50 nuclear weapons that are really just improvements to a broken senate.

Yet Democrats are busy writing bills to delay it
Actual unemployed is 21 million, official is 11 million

Thats the name Obama used most of his life, wake up!
LOL, you're funny, Who is the leader? The GOP offered several things they wanted to add to the healthcare bill and were turned down because Barry didn't need the GOP. Now he is whinning in every speech he gives about them, fuck that asshole


I'm good!
So you agree this isn't universal healthcare, thanx

Ok, so thanx for saying you don't like Obamacare and would rather see something else, I agree with you!!!

Who said it was? Your side screaming its socialism the gov take over of healthcare lol Its capitalism at it's finest actually.

its a lie http://www.politifact.com/punditfact...bs-report-rig/
You are smart, educated man, you are really that gullible? Or is it just the bullshit fits the narrative you created in your mind so you go with it?

and I do agree all politicians are full of shit, if they told the truth they couldn't get elected. We don't want the truth.

You support this lieing president..And have the nerve to call me gullible? The allegation that the numbers were manipulated came from a CNN interview a few nights ago.

And Tony. save your crap. At the end of the day I don't care even a little about what Obamacare costs. It's a tiny insignificant percentage of my income.
No matter how it plays out you and the others here that keep harping about how great obamacare is will be the losers.

A lot of us wanted single payer and were pissed when Obama did this compromise bullcrap to appease the do nothing congress, but we still see it as better than nothing which is what the republican plan is.

Obama, Reid & Pelosi did backroom deals and arm twisting to get the democrats to pass it.
They had the majority and didn't need republicans for any of it.

As opposed to Bush? Or the President before him? Or the one before that?

and how many died and wounded based on Bushes lies but thats ok.

this was in the same post

and I do agree all politicians are full of shit, if they told the truth they couldn't get elected. We don't want the truth.

Again it goes against that picture in your mind so even if it was said it doesnt matter. Got to post your talking points.

Capitalism
an economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state.

Seems the state has a lot to do with it in controlling what the minimums for insurance are and that everyone that earns money has to pay into it.

We as a nation know that universal healthcare is what we want, we were not given that.

That's just the thing, should we settle for a bad law?

And you say the republicans had no plan, yet I keep hearing Obama's plan was based on Romney care, which is it?

The GOP has a plan, always did!

The GOP had several things they wanted to see in Obamacare, yet the President didn't need their help , so he ignored them. That's what caused the big divide in government, that and the over the top spending, and the wars created the Tea Party, people were sick of it. Bush and Obama created a need for people to speak out. If you think the President and the left whines about the Tea Party now, think what would happen if they had any leadership?

Remember this?...



https://youtube.com/watch?v=lO2d6LJI86I

https://scontent-b-lga.xx.fbcdn.net/...67957517_n.jpg

Washington is chock-full of hypocrisy, no doubt. The difference is however, that as IDIOTIC as W's agenda was, the Dems let almost all of his retarded plans get through. They did not shut down the government and stop the wheels of America, just because they thought his plans were fucking terrible... although in hindsight, perhaps they should have.

Also, Obama was ACTUALLY ELECTED by the MAJORITY of the populace, twice, as opposed to W. who required Florida cronyism and the Supreme Court.

I can also post videos here, where McConnell wanted EXACTLY the same rule change that Reid enacted yesterday, when the R's had the majority. My video (just directly above this post), shows an egregious Republican rule change that cost the taxpayers billions of dollars and accomplished nothing, in an effort to prevent progress, as is the way of the GOP.

In addition, the "filibuster" has not "always been an important part of govt. since the beginning" as you say, as it is not even part of the constitution.

It's called "HYPOCRISY"...

https://scontent-a-lga.xx.fbcdn.net/...01724586_n.jpg

1. That is because (as I stated) Bush is a leader. Yeah, so was Hitler. lol
But Obama is NOT a leader at all. That is why even thought the Democrat Party was up in arms (and rightfully so) over the 2000 election...he was able to charm them and negotiate with them and pretty much get his way with them. Clinton did the same thing to the Republican Congress. Obama is too aloof and arrogant. That is what I am saying. He's a horrible executive.

