PDA

View Full Version : Three Rounds Against Fox & Friends Tag Team



Qtec
10-14-2011, 07:15 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">No one has ever accused those Foxy Friends in the morning of being neither “fair” nor “balanced.” In fact, Fox “News” insists the morning show is part of the opinion side of the network [even though the opinions are pretty much indistinguishable from what’s on the “news” side of the network]. Yesterday’s 3-against-1 on the Curvy Couch only proves the rule that the morning show is Happy Talk disguised as GOP propaganda. All three Fox and Friends bravely went up against lone Congressional Representative, and Chairwoman of the Democratic National Committee, Debbie Wasserman-Schultz. DWS proved more than capable of going several rounds with the Curvy Couch Tag Team and they never laid a glove on her. Each time DWS exhausted one of the Three Stooges, another one popped up. Not only did DWS defeat them on points, she managed to get in some serious blows of her own. While almost 10 minutes long, it’s well worth watching the whole thing. Or, you can read my exciting play-by-play below the fold. </div></div>

watch it (http://www.newshounds.us/2011/10/13/debbie_wassermanschultz_goes_three_rounds_against_ fox_friends_tag_team_and_wins.php)


At the 3.20 mark, Doocey makes a claim <span style='font-size: 14pt'>that the GOP are trying to push, that the Dems voted down the Jobs Act bill.</span> BS of course. <u>Not on single Rep voted for it.</u> As usual, the GOP filibustered it <span style='font-size: 14pt'>requiring 60 votes to proceed.</span>


Q

Soflasnapper
10-14-2011, 09:01 AM
As usual, the GOP filibustered it requiring 60 votes to proceed.

This is evidence of how obstructionist the GOP is. How obstructionist? Maximum obstruction.

The original purpose of a filibuster was a claim that more debate was necessary, and the vote ought not yet take place, pending more debate. Here, the very idea of debate is ruled out by filibustering the bringing of the bill to the floor for consideration to begin with.

This is typical of the current GOP. They try to filibuster bills from being brought forward (which works as often as not), and then with multiple bites at the apple, should a bill achieve the 60 vote threshold to be debated, will also filibuster bringing debated bills to a vote.

It used to be the Senate could be in operation for a decade without a filibuster or need for a cloture vote to be taken. These used to be relatively rare events. Now, it's routine for any bill to have multiple supermajorities needed, although the Senate rules have not been changed.

It is de facto RULE BY MINORITY, of a type and manner wholly unimagined by the framers, who simply had PROTECTIONS for a minority, but in no way handed a minority the whip hand to control the majority.

cushioncrawler
10-14-2011, 03:18 PM
The usofa iz going to turn into a shithole.
Hope american pickers stays on the air.
mac.

Gayle in MD
10-16-2011, 09:44 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">As usual, the GOP filibustered it requiring 60 votes to proceed.

This is evidence of how obstructionist the GOP is. How obstructionist? Maximum obstruction.

The original purpose of a filibuster was a claim that more debate was necessary, and the vote ought not yet take place, pending more debate. Here, the very idea of debate is ruled out by filibustering the bringing of the bill to the floor for consideration to begin with.

This is typical of the current GOP. They try to filibuster bills from being brought forward (which works as often as not), and then with multiple bites at the apple, should a bill achieve the 60 vote threshold to be debated, will also filibuster bringing debated bills to a vote.

It used to be the Senate could be in operation for a decade without a filibuster or need for a cloture vote to be taken. These used to be relatively rare events. Now, it's routine for any bill to have multiple supermajorities needed, although the Senate rules have not been changed.

It is de facto RULE BY MINORITY, of a type and manner wholly unimagined by the framers, who simply had PROTECTIONS for a minority, but in no way handed a minority the whip hand to control the majority.



</div></div>

Tap, Tap, Tap. Excellent Post, and very true.

The Repiglican mantra,.... Obstruction after their Repiglican Policies destruction of America's economy, and economic future, which they now blame on everyone but themselves.


G.