[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

Stupendousman is a Clinton supporter and activist Democrat lawyer??? Whoa

I don't know about activist Democrat lawyer, but many Republicans, myself included, are Clinton supporters these days. Compared with the shenanigans in office today, I'd pay money to have Clinton back in office.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna

The Clintons started the Birther bullish!t, but it was never something their supporters wanted or endorsed. Clinton was living up to her portrayal in the film Primary Colors as an unethical, win-at-any-cost campaigner, and her supporters were not pleased with this tactic at all.

Sounds familiar. Replace Clinton with Obama and you have this election cycle. None the less, those are your conspirators, not Conservatives as supposed by wiskedjak.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

I never claimed that Obama wasn't born here. I said that there's likely a less than honorable reason why he didn't want to release his birth certificate after years claiming Kenyan birth status.
Maybe this is why?
http://news.yahoo.com/arpaio-obama-birth-record-definitely-fraudulent-010211250.html?_esi=1
But really, after he produced whatever he had finally, I could care less. Unless of course Arpaio's claims have merit, which I've yet to see.

Regardless of where you believed Obama was born, you weren't willing to accept the word of the State of Hawaii and the US Electoral Commission on the validity of his birth certificate. You weren't willing to accept that something wasn't being hidden until Obama publicly produced his Long Form Birth Certificate (the Short Form wasn't good enough for you), even though there was no requirement to do so. And, you scrutinized every pixel of that form for signs of forgery.

And now, you say "The IRS sees both candidates records every year. If they have a problem with them, they'll be sure and let them know." Are you saying that the IRS is more trustworthy than the State of Hawaii and the US Electoral Commission?

Again, I'm not saying that Romney should release his tax records; I'm saying that those demanding that he do so are no more kooky than those who were demanding a public release of Obama's long form birth certificate.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

Well, now I've seen everything.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

I don't know about activist Democrat lawyer, but many Republicans, myself included, are Clinton supporters these days. Compared with the shenanigans in office today, I'd pay money to have Clinton back in office.

And I certainly couldn't argue against the '94 GOP, which actually knew how to, you know, compromise.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

The whole "tax-return" issue particularly grates on my nerves because its sole purpose is to merely exploit a person's income. They already know there is nothing illegal in his tax returns and they already know what he gives philanthropically, but this is not good enough.

It's only gaining steam because of how hard Romney is fighting it. I've been thinking, is he one of the richest nominees to ever run? If he is, once again, terrible timing for such a thing.

A part of me wonders if the campaign isn't playing possum, knowing that there's nothing damning in the returns, but that would be 180º from the quality of the campaign so far. Now conservative publications and Republicans themselves are calling on him to release the returns and it's a little surreal.

Something will get released by the Romney campaign eventually, though (I believe his 2011 returns still are "being worked on"). I imagine timed on a Friday or to coincide with other big news hoping it gets buried (which it might). But assuming that there's nothing on the tax returns besides Romney being rich, it's telling if he's afraid of making it more obvious.

(Also, am I the only person who's mind was blown when he found Romney is 65? Obviously dyes his hair, but holy crap, someone has lived well to look like that at that age).

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

The fact that people would be more hungry for a private citizen's personal financial information than information on a botched gun-running operation that ended up in hundreds dead for example, just kills me.

Arguably, the former affects them more.

[subego]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

The fact that people would be more hungry for a private citizen's personal financial information than information on a botched gun-running operation that ended up in hundreds dead for example, just kills me.

[OAW]

If I had to put money on it ... when Romney eventually releases multiple years of tax returns (which I think he will given the pressure to do so from Republican power brokers now) ... I highly doubt that they will show anything illegal. But I do suspect that they will show that he has used A) very aggressive tax avoidance strategies via foreign accounts, and B) continued to profit handsomely from Bain Capital deals well after he was no longer "technically" in charge. Both of which are politically distasteful given the struggling economy. They play right into the narrative that the Obama Campaign has been pushing about Romney ... which, quite frankly, isn't all that difficult when it's TRUE.