2. As for the filibuster. Yes, it has always been part of the procedures in Congress. And even BEFORE Congress. Google it up and educate yourself. Or better yet, just listen to what both Obama and Harry Reid say out of their own mouths about it being around since the beginning and what a bad idea it would be to get rid of it.

My personal feeling on the filibuster is that it should be kept. But NOT when it comes to Presidential appointees. When one party stops a presidential appointee (remember Robert Bork?), it is almost always POLITICS. The President has pissed off the opposing party bad enough that they want to punish him.

I think that's bullshit. Especially when so many positions need to be filled.

They should have "tweaked" the filibuster. Took it out of the equation for approving appointees and kept it for general legislation. Without the threat of the filibuster the minority party gets screwed. And so do the millions of people who voted for them. They no longer have that "ace in the hole" that compels most Presidents to negotiate (Obama being the exception because he never has negotiated).

I'm afraid that sooner of later you will see Harry Reid crying about the lack of a filibuster when the Republicans are eventually back in the majority again.

It was a dumb move in my opinion. Shortsighted to say the least and a last ditch attempt to give Obama some chance of pulling his failed Presidency (in my opinion) out of the shitter.
It could all have been avoided by a little give and take from Obama with the Republicans.

But as I said...he's no leader.

If you consider Bush "a leader" then I applaud Obama's leaderlessness, for disappointing you.

Just because someone IS a leader doesn't mean that they led us the right way. Hitler was a GREAT leader. But the things he led people to were horrific.

Get your head straight and realize what I am saying. Obama doesn't have the ability to get others to follow. It's just that simple. He himself is a follower. He's never been in "command" of anything until he became President.

And the results speak for themselves:
Reagan was able to get the Dem controlled Senate and House to work with him even though they HATED his guts.

Clinton was able to get the Republican Senate and House to work with him even though they HATED him so bad they threw his friends in jail, had him disbarred, and IMPEACHED him.

Bush was able to get the Democrats to work with him even though they bitterly HATED his fucking guts worse than any President in recent history.

That is what LEADERSHIP is about.

You can't quip about how you'll take Obama's inability to lead over Bush's leadership in one breath...and then complain about it and blame the minority party in the next.
You can't have it both ways.
Obama sucks as a President. He's an awesome campaigner. Might have even been a good Senator. But just horrible in the executive position.

But you are so hypnotized by your party affiliation that you can't even see that weakness in him.
To you, he seems to be damn near flawless. It's always somebody else's fault for every fuck up he makes.

That is the mistake I think you are making.
Even Bill Maher says all the time: "Remember, he's the President. Not your boyfriend"

But the thing with filibusters is that it's become bastardized into something that the minority can use to block something, without putting in the actual work. Despite Ted Cruz and Rand Paul being total douches, at least they had the nuts to stand up for hours and do it the way its supposed to be done. Because its so easy now to just say, "I'm filibustering this" -- so any Republican with an anti democrat agenda can be a raging obstructionist -- it's become an abused tactic that needs to be stopped. NOTHING is getting done because of these fuckwads, and they did this to themselves. It's great to stand up for what you believe in, but they actually have no problems with a lot of these appointees -- they just want to obstruct anything Obama does.

If they would have just used it occasionally, then the nuclear option wouldn't have happened.

I've never been a cheerleader for any of them. I liked some of them better than others.

This gang of Obama cheerleaders is almost creepy. I fail to comprehend how so many of you are right there to give this clown a pass. It's always someone elses(the republicans) fault.
Is Obama accountable for anything?

I love it when you say this.

The way we calculate unemployment has been the same since before you and I were born. Why do we suddenly need to change it?

Because you don't like it?

bronco67, that's why I said it should be tweaked. Not done away with. The Dems will rue the day when the tables are turned and they are the minority party and powerless.

And as for Obama...he has not shown the ability to reach across in the same way that Reagan, Clinton, and Bush did.

He's sort of like Bush Sr., floundering and ineffective.

The Dems have cut off their nose to spite their face by going "nuclear". Because eventually...they will be the minority party. And then Reid will be like McConnell is now...a minority leader with absolutely NO power at all.

That was never meant to be like that in our govt.

The Senate and Congress are not supposed to just rubber stamp what the President wants. They are supposed to threaten, cajole, and finally negotiate.

