2pid, I want to understand your 'differing POV'

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

When the republicans held all of the reins of power, all problems were
the Dems' fault for being "obstructionists". Now that the republicans
have lost all power due to the "will of the people" all problems are
the Dems' fault because in the last 60 days they have totally messed
everything up.

When the republicans were in power all of your vitriol toward the Dems
was 'constrcutive criticism'. Now that the republicans are a
toothless, confused mess (due to the "will of the people") all of your
vitriol toward the Dems is being part of the 'loyal opposition'.

Did I miss anything? LoL.

[George M. Middius[_4_]]

Who said there's no such thing as infinite stupidity?

> > When the republicans held all of the reins of power,
>
> Never happenned. That was a quick end to your strawman.

He was referring to the federal government, Witless. Apparently you
don't vote for national offices. We The People (which excludes you)
elect the President, the Senators, and the Representatives. Do you
realize that Bush was President from 2001 through 2008? That means the
Republicans controlled the White House. The Republicans also controlled
the House of Representatives (the lower body of the U.S. Congress) from
2001 (actually 1995) through 2006. That's two out of three "reins" from
2001 through 2006. As for the Senate, also known as the upper body of
the U.S. Congress, the Republicans were in control from 2002 through
2006. It's clear to anybody who can read that the Republicans controlled
the White House and both houses of Congress from 2002 through 2006.

How is that *not* hold all the reins of power?

It's OK if you're too stupid to answer. Wouldn't be the first time.


--

"Less Thinking and More Yapping -- Vote Republican!"
-- Scottie Witlessmongrel's vision
for a better Amerika

[George M. Middius[_4_]]

Yappity-yappity-WOOF! Scottie snarls at the shadows and lunges at a dust
bunny.

> > Who said there's no such thing as infinite stupidity?
> >
> > > > When the republicans held all of the reins of power,
> >
> > > *Never happenned. That was a quick end to your strawman.
> >
> > He was referring to the federal government, Witless. Apparently you
> > don't vote for national offices. We The People (which excludes you)
> > elect the President, the Senators, and the Representatives. Do you
> > realize that Bush was President from 2001 through 2008? That means the
> > Republicans controlled the White House. The Republicans also controlled
> > the House of Representatives (the lower body of the U.S. Congress) from
> > 2001 (actually 1995) through 2006. That's two out of three "reins" from
> > 2001 through 2006. As for the Senate, also known as the upper body of
> > the U.S. Congress, the Republicans were in control from 2002 through
> > 2006. It's clear to anybody who can read that the Republicans controlled
> > the White House and both houses of Congress from 2002 through 2006.
> >
> > How is that *not* hold all the reins of power?
> >
> > It's OK if you're too stupid to answer. Wouldn't be the first time.
>
> Obviously you're too ignorant to know that a simple majority in the
> senate doesn't mean squat.

OK, so you're not too stupid to answer. My mistake. I should've said
you're too stupid to answer sensibly.

I don't know where you got your 'education', Witless, but a majority in
the Senate means a great deal. Perhaps not as much as in the House, but
the majority party (or coalition) assigns chairmanships. You probably
have no idea what that means. The majority can also, if they choose,
vote as a unified political bloc on individual bills. That means the
minority has to take extreme measures if they wan to interfere with the
legislating perpetrated by the majority.

Does any of this sound at all familiar? Where did you get your "squat"
idea? I suspect you've been busy Kroopologizing and you picked up a
couple of "pot-fulls" to spare.

Stupid, stupid, stupid. Stupidity without limit! Stupidity to the stars,
and beyond! YAPYAPYAPYAP!
--

" This one was highlighted by MM to draw attention while I think
it's not the most aggregious provision but it still has issues."

-- Scottie Witlessmongrel, self-described excellent writer, Feb. 22 2009

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Mar 22, 4:49*pm, ScottW2 > wrote:

> or we can discuss the admissions of democrats that in their haste they
> don't even read the legislation they are passing.

2pid, there is no one party that has read every word of every piece of
legislation. There is no senator, president or representatve that has,
or does, read them all the way through. Some of these bills run
thousands of pages, 2pid. It would take weeks just to read a single
bill in some cases.

Now multiply that out and you'll perhaps begin to see what a ninny you
are. LoL.

On to another topic: *why* are you such an imbecile?

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Mar 22, 5:40*pm, George M. Middius >
wrote:
> Yappity-yappity-WOOF! Scottie snarls at the shadows and lunges at a dust
> bunny.

