22:45 AM   
DominantWrestler


Posts: 338
Joined: 7/4/2010
Status: offline 		If you focused on anti authority a little more, you'd get empathy around here. How can you believe republicans are anti federalists?

(in reply to DominantWrestler)
Profile   Post #: 110
RE: 25 Violations of law. - 1/13/2016 11:30:01 AM   
mnottertail


Posts: 60698
Joined: 11/3/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux


quote:

ORIGINAL: DominantWrestler

You took the bait. How many supermajorities was it then? Thank you for looking the post up for me. I didn't feel like sorting through and I knew you spent enough time under bridges to oblige


Yep this is the way it goes arguing with a liberal.

Never enough class to admit they were wrong. Instead, once again it becomes personal attacks. And once again the liberal offends first.

I will hence forth give your posts the attention and merit they deserve. Ie., close to none. You have few facts; little interest in the truth; don't have the class to admit you are wrong; and are more interested in confirming your anti-right wing bias than discussion of issues.



The offense was first with your constant lying nutsuckering posts.

_____________________________

Have they not divided the prey; to every man a damsel or two? Judges 5:30


(in reply to Phydeaux)
Profile   Post #: 111
RE: 25 Violations of law. - 1/13/2016 11:32:40 AM   
mnottertail


Posts: 60698
Joined: 11/3/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux


quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

(and just because someone caucuses with the dems, dont mean they vote it).



Of course it doesn't. But the fact they voted with the dems does. Bernie sanders voted with Harry Reed on every single filibuster vote in that congress.

Public record, asswipe.



You bet its public record, the 67 filibusters the Republicans ran. There really doesnt get to be a vote in a filibuster, public knowledge, felcher.

_____________________________

Have they not divided the prey; to every man a damsel or two? Judges 5:30


(in reply to Phydeaux)
Profile   Post #: 112
RE: 25 Violations of law. - 1/13/2016 11:34:12 AM   
Phydeaux


Posts: 4828
Joined: 1/4/2004
Status: offline 		Some Republicans are anti statists. Not enough.
But I can't think of a single democrat that is.

More Americans think the government is the problem gun control. Almost 2:1


(in reply to DominantWrestler)
Profile   Post #: 113
RE: 25 Violations of law. - 1/13/2016 11:38:24 AM   
mnottertail


Posts: 60698
Joined: 11/3/2004
Status: offline 		I don't know that I have ever seen anti-statism bear a viable nation. So, I don't know what the fuck anti-statism is worth.

Of course, if you are a communalist, (which is one form of anti-statism)...........

_____________________________

Have they not divided the prey; to every man a damsel or two? Judges 5:30


(in reply to Phydeaux)
Profile   Post #: 114
RE: 25 Violations of law. - 1/13/2016 11:38:58 AM   
Phydeaux


Posts: 4828
Joined: 1/4/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail


quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux


quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

(and just because someone caucuses with the dems, dont mean they vote it).



Of course it doesn't. But the fact they voted with the dems does. Bernie sanders voted with Harry Reed on every single filibuster vote in that congress.

Public record, asswipe.



You bet its public record, the 67 filibusters the Republicans ran. There really doesnt get to be a vote in a filibuster, public knowledge, felcher.


And as usual, you're wrong again. A filibuster is ended by a vote to invoke cloture.

And as I said, on every single.vote to invoke cloture sanders sided with Reid.

Why don't you tell me how often sanders hewed to b the democrat line? Was it 99.3% or 99.7%. I get the two "independents" confused.

< Message edited by Phydeaux -- 1/13/2016 11:39:26 AM >

(in reply to mnottertail)
Profile   Post #: 115
RE: 25 Violations of law. - 1/13/2016 12:18:09 PM   
mnottertail


Posts: 60698
Joined: 11/3/2004
Status: offline 		Once again I am right. And what in the fuck would you do besides invoke cloture, unless you were a nutsucker reading the night before christmas, obstructively.

