Obama DID NOT control Congress [Archive] - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : Obama DID NOT control Congress


W420Hunter
08-12-2012, 19:51
So any one see the issue with this? My friend came at me with this and I just had to laugh. She used it to fire back at me after I posted on one of her links. But before it she told me to stop *****-ing and read the this, or just stop *****-ing.

Gunnut 45/454
08-12-2012, 21:54
Nope he was AWOL! Playing gulf , vacations, and fundraisers! Zero leadership from Zero! So we had King Harry running the country! Or should I say stopping everything in it's tracks!:steamed:

W420Hunter
08-12-2012, 22:33
Wow sorry here is the link I was meaning to add sorry doing to many things at once today.
http://www.thepragmaticpundit.com/2011/12/obama-did-not-control-congress-for-two.html

NMPOPS
08-12-2012, 23:08
Your friend and the article are both right and wrong. No he did not have the magical 60 Democratic Senators. But the 60% vote is only needed for budgetary matters. What he did have for the first two years he was in office was a Democratic Majority in both the Senate and the House and he failed to even get a Budget passed! Basically the only thing he did get through was his Obamacare.

Big Mad Dawg
08-12-2012, 23:12
The obama arrived in Washington as an unskilled socialist that has used his ethnicity to ride the entitlement gravy train through life, it would be shocking if he had been an effective president. He is like a spoiled toddler that his mother’s friends are too polite to say what a waste of skin he is.

series1811
08-13-2012, 05:58
Your friend and the article are both right and wrong. No he did not have the magical 60 Democratic Senators. But the 60% vote is only needed for budgetary matters. What he did have for the first two years he was in office was a Democratic Majority in both the Senate and the House and he failed to even get a Budget passed! Basically the only thing he did get through was his Obamacare.


I love that excuse. Obama couldn't get anything done because he only had a majority, not a super majority.

Yeah, right. That's the reason. :whistling:

aircarver
08-13-2012, 06:07
Wait'll he sees the next congress...

They jammed it down our throats, now we'll stick it up their ......

.

NMPOPS
08-13-2012, 06:25
I agree it was no excuse. I was just pointing out he did indeed have a Democratic congress.

Sent from my Ally using Tapatalk 2

series1811
08-13-2012, 06:37
I agree it was no excuse. I was just pointing out he did indeed have a Democratic congress.

Sent from my Ally using Tapatalk 2

I was agreeing with you. You are right. :supergrin:

fortyofforty
08-13-2012, 06:45
And yet, somehow, everything bad is Bush's fault when he had much smaller majorities in Congress (when he enjoyed them at all, which was certainly not for eight years). I love the hypocrisy.

W420Hunter
08-13-2012, 09:22
Your friend and the article are both right and wrong. No he did not have the magical 60 Democratic Senators. But the 60% vote is only needed for budgetary matters. What he did have for the first two years he was in office was a Democratic Majority in both the Senate and the House and he failed to even get a Budget passed! Basically the only thing he did get through was his Obamacare.

As I understood things that 60 number was to block a filibuster. That is why they used reconciliation to avoid the blocking by said filibuster, or am I just remembering my gov. class wrong?

Gunnut 45/454
08-13-2012, 10:10
W420Hunter
Nope you got it right! That's why they changed the rules to allow them to shove things through! We all know how Progressives hate rules , laws or anything else that impeeds there agenda!:faint:

W420Hunter
08-13-2012, 10:44
W420Hunter
Nope you got it right! That's why they changed the rules to allow them to shove things through! We all know how Progressives hate rules , laws or anything else that impeeds there agenda!:faint:

But to pass a bill they only need a simple majority right?

countrygun
08-13-2012, 10:49
And yet, somehow, everything bad is Bush's fault when he had much smaller majorities in Congress (when he enjoyed them at all, which was certainly not for eight years). I love the hypocrisy.


This lovely little fact is swept under the rug.

bring it up around a liberal and watch the subject change.

NMPOPS
08-13-2012, 16:02
If you remember, about a year of so ago CC Resciprocity bill passed the House but failed in the Senate by a vote of 59 to 41. Certain bills require 60% to pass not just a majority.

Sent from my Ally using Tapatalk 2

sbhaven
08-13-2012, 17:31
So any one see the issue with this? My friend came at me with this and I just had to laugh. She used it to fire back at me after I posted on one of her links. But before it she told me to stop *****-ing and read the this, or just stop *****-ing.
While the President doesn't "control" Congress (speration of powers/branches), his party did for the last two years of the Bush presidency and the first two years of the Obama presidency.

It won't matter what you say to your friend, they will not believe what you say even if you post links from DU and MSNBC to back up any factual information you present. They are not interested in hearing facts since it will contradict their feelings. They will simply resort to blaming Bush, or attempt to win and or end the conversation by calling you a racist.

After a while one learns not to bother arguing politics with progressives since they'll drag you down to their level and beat you, not with facts, but with their feelings on the issues.