> > > It's OK if you're too stupid to answer. Wouldn't be the first time.
>
> > Obviously you're too ignorant to know that a simple majority in the
> > senate doesn't mean squat.
>
> OK, so you're not too stupid to answer. My mistake. I should've said
> you're too stupid to answer sensibly.
>
> I don't know where you got your 'education', Witless, but a majority in
> the Senate means a great deal. Perhaps not as much as in the House, but
> the majority party (or coalition) assigns chairmanships. You probably
> have no idea what that means. The majority can also, if they choose,
> vote as a unified political bloc on individual bills. That means the
> minority has to take extreme measures if they wan to interfere with the
> legislating perpetrated by the majority.

Not mention procedural votes on a simple majority, and the fact that
the committee chairpersons can block or delay consideration of bills.

2pid are a imbecile.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Mar 22, 5:51*pm, ScottW2 > wrote:

> LoL. * You really don't have a clue how the senate works.

LoL.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

2pid are a imbecile:

> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloture
>
> Failing cloture votes are common in the senate.

"The new version of the cloture rule, which has remained in place
since 1975, makes it considerably easier for the Senate majority to
invoke cloture. This has considerably strengthened the power of the
majority, and allowed it to pass many bills that would otherwise have
been filibustered."

LoL.

> No need to thank me for bringing a small dose of reality to your
> ignorant perspective.

Duh. LoL.

Say, 2pid, why do your cites *always* prove the point of the person
you are 'discussing' things with? LoL.

[George M. Middius[_4_]]

Shhhh! said:

> Say, 2pid, why do your cites *always* prove the point of the person
> you are 'discussing' things with? LoL.

Hmmm. You may have proved Witless wrong again, but he gets to say "made
you look!"


--

" This one was highlighted by MM to draw attention while I think
it's not the most aggregious provision but it still has issues."

-- Scottie Witlessmongrel, self-described excellent writer, Feb. 22 2009

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Mar 23, 1:12*pm, ScottW2 > wrote:
> On Mar 22, 5:15*pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"

> > Not mention procedural votes on a simple majority, and the fact that
> > the committee chairpersons can block or delay consideration of bills.
>
> *I'm happy you're so quick to presume total democratic party
> responsibility for the current debacles in congress. * Good luck with
> that.

What "current dabacles"?

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Mar 23, 4:19*pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
> wrote:
> On Mar 23, 1:12*pm, ScottW2 > wrote:
>
> > On Mar 22, 5:15*pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
> > > Not mention procedural votes on a simple majority, and the fact that
> > > the committee chairpersons can block or delay consideration of bills.
>
> > *I'm happy you're so quick to presume total democratic party
> > responsibility for the current debacles in congress. * Good luck with
> > that.
>
> What "current dabacles"?

Sorry, typo. That should read: What "current dahbacles"?

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Mar 23, 9:53*am, George M. Middius >
wrote:
> Shhhh! said:
>
> > Say, 2pid, why do your cites *always* prove the point of the person
> > you are 'discussing' things with? LoL.
>
> Hmmm. You may have proved Witless wrong again, but he gets to say "made
> you look!"

The question one must ask one's self when following a 2pidlink is "How
will this prove his opponent's point?"

And one is never disappointed.

LoL.

[George M. Middius[_4_]]

Shhhh! said:

> > > Not mention procedural votes on a simple majority, and the fact that
> > > the committee chairpersons can block or delay consideration of bills.
> >
> > *I'm happy you're so quick to presume total democratic party
> > responsibility for the current debacles in congress. * Good luck with
> > that.
>
> What "current dabacles"?

Scottie already splained you that a majority inna Senate means squat.
Perforce of the conceptual vacuum that characterizes ScottieLogic, every
flaw in Congress's latent perfection is therefore the result of the
minority party's horrid machinations. Ergo, Scottie is admitting that
his beloved Republicans, now in the supreme position of minority party,
are the root cause of every problem. For Witlessmongrel, that's a
debacle.


--

"Less Thinking and More Yapping -- Vote Republican!"
-- Scottie Witlessmongrel's vision
for a better Amerika

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Mar 24, 11:35*am, ScottW2 > wrote:
> On Mar 23, 2:19*pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"

> > What "current dabacles"?
>
> *Misuse of quotes noted.

Imbecility noted.

[George M. Middius[_4_]]

Shhhh! said:

> > > > I'm happy you're so quick to presume total democratic party
> > > > responsibility for the current debacles in congress.

> > > What "current dabacles"?

> > *Misuse of quotes noted.

> Imbecility noted.

Your not letting other's have differing opinions, your an upholstery
facisicsist.

--

" This one was highlighted by MM to draw attention while I think
it's not the most aggregious provision but it still has issues."

-- Scottie Witlessmongrel, self-described excellent writer, Feb. 22 2009