Cancel 2018. 3
<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
yes they did
APP - walmart employees need food stamps to survive
- Thread starter Don Quixote
- Start date
yes they did
your definition of control varies significantly from mine - i define it as the ability to pass legislation - how can the dems pass anything when repugs filibuster and block their attempts
Cancel 2018. 3
<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
so obamacare never passed? his stimulus never passed...
yeah, we do have different definitions
I cannot help you as you live in a magical world in which law has no consequences. Do you really think that Plessy Ferguson had no consequences - but no, it wasn't legislation you say, it was law. You tidy world is too narrow for some of us, law has consequences call it what you will.
you mentioned that he had control for two years - when Kennedy died and brown filled his seat Obama lost control of the senate
Cancel 2018. 3
<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
cite where i said law has no consequences. of course law has consequences and words have meaning. you live in a make believe world where you can change the meaning of words to suit your agenda. in the real world case law is not legislation. you should look up the definition of legislation and save yourself further embarrassment.
Cancel 2018. 3
<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
you mentioned that he had control for two years - when Kennedy died and brown filled his seat Obama lost control of the senate
59 out of 49 seats and a house majority. i consider that control. and so does wikipedia:
Comparing presidential ranking with congressional control and terms won/served
44 Barack Obama Democratic 2 3
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Presidents_and_control_of_Congress
when you cite a source other than wiki and that source is not some right wing blog, then i may believe you - any source that over looks the filibuster has its head firmly ensconced in its rectum (assuming that said source has a rectum) - last time i looked, a bill requires approval of both houses and the president to become law
for the dems to control the senate, they need 60 seats while for the house only a simple majority
considering the failure of the republicans to come up with jobs, i suspect that the next election will swing the house and senate to dem majorities
also, the house handed a major political weapon to the dems when the reps on a roll call vote voted for the ryan plan that included screwing social security and medicare
Cancel 2018. 3
<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
i cited wiki because it used the common phrase to describe "control". since you asked nicely for a non wiki, non right source...how is msnbc:
Democrats win control of Senate
Democrats wrested control of the Senate from Republicans Wednesday with an upset victory in Virginia, giving the party complete domination of Capitol Hill for the first time since 1994, as NBC News reported that Democrat Jim Webb was the apparent winner.
Webb’s apparent squeaker win over incumbent Sen. George Allen effectively gave Democrats their 51st seat in the Senate, an astonishing turnabout at the hands of voters unhappy with Republican scandal and unabated violence in Iraq. Allen was the sixth Republican incumbent senator defeated in Tuesday’s elections.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15620405/ns/politics/t/democrats-win-control-senate/#.TmlrrOywU1o
happy now?
what i dispute is 'control' for two years (your post) - as i posted, when kennedy died and his seat was filled by brown, the dems lost control of the senate
it seems with the repugs, a majority has been redefined from 51 to 60 seats via repeated filibusters
Cancel 2018. 3
<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
dude....i gave you a LEFTY link like you asked for and you're still dishonestly saying it is only the pubs who define control the way i do.
dude....i gave you a LEFTY link like you asked for and you're still dishonestly saying it is only the pubs who define control the way i do.
your link refers to a time before the repugs used the filibuster to block dem legislation
the senate rules permit a MINORITY to block legislation if less than 60 senators vote to override it and the repugs have voted in lockstep to block legislation in the senate
so you tell me, how can the dems control the senate when the repugs block their legislation
with a majority of 51+ the dems SHOULD control the senate, but the senate rules permit otherwise - try to disprove this statement
Cancel 2018. 3
<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
i've already proven your statement wrong. is it your claim the same rules weren't in place at the time of the article i linked you to? if so, you're dead wrong.
and so is the article - it ignores the senate rules - when obama was elected, the senate rules regarding filibusters were put in place
you are ignoring my question, how can a party control the senate if the opposing party continually uses the filibuster to block the majority party's legislation
ipso facto, it cannot unless it has a super majority of 60+ votes
are you so dense that you cannot understand what a filibuster is? with the filibuster rule, a minority party can control the senate with 41+ votes
the house can pass all the laws it wants, but if they die in the senate they have wasted their time
Cancel 2018. 3
<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
calm down. if you want to define "control" has having 60+ members. then fine. but you asked me for a non wiki, non rightwing source and i gave you one. the common vernacular, "control" means a majority. what you're talking about is a super majority. i don't care to split hairs over this. believe what you want.
perhaps you would be happier to call it effective control