OAW

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by OAW 

If I had to put money on it ... when Romney eventually releases multiple years of tax returns (which I think he will given the pressure to do so from Republican power brokers now) ... I highly doubt that they will show anything illegal. But I do suspect that they will show that he has used A) very aggressive tax avoidance strategies via foreign accounts, and B) continued to profit handsomely from Bain Capital deals well after he was no longer "technically" in charge. Both of which are politically distasteful given the struggling economy. They play right into the narrative that the Obama Campaign has been pushing about Romney ... which, quite frankly, isn't all that difficult when it's TRUE.
OAW

Uhh... how can you say the narrative is true when he hasn't released any returns?

Putting the cart before the horse much?

Why don't we trade Romney's tax returns for Obama's college transcripts and papers?

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

Why don't we trade Romney's tax returns for Obama's college transcripts and papers?

I'm loving this. How is Romney's tax returns for Obama's tax returns not the equal trade?

[subego]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

Uhh... how can you say the narrative is true when he hasn't released any returns?
Putting the cart before the horse much?
Why don't we trade Romney's tax returns for Obama's college transcripts and papers?

The narrative being pushed is Romney is filthy ****ing rich. I don't need his tax returns to judge the truth of that narrative.

[ironknee]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

I'm loving this. How is Romney's tax returns for Obama's tax returns not the equal trade?

[lpkmckenna]

http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2011/10/11/340682/flashback-romney-tax-return/

Hey, imagine that, yet another Rmoney flip-flop: he was in favour of tax return disclosure before he was against it.

Originally Posted by Boston Globe, 4/19/94

But in 1994, Romney vigorously called for then Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-MA) to release his tax returns, in order to prove that he had “nothing to hide”:

With the tax-filing deadline looming, Republican Senate candidate Mitt Romney yesterday challenged Sen. Edward M. Kennedy to disclose his state and federal taxes to prove he has ‘nothing to hide,’ but another GOP rival, John R. Lakian, called Romney’s move ‘bush league’ ‘It’s time the biggest-taxing senator in Washington shows the people of Massachusetts how much he pays in taxes,” said Romney, a business consultant from Belmont. Romney said he would disclose his own state and federal taxes for the last three years ‘on the very day that Kennedy turns over his taxes for public scrutiny.’

Hilarious. But it gets better...

Originally Posted by Providence Journal Bulletin, 5/9/02

Eight years later, during his successful gubernatorial campaign, Romney played the same game, calling for his Democratic opponent to release her husband’s tax returns, even when he hadn’t released his own:

At the moment, however, Mr. Romney is trying to have it both ways. On April 16, he lambasted his most likely Democratic foe, Shannon O’Brien who discloses her tax return for filing separately from her husband who does not. The husband is Emmett Hayes, a former state representative and until recently a Beacon Hill lobbyist. One of Mr. Hayes’s clients was Enron. Mr. Romney is in high dudgeon that Ms. O’Brien hasn’t released Mr. Hayes’s tax forms with her own. ‘Her hands aren’t clean!’ he says…If Romney & Healey, who are candidates, won’t release their tax forms, they have no business demanding that Mr. Hayes, who isn’t a candidate, do so.

Demanding his opponent's spouse release tax returns? What a twit.

[lpkmckenna]

Given the enormous number of gaffes and blunders surrounding him, I wouldn't be surprised if he didn't survive the convention. There is no doubt in my mind that shadowy figures in the RNC are working furiously on a plan B that would avert the disaster that is Romney.


Speaking of our notorious flip-flopper:

[OAW]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

Uhh... how can you say the narrative is true when he hasn't released any returns?
Putting the cart before the horse much?