If you've followed the news and seen what the Obama admin has done over the past 5 years...they have not let the Republicans in on anything. No negotiating. No seat at the table, etc.

That's just bad leadership.

That is why Reagan, Clinton, and Bush DID get the other side to work with them.

Obama is just too aloof and arrogant and has no idea of how to be a leader.

And his faithful followers seem to just scream "racism" every time.
To me it's just amazing that they can't see the truth of the matter.

Obama has polarized Washington D.C.
Every vote now is a party line vote.
Bipartisanship is gone.

And the "left" blames the "right" for ALL of it.

I got news for you...I've been around a while. And my experience in life is:
It takes 2 to tango.

Obama has brought this on himself. Action and reaction.

He can scream "obstructionist" at Republicans all day long. But at the end of the day...HE is the President. HE is the one who is supposed to be the master negotiator and bring both parties together.

Instead he has pushed them further apart than any President in recent history.

It would be a blessing in disguise if nothing was actually getting done. You could rephrase and say nothing that's good for America is getting done.

Fix the roads and bridges, the infrastructure is crumbling. That would've been something I could applaud. And it would've put millions of people to work on something we really need.. All of us.

But no, lets fix..*and I use that term loosely* healthcare. Something that only a small percentage of people may or may not benefit from at the expense of the majority of the population.

Now that NBC,CBS & ABC are finally looking at this guy without the rose colored glasses, the tide is changing. The large majority of people are not in favor of this and it's not long until the midterm elections. A lot of democrats are worried..and they should be. If they listen to their constituents obamacare will be done.

The reason we have "Obama Cheerleaders" is simple - We hit rock bottom and we needed a hero, no matter who it was. It's not that Obama was / is great, it's more that the US population needed and wanted to believe in someone or something. Obama was a rather unimpressive senator who had accomplished very little in office but in the eyes of many he is a savior - Obama saved the masses from loosing their homes. If McCain won, most likely McCain would have been our hero.

It's not that Obama is great. It's just that Obama was the one who fixed it. It's not because Obama was special or better or smart; The key fix here was time and so long as the person in the Oval Office didn't fuck things up worse we would have had the same result.

You cannot deny that things are better with the economy. When Obama took office half the houses on my street were empty - exactly half. Now every last one is occupied again. Again, it's not that Obama was smart or a great leader, it was more that he was in the Oval Office when things got fixed. Anyone could have fixed them.

Is Obama accountable for anything? Frankly, no. We had hit rock bottom while a Republican was running the country. Vendzilla is bitching about unemployment again, but keeping mind that unemployment hit all time highs because of the recession which happened while Bush was in office. You can bitch about the deficit but the truth is the only reason it has increased is because the US Government had to spend it's way out of the recession... Which happened under President Bush.

Thankyou, that was a very good post. It's easy to forget how bad things were. I never really felt the recession at all. None of my friends or associates were seriously impacted. We didn't have the mass foreclosures here and in my neck of the woods no one lost their homes. We all bought new Mercedes and life went on like normal. Reading about it or seeing it on the news like I did, clearly isn't anything at all like actually living it.

You also realize that Republicans are against infrastructure spending, education spending -- any kind of spending?

For the record, I am NOT pro-Democrat - I am simply VERY anti-Republican. I can't stand the party, or ANYTHING they stand for. They are the party of nothing, and I laugh at those of you who support them, as if they gave a SHIT about you in any way whatsoever.

The system is broken, and it will not likely get any better.

When the next election comes around, you will likely have a nut-job anti-government Koch Brother Tea Party agent on one side vs an adamantly pro-Israel idiot on the other side.

Either one will start a war with Iran, and NOTHING good will come of it.

Obama has kept us out of this upcoming war so far, while fighting for better US healthcare. That alone, makes him one of the best presidents in our lifetime, and in 2016, you will wish we had someone as "leaderless" as Obama, as opposed to an idiot that will spark WWIII.

If the Republitards can get one worthwhile thing done before the next election, it will be to stop Hillary in advance of 2016, as it will be a disaster if she runs... whether she wins or loses.

When the choice becomes Netanyahu's little bitch vs an anti-American government Tea Party nitwit, we will be royally fucked, and you will look back at the "leaderless" Obama days, as the good times.

