The House of Cards

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from 8101956. Show 8101956's posts

    The House of Cards

    Why didn't the House of Representatives vote on the alleged border crisis before they went on recess ?

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from UserName9. Show UserName9's posts

    Re: The House of Cards

    Can't pass emergency bills that impact the entire country when the top priority is to authorize a frivolous lawsuit against the President.

    On Wed. they sue the president for acting unilaterally on an issue.  On Thursday they deny any funding to address an emergency refugee crisis, which forces the president to act unilaterally on an issue that the GOP is caterwauling about around the clock.

    How much more of this Tea Party buffoonery is the country willing to take?  

     
  3. This post has been removed.

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from NowWhatDoYouWant. Show NowWhatDoYouWant's posts

    Re: The House of Cards

    In response to 8101956's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Why didn't the House of Representatives vote on the alleged border crisis before they went on recess ?

    [/QUOTE]

    The strategy is to play a worsening problem to the public as Obama's exclusive fault: If, they say, he did nothing in the past (despite deportation numbers similar to past presidents), then they shouldn't have to do anything now.

     

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from StalkingButler. Show StalkingButler's posts

    Re: The House of Cards

    Seriously, did you want them to pass yet another law for Harry Reid to squash or for President Obama to ignore? I'm not sure what the point would be.

     

    --

    Think for yourself, question authority.

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from NowWhatDoYouWant. Show NowWhatDoYouWant's posts

    Re: The House of Cards

    In response to StalkingButler's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Seriously, did you want them to pass yet another law for Harry Reid to squash or for President Obama to ignore? I'm not sure what the point would be.

    [/QUOTE]

    Seeing as Obama was asking them for a bigger law, it would not only be intellectually honest of them, but actually in their political interest to pass it, so as to snare Obama if he ignored it.

    At any rate, I don't think the party of "No" has anything to say about squashing laws.

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from UserName9. Show UserName9's posts

    Re: The House of Cards

    In response to StalkingButler's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Seriously, did you want them to pass yet another law for Harry Reid to squash or for President Obama to ignore? I'm not sure what the point would be.

     

    --

    Think for yourself, question authority.

    [/QUOTE]


    Um no....If Boehner had brought the bill to a vote it would have passed with a majority of democrats, especially if he had been willing to include them in it's authorship. The blame lies squarely with him and the use of the Hastert rule.

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from babytut. Show babytut's posts

    Re: The House of Cards

    In response to StalkingButler's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Seriously, did you want them to pass yet another law for Harry Reid to squash or for President Obama to ignore? I'm not sure what the point would be.

     

    --

    Think for yourself, question authority.

    [/QUOTE]

    200 bills passed the house in 2013.  the problem is reid.

    here is a piece of a well written article:

     

    Republicans complain that the media’s reporting on the “unprecedented obstructionism” of a “do-nothing Congress” has focused almost exclusively on GOP filibusters in the Senate and the refusal of the Republican-controlled House to take up Senate-passed bills, such as the Gang of Eight immigration-reform legislation. They note that House Republicans passed more than 200 bills in 2013, many of which Reid has refused to hold votes on in the Senate. House-passed legislation is readily dismissed as “dead on arrival” in the upper chamber, while the storyline surrounding Senate measures, such as the immigration bill, tends to focus on House speaker John Boehner “facing pressure” to hold a vote in the House. In reality, of the 72 bills President Obama signed into law last year, only 16 originated in the Senate.

    Reid has refused to bring up measures that would almost certainly pass with bipartisan support, such as legislation approving construction of the Keystone XL oil pipeline, or the aforementioned medical-device-tax repeal. He has also refused to consider legislation to impose new sanctions on Iran: A majority of Senate Democrats support the idea, but it’s strongly opposed by the White House. On the Iranian issue, Republicans have accused Reid of “playing defense for the president” against the wishes of his own conference.

    Senate minority leader Mitch McConnell, still reeling from Reid’s unprecedented use of the “nuclear option” to eliminate filibusters on executive-branch appointees, has gone on the offensive, taking to the Senate floor last week to urge members to “restore the Senate to its purpose,” which he says will produce better legislation for all.

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from NowWhatDoYouWant. Show NowWhatDoYouWant's posts

    Re: The House of Cards

    Doesn't it matter what's in those bills? Aren't their contents outcome-determinative if the question is who is doing the obstructing?