Actually ... not really. You will note that I said "I suspect they will show A and B blah blah blah". And then I said they play into the "narrative" that the Obama Campaign has been pushing about Romney. You seem to be EQUATING the "A and B" that I suspect will be shown in the tax returns with the "narrative". And that's not what I'm saying. To be clear, the "narrative" is that "Romney's an out of touch rich guy who doesn't understand the issues facing working and middle class Americans." Which if you listen to the man's own words that's pretty much clear. He speaks constantly about the wealthy "job creators" (see below) and incessantly about "small business owners". But people who derive more than half their income from a small business are approximately 6-10% of the population. IOW, 90+% of the people in the US are EMPLOYEES .... not EMPLOYERS. So if the policies you propose (i.e. even lower taxes and lower regulations) always target and directly benefit EMPLOYERS and/or the WEALTHY ... with the theoretical notion that somehow that's magically going to result in net job creation in the US despite a decade's worth of evidence to the contrary ... is it any wonder why that "narrative" has a lot of traction?

Originally Posted by Snow-i

Why don't we trade Romney's tax returns for Obama's college transcripts and papers?

Let me ask you a serious question. WTF difference does Obama's college transcripts and papers make at this stage in the game? The man has been POTUS for nearly 4 years now! Are his accomplishments and/or failures going to be any different if you were to see his GPA?

OAW

PS: And can we please dispense with this "wealthy" = "job creators" BS?

- Millionaires own only 3.3 percent of small businesses.
- Millionaires take home only 19 percent of small-business employer income.
- Only 2.5 percent of millionaires’ income is from small business.

Small-Business Owners Are Not Millionaires - And Millionaires Are Not Small-Business Owners

[The Final Dakar]

After reading McCain's dossier on the guy, I was first left with the thought, "I could really get behind MA Gov. Romney" but the more I dwelled on it and his new stances, the more I didn't wonder if his initial stances were also taken because they were politically expedient.

So, if I don't believe his stance on the issues then, can't believe his stance on the issues now, I'm left in this strange place where I wonder, does Romney even care about those issues?

I think the answer is 'No." Romney doesn't care about most of the issues, and I'll infer it's because they don't affect him. He's insulated from damn near everything (including taxes) that it's not that he's being outright dishonest, I think he's more completely apathetic.

I mean, wasn't there a decent murmur four years ago (and in the primaries) that Romney's pursuit of the Presidency was more out of narcism than a desire to affect or implement policy? He doesn't see it as an honor or responsibility, he sees it as an achievement.

[hyteckit]

Mitt Romney doesn't want to release his tax returns because he doesn't want to be attack for being rich.

Yes, because Americans don't know Mitt Romney is superrich.

[lpkmckenna]

I think you're right, Final Dakar. Romney doesn't really give a crap about abortion or guns or gays or anything else. Pretty much the only issue dear to his heart is protecting that 15% capital gains tax rate.

I think Romney's only desire is to be the Mormon President. Not to be "the first Mormon President!", but make it so that a Mormon President existed; a completely non-selfish goal. Not to accomplish any specific Mormon goals or enact Mormon policies, but to enhance the prestige of the Mormon church by one of them having been President.

It's little discussed, but Romney went to the elders of the church for their blessing on his rather liberal stances as would-be Governor. Protestants worried that Kennedy was gonna get political direction from the Vatican? Romney has been getting his politics vetted by Salt Lake City for over 20 years.

But, I do think there is something narcissistic about Romney: he resents any questioning. How dare the little people question him? Why should he have to account for anything he's ever said or done?

[Chongo]

Does Harry "That's a clown question bro'" Reid get his politics vetted by Salt Lake as well? FWIW, Romney was born into the LDS, Reid and his wife willing joined during college.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by subego 

The narrative being pushed is Romney is filthy ****ing rich. I don't need his tax returns to judge the truth of that narrative.

Eesh. The narrative is that this is a bad thing. Why is this so bad?

By global standards, we're all filthy stinking rich right down to the poorest among us. Should we all be regarded this disparagingly?

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

And I certainly couldn't argue against the '94 GOP, which actually knew how to, you know, compromise.