The republicans aren't against infrastructure investments. They are against deficit spending for infrastructure investments

The democrats could've and should've put their majority to better use when they had the chance. That additional $4t in debt they've racked would've gone a longggggggg way to rebuilding America.

I would've much rather seen the 20+ million people that weren't working back at a job. making a decent living wage. If that had happened the healthcare issue would've been insignificant.

Yeah its obamas fault lol The fucking head printer.

Consider William Boarman, whom Obama tapped to lead the Government Printing Office in 2010.

Boarman, a former printer, had headed the printing, publishing and media workers section of the Communications Workers of America union when he was nominated. He had advised the White House on choosing the next public printer ? as the head of the GPO is known ? before they offered him the nomination. He cleared the Senate Rules and Administration Committee unanimously in July 2010.

?I thought it was going to a cakewalk,? he said of the confirmation process.

But Boarman?s nomination failed to come up for a vote. (Roll Call reported that a senator had placed a hold on it.) Obama circumvented the delay by giving Boarman a recess appointment while the Senate was away in December, allowing him to take the post while the administration nominated him a second time.

As public printer, Boarman took steps to modernize the agency and cut its costs. He slashed bonuses ? ?which were being paid pretty liberally when I got there,? he said ? offered buyouts to workers and introduced the GPO?s first e-books.

Boarman?s recess appointment lasted only until the end of Congress?s current session, however.

Obama had nominated Boarman again in January 2011, but his nomination continued to languish in the Senate. As Roll Call first reported, Sens. Orrin Hatch of Utah and Johnny Isakson of Georgia, both Republicans, were holding up Boarman?s nomination because they were unhappy that a nominee to the National Labor Relations Board had not been confirmed by the Senate.

http://www.propublica.org/article/un...ts-go-unfilled

i still find it insane to call the change a nuclear option, when it might just be the thing that finally stops the DC gridlock. It was never in the constitution that a law or an appointee requires 60 votes to pass the senate. & the filibuster has historically been used rarely, & this includes times in history just as hyperpartisan as today. Just this generation of politicians on both sides have turned it into a blockade of the majorities agenda. It needed to go.

Im mad mostly cause the dems shoulda done this on jan 21, 2009. Obamacare woulda been a much more progressive law, with a public option that woulda truly humbled the insurance companies. it was needing 60 votes that caused the law to get watered down to where nobody is happy.

hopefully in the following years, things can really start to change, & the news media might wake up & stop calling it a nuclear bomb, but instead a renaissance in legislative accomplishment.

Hopefully someone, whichever party it is, will start fixing things in DC.

Every one of these cocksuckers from both parties should be drug out of their seats and thrown into the street....PERIOD!

Until the people of this country take drastic action, these worthless fucks will continue doing what they are doing.....:2 cents:

They had the 60 votes on Jan 21, 2009. 58 Dems plus Sanders and Specter (I) who both caucuses with the Dems. They had this super majority until Ted Kennedy passed, and Scott Brown won his seat.

The Dems abandoned the public option long before Kennedy passed. And they rammed the law through on Budget Reconciliation instead using parliamentary tricks to pass it on 51 votes. Which is a reason the law is an even bigger clusterfuck than it was already going to be. It was passed in draft form, as that was the only way to have the house pass it in time to do it this way.

You can blame a lot of things on filibusters slowing down laws in the Senate, but blaming it for the lack of a public option is not it. Your beloved Democrats bailed on it early to ensure that the insurance companies kept their election coffers full.

a little internet searching dug up this, from the NY times...

had there not been a 60 vote wall before obamacare, & it did not get out of committee, then you would be correct. but sadly, the filibuster was the cover needed for some dems, in conservative districts, the vote it down.

&, the republicans opposition basically admitted a government provided health plan would be cheaper than private insurers & would run them out of business. Better that more expensive private plans exist than the evil government providing a better value to the public.

:upsidedow

Obama appointee yep he is a big liberal lol
http://www.salon.com/2013/11/22/starbucks_union_buster_is_ironic_winner_after_libe rals_push_nuclear_option/

I'm sorry, but I don't read anything on salon.com, the same as I won't read anything on csnews.com or wmd. Utter drivel written by complete ideologues of both sides.