So. voting with the dems on cloture is not the same as voting with dems on bills. Cloture requires 3/5s (or 60% of those present) unless the nutsuckers were caucusing in the minneapolis airport bathrooms again, it wouldnt work very well, and often didnt. In the 111th, Harry Reid filed 136 cloture petitions, down three from the 110th. And according to Senate record keeper, Dems held fewer votes to invoke cloture this Congress than last -- 91 compared to 112.

Again, your lying asswipe is proven to be wrong, at the very best of times there was no super majority (and that was counting Lieberman with the dems).

The fallacious and hyperbolic nutsuckerisms notwithstanding and the derail from the point notwithstanding, there NEVER was a supermajority other than in nutsuckers felch.

Reality fucks you again.




< Message edited by mnottertail -- 1/13/2016 12:20:47 PM >

_____________________________

Have they not divided the prey; to every man a damsel or two? Judges 5:30


(in reply to Phydeaux)
Profile   Post #: 116
RE: 25 Violations of law. - 1/13/2016 1:13:49 PM   
Phydeaux


Posts: 4828
Joined: 1/4/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail
So. voting with the dems on cloture is not the same as voting with dems on bills. Cloture requires 3/5s (or 60% of those present) unless the nutsuckers were caucusing in the minneapolis airport bathrooms again, it wouldnt work very well, and often didnt. In the 111th, Harry Reid filed 136 cloture petitions, down three from the 110th. And according to Senate record keeper, Dems held fewer votes to invoke cloture this Congress than last -- 91 compared to 112.





The number of cloture votes is relevant to exactly nothing, it depends on the number of fillibusters, and the number of attempts to defeat the fillibust. You claimed that the independents didn't vote with the democrats.

When the truth of course is - they did.


Again. quote me the number of times Sanders voted against the democrats?

Here - lets test your reading skills See if you can find it in the online database that lists ALL of bernies votes, ever.

http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/111/


< Message edited by Phydeaux -- 1/13/2016 1:17:53 PM >

(in reply to mnottertail)
Profile   Post #: 117
RE: 25 Violations of law. - 1/13/2016 1:45:19 PM   
mnottertail


Posts: 60698
Joined: 11/3/2004
Status: offline 		But you were the one cockgargling cloture. you are right, it means nothing.

looks like old bern is about 50-50 in his votes with the nutsuckers.
https://www.govtrack.us/congress/members/bernard_sanders/400357

Lieberman voted to block healthcare plan by Reid, (who is a dem) Lieberman voted against Iran deal. Lieberman supported McCain. There is tons more, but I aint wasting a great deal of time on lying toiletlikers.


_____________________________

Have they not divided the prey; to every man a damsel or two? Judges 5:30


(in reply to Phydeaux)
Profile   Post #: 118
RE: 25 Violations of law. - 1/13/2016 1:47:31 PM   
mnottertail


Posts: 60698
Joined: 11/3/2004
Status: offline 		But so far, cockgargling the supermajority and 25 violations of law, and just about everything else out here, you are in Epic fail. I am very proud of you making yourself out to be a goddamn lying idiot out here and still going.


< Message edited by mnottertail -- 1/13/2016 1:49:32 PM >

_____________________________

Have they not divided the prey; to every man a damsel or two? Judges 5:30


(in reply to mnottertail)
Profile   Post #: 119
RE: 25 Violations of law. - 1/13/2016 2:31:27 PM   
Phydeaux


Posts: 4828
Joined: 1/4/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

But you were the one cockgargling cloture. you are right, it means nothing.

looks like old bern is about 50-50 in his votes with the nutsuckers.
https://www.govtrack.us/congress/members/bernard_sanders/400357

Lieberman voted to block healthcare plan by Reid, (who is a dem) Lieberman voted against Iran deal. Lieberman supported McCain. There is tons more, but I aint wasting a great deal of time on lying toiletlikers.



Proving, one again, that you can't read. The link you provided was for 2015. But even that shows bernie voted with the democrats 94%.

(in reply to mnottertail)
Profile   Post #: 120
Page:   <<   < prev  3 4 5 [6] 7   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: 25 Violations of law. Page: <<   < prev  3 4 5 [6] 7   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy

0.156