The word compromise is being used as if it's always virtuous. The more contentious the measures proposed, the more contentious the opposition. This was so when Obama enjoyed a majority (D) Congress, why would it be any different when balanced out with more Republicans?

IMO, to peddle the "party of no" narrative is to fall prey to a very myopic, partisan view of current events.

[ebuddy]

I think Obama would probably kick a snow seal pup. Yeah, come to think of it he would kick a snow seal pup.


OBAMA KICKS SNOW SEAL PUPS!!!

[ironknee]

ok, both sides are entrenched of course...

my question: between now and the elections, will Mitt Romney release any more tax returns besides his 2011 (and 2010)?

of course he doesn't have to....if you were his advisor what would you tell him?

[ironknee]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

The word compromise is being used as if it's always virtuous. The more contentious the measures proposed, the more contentious the opposition. This was so when Obama enjoyed a majority (D) Congress, why would it be any different when balanced out with more Republicans?
IMO, to peddle the "party of no" narrative is to fall prey to a very myopic, partisan view of current events.

without compromise. free market would not exist.


error: quoted the wrong thing

edit 2: omg...2nd try...without compromise. marriages would not exist.

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by ironknee 

Need to update it.

Looks like Mitt Romney's 2010 tax return is incomplete. For 2010, he gets a half-check?

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

I don't know about activist Democrat lawyer, but many Republicans, myself included, are Clinton supporters these days. Compared with the shenanigans in office today, I'd pay money to have Clinton back in office.

+1!

I'd take indiscreet and dishonest about his personal life over incompetent and dishonest about everything any day!

..but I only miss post 1994 Clinton, after he learned his lesson.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

Regardless of where you believed Obama was born, you weren't willing to accept the word of the State of Hawaii and the US Electoral Commission on the validity of his birth certificate.

The US Electoral Commission never saw a long form either.

And you are faulting me for not taking the word of a few officials in a state government, because the government has never lied or been wrong?

How are those WMD's in Iraq coming along?

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

It's only gaining steam because of how hard Romney is fighting it.

I don't think it's "gaining steam." I'm guessing most Americans could care less, much like the birth certificate issue.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by ironknee 

ok, both sides are entrenched of course...
my question: between now and the elections, will Mitt Romney release any more tax returns besides his 2011 (and 2010)?
of course he doesn't have to....if you were his advisor what would you tell him?

This is a fair question ironknee. For now I'd tell him to make a deal with Obama in order to regain the political offensive; 12 years of tax returns for lifting executive privilege on Fast and Furious. Romney has a sterling opportunity to bring this affair to the American public because frankly, they (and Romney's campaign) are asleep at the wheel. Of course, Obama can't afford to take this bait and Romney can beat him over the head with it for a few news cycles while bringing attention to the problems at the DoJ.

I'm not sure if Romney will release more tax returns, he still maintains that he will not. This could hurt him with some Independents which he's going to need in November. IMO, something like this should be timed as Final Dakar mentioned. Let this become the basket that the Obama campaign puts all their eggs into and by late September, release at least 5 or 6 years of them to satisfy the majority of people. One thing's for sure, I wouldn't release them until I had a narrative to accompany the vast wealth within.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

And you are faulting me for not taking the word of a few officials in a state government, because the government has never lied or been wrong?

No. I'm faulting you for saying "don't trust these government officials in Obama's case, but trust *these* government officials in Romney's case". If you can't trust the Electoral Commission to properly validate the birth status of a Presidential candidate, how can you trust the IRS to validate the tax returns of a Presidential candidate?

More to the point, when Obama wouldn't publicly release his birth certificate, it caused you to wonder what he was hiding. Why does Romney refusing to release his tax returns *also* not cause you to wonder what *he* is hiding?

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

The word compromise is being used as if it's always virtuous. The more contentious the measures proposed, the more contentious the opposition. This was so when Obama enjoyed a majority (D) Congress, why would it be any different when balanced out with more Republicans?
IMO, to peddle the "party of no" narrative is to fall prey to a very myopic, partisan view of current events.

