The eventual effects of deregulation

[zappasguitar]

You flat out lie, then ask for an honest discussion?

See?


More flat out denial from Righties who absolutely refuse to admit when I am right...

What comes next?

Why, they'll try and bog the discussion down in the same tired verbal gymnastics and bullshit grammatical word parsing.

 

[zappasguitar]

When the Republicans started filibustering everything.

That was just cawacko playing the "clueless rube" persona Righties like to trot out when they plan on bogging the discussion down in their bullshit word parsing games.

I mean, I just smoked a joint and I answered that in a microsecond. What's next, I have to tie both my hands behind my back and peck out my replies with my nose in order to give you guys a chance?

What you don't understand is it's cawacko's turn to play the clueless rube so they don't have to admit they are full of it yet again.

 

[cawacko]

See?


More flat out denial from Righties who absolutely refuse to admit when I am right...

What comes next?

Why, they'll try and bog the discussion down in the same tired verbal gymnastics and bullshit grammatical word parsing.

That's actually what you and steel did when you turned the discussion into a debate over what 'control' of Congress means.

 

[zappasguitar]

I know...I get tired of hearing this outright lie repeated over and over. But conservatives never let facts get in the way of their propaganda.

It's simply astounding that when faced with the numbers right in front of their eyes...they STILL try and pretend they are right.

 

[zappasguitar]

So basically all of America has been lying for several hundred years when referring to a party controlling either chamber, or both, of Congress without veto proof majorities?

Veto proof?

Who said anything about veto proof?

So, it's acceptable for YOU to move those goalposts, eh cawacko?

 

[zappasguitar]

SMDH. I never said they did. Man you are all over the place. We were talking about definition of control. Wow.

And the definition of "control" is and for several years has been "having a FILLIBUSTER PROOF MAJORITY"

Of course getting you obtuse, word parsing obstructionists to admit as much is next to impossible.

 

[cawacko]

Veto proof?

Who said anything about veto proof?

So, it's acceptable for YOU to move those goalposts, eh cawacko?

Once again I should have used the word filibuster proof, not veto proof. I thought people would understand what I meant. They obviously didn't. That was my bad. And no, I'm moving any goal posts here. You and steel are the ones who moved the goal post of what controlling Congress means.

 

[Steelplate]

Once again I should have used the word filibuster proof, not veto proof. I thought people would understand what I meant. They obviously didn't. That was my bad. And no, I'm moving any goal posts here. You and steel are the ones who moved the goal post of what controlling Congress means.

But they didn't have a filibuster proof majority....that's what we're trying to tell you.

 

[zappasguitar]

That's actually what you and steel did when you turned the discussion into a debate over what 'control' of Congress means.

Whatever...it's what I've come to expect from you as another good little water carrier for the conservative cause.

Whatever happens you absolutely must ensure that no Liberal EVER gets to claim he was right...no matter how bogged down in stupefying minutiae you must take the discussion.

 

[cawacko]

But they didn't have a filibuster proof majority....that's what we're trying to tell you.

Yes dude, I'm aware of the numbers in Congress. It's not something I need to be told. Y'all have changed the definition of 'controlling' Congress from having a majority (or being 50-50 like the Senate was when Dubya first took office but had Cheney as the tie-breaker) to having a filibuster proof majority. That is moving the goal posts.

 

[zappasguitar]

Once again I should have used the word filibuster proof, not veto proof. I thought people would understand what I meant. They obviously didn't. That was my bad. And no, I'm moving any goal posts here. You and steel are the ones who moved the goal post of what controlling Congress means.

Well then, lets be clear.

I have ALWAYS maintained that "control" is defined as having a FILLIBUSTER PROOF MAJORITY.

You can't "control" anything if the opposition has the means/votes to stop you.

 

[cawacko]

Whatever...it's what I've come to expect from you as another good little water carrier for the conservative cause.

Whatever happens you absolutely must ensure that no Liberal EVER gets to claim he was right...no matter how bogged down in stupefying minutiae you must take the discussion.

My discussion here has absolutely NOTHING to do with "the conservative cause" and it has NOTHING to do with not wanting a liberal to be right. Once again I didn't take the discussion here, you and steel did.

An as an aside what conservative cause would I even be standing up for here? There is nothing partisan about the phrase 'controlling Congress'. The definition is the same regardless of which party is applies too.

 

[zappasguitar]

Yes dude, I'm aware of the numbers in Congress. It's not something I need to be told. Y'all have changed the definition of 'controlling' Congress from having a majority (or being 50-50 like the Senate was when Dubya first took office but had Cheney as the tie-breaker) to having a filibuster proof majority. That is moving the goal posts.

Kindly explain to everyone how can you CONTROL anything if you don't have the votes necessary to overcome the ever present GOP fillibuster?

 

[cawacko]

Well then, lets be clear.

I have ALWAYS maintained that "control" is defined as having a FILLIBUSTER PROOF MAJORITY.

You can't "control" anything if the opposition has the means/votes to stop you.

You are free to view it that way. When people talk about who controls the Senate the answer is never "no one" otherwise there wouldn't be a Senate Majority or Senate Minority leader.

 

[zappasguitar]

You are free to view it that way. When people talk about who controls the Senate the answer is never "no one" otherwise there wouldn't be a Senate Majority or Senate Minority leader.

And so, SEVEN pages later the discussion is once again bogged down in the same tired verbal minutiae...meanwhile...about the OP and it's point regarding the eventual outcome of deregulation?

Long forgotten....all thanks to a couple clueless rubes.

And the Righties win AGAIN!!

 

[cawacko]

And so, SEVEN pages later the discussion is once again bogged down in the same tired verbal minutiae...meanwhile...about the OP and it's point regarding the eventual outcome of deregulation?

Long forgotten....all thanks to a couple clueless rubes.

And the Righties win AGAIN!!

So I'm a clueless rube because you and steel are trying to change the definition of who controls Congress? Ok.

And back to your OP was there specific legislation you had in mind when you were speaking about deregulation?

 

[Steelplate]

So I'm a clueless rube because you and steel are trying to change the definition of who controls Congress? Ok.

And back to your OP was there specific legislation you had in mind when you were speaking about deregulation?

You are either dumb a a bag of hammers it being willfully ignorant because you know we're right and you just can't admit it.

I'm betting the latter.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

But they didn't have a filibuster proof majority....that's what we're trying to tell you.

Which doesn't change the fact that control of Congress does NOT mean filibuster proof. You two are trying to change the definition to what you want it to be rather than what it actually is.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Well then, lets be clear.

I have ALWAYS maintained that "control" is defined as having a FILLIBUSTER PROOF MAJORITY.

You can't "control" anything if the opposition has the means/votes to stop you.

That is pure nonsense. Who sets up the leadership and majorities for each committee? Who decides what comes up for a vote and what doesn't?

You want to move the goal posts to mean 'we can do whatever we want and you can't stop us'. That is dictatorial... complete control. Even then, the Dems had that for a few months. Yet what did they accomplish when they had it?

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

You are either dumb a a bag of hammers it being willfully ignorant because you know we're right and you just can't admit it.

I'm betting the latter.

except that you are not right. Just because YOU want 'control of Congress' to mean something other than the historical definition of it, doesn't mean you are right. You are flat out wrong.