The courts are going to get very activist with this rule change. They will now that Obama is President, and they will just as much to the right when a Conservative is President. You "might" see less extreme nominations from more centrist nominees such as Hillary Clinton, Chris Christie or Scott Walker. If you get nominees like Elizabeth Warren or Ted Cruz, then the nominees are going to very extreme.

Ultimately this rule change is a slippery slope to undoing it for all filibusters, such as for legislation and the Supreme Court. And if the rule gets changed for legislation, then its just going to be a see-saw of massive changes in direction of laws with each Presidential election.

The Senate was created to be the body that moves very slow, and acted with more thought and deliberation than that of the house. I'm worried that is no longer the case, and we will see a lot more reactionary laws put into and out of place with each election. Especially when you are seeing the death of the moderate Senators on both sides. The gap from the center is getting greater with each election.

Right, but that is on the Democratic Senators and the people they represent that didn't want anything to do with the Public option. They had the ability to do it though. They were just scared of losing their jobs. And in reality they still voted against what their constituents wanted, and risked their jobs. They just thought this way would be a bit less infuriating to them, and make it easier to win re-election then if they went all the way. Plus keeping the insurance companies involved, kept their election funds full.

The Filibuster may have been the "excuse" for why they didn't go the Public option, but it wasn't the "reason".

Now Tony's beloved printing doucher, has some legit arguments about the filibuster.

Ok Robbie...in the history of the United states, 168 presidential nominees for various positions in the government have been blocked.

Up until Obama, 86 have been blocked. So that's 82 under Obama. If you think that's just bad leadership, then you're bullshitting yourself and everyone else. Anyone who's half a dipshit could see there's an axe to grind on the Republican side.

This bad leadership thing you talk about is such an abstract concept anyway. There's a lot of people who would say the opposite. Hating Obama -- which you're entitled to -- is no reason to discount logic.

Can you say that the 86 vs 82 is a statistic that doesn't blow your mind? Were talking about 220 years vs 5 years.

LOL, just a couple thoughts here, right now I believe that the present administration is fucked when it comes to foreign policy, what with sending drones to country's we are not at war with and spying on everyone's cell phones

And second, Obama didn't spend all his time on Obamacare, remember in his speech where he stated he was not aware of that, he hasn't even read it or as a lawyer he didn't understand it, either way, he lied to the American people. Where he spent all his time was either on the golf course or campaigning for re election blocking all the traffic in LA

You guys can argue back and forth about this but the truth is in the numbers. Since the united state was created there have been only 168 presidential nominees filibustered. Of those 168, 82 have been Obama's whom were blocked by Republicans in the last 5 years. That is simply inexcusable and there is absolutely no excuse for what Republicans have been doing.

It doesn't matter if you support the right left or center ( if that's even possible anymore). The republicans have been acting like whiney spoiled brats and have ground the govt to a holt out of pure spite. Something had to be done, so now is done and Obama can get some people appointed. It's just fucking insane that anyone could even remotely support what the right has been doing, when it comes to blocking appointees.

Simply put if anyone bothered to educate themselves and are even halfway sensible, they would see what the right is doing regarding the appointees is inexcusable.

So the fact that the appointed head of the IRS took the fifth when asked about the targeting of conservative groups is ok with you?

The Regulatory Czar ? Cass Sunstein
Thinks hunting should be banned

Climate Czar ? Todd Stern
Stern behind the Cap and Trade proposal which, even an analysis by Obama?s own Treasury Department concluded, would cost American taxpayers up to $200 billion dollars?just what we need for today?s economy!

Science Czar ? John Holdren
In his book, Holdren advocates ?laws requiring compulsory abortion,? government confiscation of new born babies, the ?development of a long-term sterilizing capsule that could be implanted under the skin,?

Chief Diversity Officer, Federal Communications Commission ? Mark Lloyd
?It should be clear by now that my focus here is not freedom of speech or the press.
This freedom is all too often an exaggeration. At the very least, blind references
to freedom of speech or the press serve as a distraction from the critical examination
of other communications policies. ?[T]he purpose of free speech is warped to protect
global corporations and block rules that would promote democratic governance.?