That's disingenuous spin. There's no questioning things are far more contentious today than they were 20 years. Congress is far more partisan and stonewalling way more common.

I read something the other day that had a good point to it. If you're a conservative, a system by which you can stonewall endlessly help preserve your values. So by abusing things like the filibuster, cloture, whatever, conservatives are actually doing a better job of, uh, conserving, than if they actually allowed things to go up for a vote and let those senators and representatives feel the repercussions from their constituents.

He has a point.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

No. I'm faulting you for saying "don't trust these government officials in Obama's case, but trust *these* government officials in Romney's case".

I'm not saying you have to trust either, in either case.

However, in only one of these cases, there is evidence that something possibly was not true in regards to the documentation.

I've seen no evidence that would lead one to believe that Romney cheated on his taxes.

There are YEARS of evidence that it was claimed that Obama was not born in the US by himself and his representatives. That's a big difference. We aren't comparing apples to apples here.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

I don't think it's "gaining steam." I'm guessing most Americans could care less, much like the birth certificate issue.

http://www.whitehousedossier.com/2012/07/19/obamas-remorseless-attacks-effect/

[ironknee]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

This is a fair question ironknee. For now I'd tell him to make a deal with Obama in order to regain the political offensive; 12 years of tax returns for lifting executive privilege on Fast and Furious. Romney has a sterling opportunity to bring this affair to the American public because frankly, they (and Romney's campaign) are asleep at the wheel. Of course, Obama can't afford to take this bait and Romney can beat him over the head with it for a few news cycles while bringing attention to the problems at the DoJ.
I'm not sure if Romney will release more tax returns, he still maintains that he will not. This could hurt him with some Independents which he's going to need in November. IMO, something like this should be timed as Final Dakar mentioned. Let this become the basket that the Obama campaign puts all their eggs into and by late September, release at least 5 or 6 years of them to satisfy the majority of people. One thing's for sure, I wouldn't release them until I had a narrative to accompany the vast wealth within.

ebuddy

i think i would advise him to release a few returns in the next week or so

take the hit now when the olympics will distract people

get this behind him

[hyteckit]

Let's make a deal.


12 years of tax returns from Pres. Obama for 12 years of tax returns from Romney.

College transcripts for Harvard from Pres. Obama for college transcripts from Romney.

Where's Mitt Romney's real birth certificate by the way? All I've seen was a crappy photocopy with a 2012 date on it. I want to see the real long form one, not some fake looking photocopy.

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

http://www.whitehousedossier.com/2012/07/19/obamas-remorseless-attacks-effect/

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/19/us/politics/poll-shows-economic-fears-undercutting-obama-support.html

A plurality of Americans, 49 percent, agree with Mr. Obama’s assertion that the Bush-era tax cuts should continue on adjusted gross annual income of $250,000 and less. More than a quarter say the cuts should stay in place for all income groups; 17 percent say they should expire altogether.


So most Americans say Bush tax cuts should end either altogether or for those with annual income of $250,000 or more.

[Athens]

I think im changing my tune I think I like to see Romney take power, it benefits Canada

http://www.barackobama.com/truth-team/entry/top-10-economies-that-benefit-from-romneys-jobs-plan?source=truth-team-HP

[hyteckit]

Since stupendousman brought up polls.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/07/19/poll-shows-americans-want-to-see-romneys-tax-returns/

A majority of Americans want to see more of Mitt Romney's tax returns.

[OAW]

Ann Romney stood firmly by her husband's commitment to release only two years of tax returns in an interview airing Thursday, saying the information already disclosed was plenty of transparency for the presumptive GOP nominee.

"There are so many things that will be open again for more attack, and you just give more material for more attack, and that's the answer. We've given all you people need to know and understand about our financial situation and about how we live our life," Mrs. Romney said on ABC.