    If the GOP passes 50 bills to repeal Obamacare and Reid blocks them all, is that really just mean old Reid being obstructionist? Or is it the GOP trying to obstruct Obama?

     

     

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from ronreganfan. Show ronreganfan's posts

    Re: The House of Cards

    In response to UserName9's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Can't pass emergency bills that impact the entire country when the top priority is to authorize a frivolous lawsuit against the President.

    On Wed. they sue the president for acting unilaterally on an issue.  On Thursday they deny any funding to address an emergency refugee crisis, which forces the president to act unilaterally on an issue that the GOP is caterwauling about around the clock.

    How much more of this Tea Party buffoonery is the country willing to take?  

    [/QUOTE]

    Ya, so true.

    so, when is Reid going to bring the 335 bills passed by the House up for a vote in the Senate?

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from ronreganfan. Show ronreganfan's posts

    Re: The House of Cards

    In response to NowWhatDoYouWant's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Doesn't it matter what's in those bills? Aren't their contents outcome-determinative if the question is who is doing the obstructing?

    If the GOP passes 50 bills to repeal Obamacare and Reid blocks them all, is that really just mean old Reid being obstructionist? Or is it the GOP trying to obstruct Obama?

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    So, the House is only supposed to pass bills that Obama wants, not what the American people need?

    wow. Just wow.

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from NowWhatDoYouWant. Show NowWhatDoYouWant's posts

    Re: The House of Cards

    In response to ronreganfan's comment:


    when is Reid going to bring the 335 bills passed by the House up for a vote in the Senate?




    Can we get a breakdown of the bills to determine whether they are new ideas, or just attempts to repeal existing Democrat ideas?


    It would really help, if we want to see who is the doodyhead.

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from NowWhatDoYouWant. Show NowWhatDoYouWant's posts

    Re: The House of Cards

    In response to ronreganfan's comment:


    In response to NowWhatDoYouWant's comment:
    []


    Doesn't it matter what's in those bills? Aren't their contents outcome-determinative if the question is who is doing the obstructing?


    If the GOP passes 50 bills to repeal Obamacare and Reid blocks them all, is that really just mean old Reid being obstructionist? Or is it the GOP trying to obstruct Obama?


     


     


    []



    So, the House is only supposed to pass bills that Obama wants, not what the American people need?


    wow. Just wow.





    Do you or CLC ever respond to what other people actually say?


     

     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from babytut. Show babytut's posts

    Re: The House of Cards

    In response to NowWhatDoYouWant's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Doesn't it matter what's in those bills? Aren't their contents outcome-determinative if the question is who is doing the obstructing?

    If the GOP passes 50 bills to repeal Obamacare and Reid blocks them all, is that really just mean old Reid being obstructionist? Or is it the GOP trying to obstruct Obama?

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    it's probably both.  it is certainly not the "party of no" or those "obstructionist republicans", as you would believe if you listened to the msm or any democrat.

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from NowWhatDoYouWant. Show NowWhatDoYouWant's posts

    Re: The House of Cards

    In response to babytut's comment:


    In response to NowWhatDoYouWant's comment:
    []


    Doesn't it matter what's in those bills? Aren't their contents outcome-determinative if the question is who is doing the obstructing?


    If the GOP passes 50 bills to repeal Obamacare and Reid blocks them all, is that really just mean old Reid being obstructionist? Or is it the GOP trying to obstruct Obama?


     []
    it's probably both.  it is certainly not the "party of no" or those "obstructionist republicans", as you would believe if you listened to the msm or any democrat.




    Well, then I'll withhold judgment on what the number signifies until I see a summary of what all the bills are about.


    I don't think it's fair to call Reid the obstructionist if a reasonably strong majority of them are attempts to repeal existing Democrat-pushed laws. However, if they're honest different attempts to solve problems, then it's a different story.


    Note: I would not, for example, call Paul Ryan's budget from 2012 (or was it 2013?) an honest attempt - this being the one that would shrink the federal budget to 100 billion total for all discretionary domestic programs including the FBI/DEA/CIA/EPA/etc - because that simply had no chance of passing no matter what. I doubt most Republoicans would go that far, seeing as it would result in virtually no federal agencies by 2050.


     


     


    So......no further comment until evidence is presented.