Secretary, Department of Education ? Arne Duncan
Obama appointed Duncan due to his alleged success as CEO of Chicago?s public schools. However, in 2007, only 10% of black 4thgraders in Chicago reached the proficiency level in reading and for black 8th graders, only 9% reached reading proficiency. In math, only 8% of black students reached proficiency in 4th grade and just 6% reached proficiency in 8th grade. This was the disappointing outcome, despite spending $13-$14,000 per student and is among the highest of any major city.Even worse, a majority of Chicago public school students drop out or fail to graduate with their class.


there's more if you want

I think this is a move that the democrats will regret, I also believe that this will affect the numbers with the up coming elections to the disadvantage of the democrats, but we will see

I'm sure you can come up with foaming at the mouth excuses for all 82 that somehow are made legitimate in your narrow little mind. No need to waste your time copying and pasting 82 excuses, that you will blindly accept because your team is the best. I wouldn't expect you to think for yourself and actually question what you already know must be true, because it's posted on some website..

No I think your time is better spent saving birds from wind farms....

Wow, I bet as a kid you said, "No, you are" a lot!!

Because your reply reflects the same imagination!!

Ok, so I'll give you your chance that you seem to want so much.. You are going to tell me that all 82 of Obama's appointees were such horrible choices that they required Republicans to use the filibuster to block them? You can't for just one second question the fact that perhaps the republicans have abused the filibuster at every possible point, creating a situation that the govt can't even work due to the abuse of filibustering. Thus forcing a situation where the power to filibuster has to be limited due to the abuse?

I think anyone that the president appoints should be vetted

Fast and Furious
NSA
IRS
Obamacare

Obama has said several times he was unaware, if that's the case, then the people he is appointing are not talking to him, isn't that there job?

So vetting to you = legitimate use of filibuster? Meaning you don't question that any of these 82 filibustered appointees were due to abuse and miss-use of the filibuster? You think the very fact, prior to Obama taking office, only 86 times in our country's existence has presidential nominees been blocked by filibuster, as this was never something that either party abused. Yet somehow nearly doubling this, in five years is somehow a legitimate usage because they are all such horrible choices?

Guys, what I'm saying is YES the Republicans are being as obstructionist as possible and blocking everything they can.

But why?
Why did Reagan, Clinton, and George W. somehow get the opposing party to agree with them?
Why is it that Obama has half of all rejected appointees???

Because he brought it on himself, that's why.

He is arrogant and aloof and doesn't know how to reach out to the other side.
It's been documented many times by the media that he goes for months without even talking on the phone to the Republicans.

Newt Gingrich was on CNN and said that Bill Clinton called him almost every day and saw him in person once a week.

When things go wrong in my life, I look in the mirror and say "It's your fault dumbass".

So far, Obama hasn't done that.

I really thought that he had an opportunity in his first couple of years. He had the House and he had a "super majority" in the Senate (no way for Republicans to filibuster)

He spent all of 2009 working on ObamaCare without ONE Republican allowed to work on the legislation. Then they rammed it through without ONE Republican vote.

HORRIBLE leadership.

And now the Republicans are pissed off and are stopping everything he does.

Just like in any relationship in life (business or personal).

If Obama was a leader of men, this wouldn't have happened. He would have been able to reach out to moderate Republicans and pull them to his side.
And we all know he COULD have done single pay healthcare in 2009 but chose instead to create this giant monstrosity of ObamaCare.

Worst president in modern history. Smart guy, decent legislator, helluva pubic speaker and campaigner. Horrible in the executive office.

Yea because Republicans were so forthcoming in working with Obama right from the beginning of Obama's presidency. It's not like they had special meetings in order to hash out plans on how to block and fight Obama on every single issue. Nope they welcomed the new President with open arms and Obama just gave them the snub...

It's clearly all Obamas fault... Thanks Obama..

No, just like the Dems welcomed George W. with "open arms" Remember?

He "Stole the election from Gore" (which he did). The Democrats hated his fucking guts.
But W. is a leader (I don't agree at all with what he led us to). And in short order he was meeting with opposition leaders and working WITH them.

That is my point. Obama never has. It's his way or the highway. And it's failing.

It doesn't matter if the Republicans hated him at the start. That's the way it is with every President and opposing party. They all give lip service to "working together"

But then it is the PRESIDENT who has to make that happen. That's his job as executive.
He is simply a failure at bringing the moderate Republicans to his side. And we have gridlock.