Ann Romney says 'given all you people need to know' on taxes - CNN.com

Naturally our conservative compatriots will try to spin this and say that the "you people" was directed at the "liberal media". But when 54% (and counting?) of the American people think that Romney should release more tax returns ... one is hard pressed to dismiss this as a "media driven controversy" that is "much ado about nothing" to the general public. With that in mind, Ms. Romney's choice to utilize that particular phrase was at best an "unfortunate" blunder that will only serve to reinforce the narrative in the minds of many working and middle class Americans that the Romney's have a privileged, elitist mindset and are fundamentally out of touch with their issues and concerns ... even though that's not really the case. And at worst it's a "revealing" blunder that indicates that it really is. I'm just saying ...

OAW

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

That's disingenuous spin. There's no questioning things are far more contentious today than they were 20 years. Congress is far more partisan and stonewalling way more common.
I read something the other day that had a good point to it. If you're a conservative, a system by which you can stonewall endlessly help preserve your values. So by abusing things like the filibuster, cloture, whatever, conservatives are actually doing a better job of, uh, conserving, than if they actually allowed things to go up for a vote and let those senators and representatives feel the repercussions from their constituents.
He has a point.

C'mon Dakar, this is silliness. Obstructionism or related filibusters and clotures are going to serve you any time you oppose a measure. This idea that it's somehow more pervasive on the right than on the left is preposterous. You're looking at numbers. Look at percentages. It's not as if Harry Reid's legacy is compromiser.

I don't think you really believe he has a point. Liberals, so interested in pushing their obsolete ideals of change and progress; need to dismantle the system to start from scratch. They abuse the process by either subverting it entirely or by shoving the absolute most contentious legislation into the system, sell it by framing republicans as bloodthirsty criminals, and then feign outrage at conservative obstructionism when the "nos" come down and, uh, laugh while the system is dismantled.

In reality, a brighter picture of sanity prevails perhaps 60% of the time. Across the aisle. Dismantling the system much more slowly.

I mean, it's not like our liberal President had a much easier time with his tax plan among the majority democratic congress for example. And then there's health care reform. You know it's bad law when its biggest proponent tells you that you need to pass it to see what's in it or when the best way to garner support for it is to grant waivers from it. Come to think of it - there were some 35+ republican ideals submitted for health care reform, all ignored. And no budget.

Suffice it to say, there is more than one side to the story. Anything else is probably going to be a horrible point.

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

C'mon Dakar, this is silliness. Obstructionism or related filibusters and clotures are going to serve you any time you oppose a measure. This idea that it's somehow more pervasive on the right than on the left is preposterous. You're looking at numbers. Look at percentages. It's not as if Harry Reid's legacy is compromiser.

I know the number of filibusters increased dramatically since 2010.

Feel free to show us the percentages.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/19/us/politics/poll-shows-economic-fears-undercutting-obama-support.html
A plurality of Americans, 49 percent, agree with Mr. Obama’s assertion that the Bush-era tax cuts should continue on adjusted gross annual income of $250,000 and less. More than a quarter say the cuts should stay in place for all income groups; 17 percent say they should expire altogether.
So most Americans say Bush tax cuts should end either altogether or for those with annual income of $250,000 or more.

Okay, let's get rid of Obama and the Bush Tax Cuts. Obamacare too, since polls show that people don't like that either.

If you want to rule by polls, I'm guessing the left will end up being the biggest losers here.

My point was that there was an election coming up where people have a say. They are saying that the guy in charge is screwing up. Whether or not the Bush tax cuts come or go, it's not going to make much difference when it comes time for them to have a say.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

I know the number of filibusters increased dramatically since 2010.
Feel free to show us the percentages.

You're full of it. You know the difference between a filibuster and the threat of a filibuster right? Hmm. Somehow, if you did I'm sure you'd see a little problem beginning with Bush Jr appellate selections. Filibusters are generally tracked by the number of cloture votes to silence them, but there's a problem with this methodology; clotures are often held with no regard for whether a filibuster had even occurred.