     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from babytut. Show babytut's posts

    Re: The House of Cards

    In response to NowWhatDoYouWant's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to babytut's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

     

    In response to NowWhatDoYouWant's comment:
    []

     

    Doesn't it matter what's in those bills? Aren't their contents outcome-determinative if the question is who is doing the obstructing?

     

    If the GOP passes 50 bills to repeal Obamacare and Reid blocks them all, is that really just mean old Reid being obstructionist? Or is it the GOP trying to obstruct Obama?

     

     []
    it's probably both.  it is certainly not the "party of no" or those "obstructionist republicans", as you would believe if you listened to the msm or any democrat.

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Well, then I'll withhold judgment on what the number signifies until I see a summary of what all the bills are about.

     

     

    I don't think it's fair to call Reid the obstructionist if a reasonably strong majority of them are attempts to repeal existing Democrat-pushed laws. However, if they're honest different attempts to solve problems, then it's a different story.

     

    Note: I would not, for example, call Paul Ryan's budget from 2012 (or was it 2013?) an honest attempt - this being the one that would shrink the federal budget to 100 billion total for all discretionary domestic programs including the FBI/DEA/CIA/EPA/etc - because that simply had no chance of passing no matter what. I doubt most Republoicans would go that far, seeing as it would result in virtually no federal agencies by 2050.

     

     

     

     

     

    So......no further comment until evidence is presented.

    [/QUOTE]

    i'm with you.  I have no further comment either.  i do not have time or the desire to investigate 200 bills that may or may not have been passed by the house and squashed by reid.

    by the time it could be done, the republicans will have the senate and reid will be pushed aside.

     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from andiejen. Show andiejen's posts

    Re: The House of Cards

    In response to babytut's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to StalkingButler's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Seriously, did you want them to pass yet another law for Harry Reid to squash or for President Obama to ignore? I'm not sure what the point would be.

     

    --

    Think for yourself, question authority.

    [/QUOTE]

    200 bills passed the house in 2013.  the problem is reid.

    here is a piece of a well written article:

     

    Republicans complain that the media’s reporting on the “unprecedented obstructionism” of a “do-nothing Congress” has focused almost exclusively on GOP filibusters in the Senate and the refusal of the Republican-controlled House to take up Senate-passed bills, such as the Gang of Eight immigration-reform legislation. They note that House Republicans passed more than 200 bills in 2013, many of which Reid has refused to hold votes on in the Senate. House-passed legislation is readily dismissed as “dead on arrival” in the upper chamber, while the storyline surrounding Senate measures, such as the immigration bill, tends to focus on House speaker John Boehner “facing pressure” to hold a vote in the House. In reality, of the 72 bills President Obama signed into law last year, only 16 originated in the Senate.

    Reid has refused to bring up measures that would almost certainly pass with bipartisan support, such as legislation approving construction of the Keystone XL oil pipeline, or the aforementioned medical-device-tax repeal. He has also refused to consider legislation to impose new sanctions on Iran: A majority of Senate Democrats support the idea, but it’s strongly opposed by the White House. On the Iranian issue, Republicans have accused Reid of “playing defense for the president” against the wishes of his own conference.

    Senate minority leader Mitch McConnell, still reeling from Reid’s unprecedented use of the “nuclear option” to eliminate filibusters on executive-branch appointees, has gone on the offensive, taking to the Senate floor last week to urge members to “restore the Senate to its purpose,” which he says will produce better legislation for all.

    [/QUOTE]


    What is the site for this article, babytut?

     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from babytut. Show babytut's posts

    Re: The House of Cards

    In response to andiejen's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to babytut's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to StalkingButler's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Seriously, did you want them to pass yet another law for Harry Reid to squash or for President Obama to ignore? I'm not sure what the point would be.

     

    --

    Think for yourself, question authority.

    [/QUOTE]

    200 bills passed the house in 2013.  the problem is reid.

    here is a piece of a well written article:

     

    Republicans complain that the media’s reporting on the “unprecedented obstructionism” of a “do-nothing Congress” has focused almost exclusively on GOP filibusters in the Senate and the refusal of the Republican-controlled House to take up Senate-passed bills, such as the Gang of Eight immigration-reform legislation. They note that House Republicans passed more than 200 bills in 2013, many of which Reid has refused to hold votes on in the Senate. House-passed legislation is readily dismissed as “dead on arrival” in the upper chamber, while the storyline surrounding Senate measures, such as the immigration bill, tends to focus on House speaker John Boehner “facing pressure” to hold a vote in the House. In reality, of the 72 bills President Obama signed into law last year, only 16 originated in the Senate.

    Reid has refused to bring up measures that would almost certainly pass with bipartisan support, such as legislation approving construction of the Keystone XL oil pipeline, or the aforementioned medical-device-tax repeal. He has also refused to consider legislation to impose new sanctions on Iran: A majority of Senate Democrats support the idea, but it’s strongly opposed by the White House. On the Iranian issue, Republicans have accused Reid of “playing defense for the president” against the wishes of his own conference.

    Senate minority leader Mitch McConnell, still reeling from Reid’s unprecedented use of the “nuclear option” to eliminate filibusters on executive-branch appointees, has gone on the offensive, taking to the Senate floor last week to urge members to “restore the Senate to its purpose,” which he says will produce better legislation for all.

    [/QUOTE]


    What is the site for this article, babytut?

    [/QUOTE]

    www.nationalreview.com/.../harry-reids-obstructionism

     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from Hingmarsh. Show Hingmarsh's posts

    Re: The House of Cards

    When Reid takes a House passed bill and stuffs it in his back pocket, that's obstruction too.  Sure, not all of these bills are worthy of becoming law but I doubt like hell none of them are worthy of at least a debate.

     http://thehill.com/homenews/house/200228-house-dems-to-senate-dems-pass-our-bills" rel="nofollow">http://thehill.com/homenews/house/200228-house-dems-to-senate-dems-pass-our-bills

     

     

     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from andiejen. Show andiejen's posts

    Re: The House of Cards

    In response to Hingmarsh's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    When Reid takes a House passed bill and stuffs it in his back pocket, that's obstruction too.  Sure, not all of these bills are worthy of becoming law but I doubt like hell none of them are worthy of at least a debate.

     http://thehill.com/homenews/house/200228-house-dems-to-senate-dems-pass-our-bills" rel="nofollow">http://thehill.com/homenews/house/200228-house-dems-to-senate-dems-pass-our-bills" rel="nofollow">http://thehill.com/homenews/house/200228-house-dems-to-senate-dems-pass-our-bills

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Hingmarsh,

    "...but I doubt like hell none of them are worthy of at least a debate."

    Did you mean to say "...but I doubt like hell all of them are worthy of at least a debate"?

     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from ronreganfan. Show ronreganfan's posts

    Re: The House of Cards

    In response to NowWhatDoYouWant's comment:


    In response to ronreganfan's comment:


    [QUOTE]


     


     


    when is Reid going to bring the 335 bills passed by the House up for a vote in the Senate?


     


     




    Can we get a breakdown of the bills to determine whether they are new ideas, or just attempts to repeal existing Democrat ideas?


     


     


    It would really help, if we want to see who is the doodyhead.


    [/QUOTE]

    Yes, it would be nice to have a list. But, I have to ask, who cares? If they all are about defunding Obamacare, bring em to a vote and shoot them down.


    i'm sick of the defense always being that the House is obligated to put bills forth that execute Obama's agenda without compromise.


    i found this link:


    http://thehill.com/homenews/house/200228-house-dems-to-senate-dems-pass-our-bills" rel="nofollow">http://thehill.com/homenews/house/200228-house-dems-to-senate-dems-pass-our-bills


    I would say the fear that the house bills are all garbage is not true.  Looks like Reid is taking the hit for Obama to make it look like the House isn't doing anything.  No surprise that the mainstream media thinks this is a non-story.

     
  22. This post has been removed.

     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from miscricket. Show miscricket's posts

    Re: The House of Cards

    In response to Hingmarsh's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    When Reid takes a House passed bill and stuffs it in his back pocket, that's obstruction too.  Sure, not all of these bills are worthy of becoming law but I doubt like hell none of them are worthy of at least a debate.

     http://thehill.com/homenews/house/200228-house-dems-to-senate-dems-pass-our-bills" rel="nofollow">http://thehill.com/homenews/house/200228-house-dems-to-senate-dems-pass-our-bills" rel="nofollow">http://thehill.com/homenews/house/200228-house-dems-to-senate-dems-pass-our-bills

     

     

    [/QUOTE]


    Actually...you make a really good point. If it's true that Reid is just stuffing these bills in his pocket..that's not right either. I too find it hard to believe that none of these bills is at least worthy of a debate!

     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share