This reminds me of the great compromiser; Harry Reid who announced that he would file cloture on seventeen judicial nominees he claimed were being blocked by Republican obstructionism when none of them had even come up for debate. A clear subversion of the requirement that the Senate consent to nominees pursuant to Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution. i.e. a way to ramrod the appointments through without debate as required by law.

Of course, this would require some knowledge of how the system works, not just the talking points fed you from the Daily Kos.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

C'mon Dakar, this is silliness. Obstructionism or related filibusters and clotures are going to serve you any time you oppose a measure. This idea that it's somehow more pervasive on the right than on the left is preposterous. You're looking at numbers. Look at percentages. It's not as if Harry Reid's legacy is compromiser.

You'd be wrong.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/08/us...nate-role.html

In the two years that Mr. Bush had to contend with a Democratic Senate, 740 of his 981 nominees for civilian positions were confirmed, a rate of 75 percent. During the 112th Congress, 285 of Mr. Obama’s 503 civilian nominees have been confirmed, or 57 percent, according to Senate statistics.

Or


Or
http://news.yahoo.com/nothing-congre...110106409.html

According to The Washington Post, the 326 bills passed by the House of Representatives is roughly one-third of the number they passed in 2009 (970) and barely a quarter of the number passed in 2007 (1,127). The Senate has approved 368 bills, also well below its typical off-year numbers and the fewest since 1995.

Or

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

I don't think you really believe he has a point.

You'd be wrong.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

In reality, a brighter picture of sanity prevails perhaps 60% of the time. Across the aisle. Dismantling the system much more slowly.

I have no idea what you're saying here.

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

You're full of it. You know the difference between a filibuster and the threat of a filibuster right? Hmm. Somehow, if you did I'm sure you'd see a little problem beginning with Bush Jr appellate selections. Filibusters are generally tracked by the number of cloture votes to silence them, but there's a problem with this methodology; clotures are often held with no regard for whether a filibuster had even occurred.
This reminds me of the great compromiser; Harry Reid who announced that he would file cloture on seventeen judicial nominees he claimed were being blocked by Republican obstructionism when none of them had even come up for debate. A clear subversion of the requirement that the Senate consent to nominees pursuant to Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution. i.e. a way to ramrod the appointments through without debate as required by law.
Of course, this would require some knowledge of how the system works, not just the talking points fed you from the Daily Kos.

What's your obsession with Daily Kos? You keep telling me to go to that site.

Washington Post:

4557/width/350/height/700[/IMG]

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

I'm not saying you have to trust either, in either case.

Huh, I could have sworn you said ...

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

The IRS sees both candidates records every year. If they have a problem with them, they'll be sure and let them know.

Sounds to me like you trust the IRS to do it's job in Romney's case in a way that you didn't trust the Electoral Commission to do it's job in Obama's case.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

You'd be wrong. You'd be wrong.

You're doing the same thing hyteckit is doing. Are those counting filibusters? No, they're counting cloture votes. Cloture votes have zero to do with filibusters. Again, there was no apparent problem or filibuster in the Senate when Reid filed cloture on 17 judicial nominees for example. In fact, they were not even brought up for debate. Cloture was used to subvert the Senate approval process of hearing the justices. This is what I'm trying to tell you. A motion filed, is a motion for cloture. The graph is misleading when it says; "use of filibuster". It should read, use of "cloture" which has increased since Reid entered office, but has nothing to do with a filibuster or Republican obstructionism as much as it has to do with subverting the Senate's advice-and-consent obligation, ending debate (read, not ending filibuster my friend -- ending debate) and shamelessly building a dog and pony show of (R) obstructionism for the public. More lower-court judges were approved in Obama’s first three years for example, 129, than in either of President George W. Bush’s four-year terms. Again, cloture hasn't been necessitated by filibuster since the mid to late 70's, regardless of your fake "quorum calls". Just to let you know how bad it is, Reid has filed cloture on his own bill. Why? Not to end a filibuster, to end debate.

Unless of course you remember a bunch of Republicans exhausting themselves on the floor, reading from Lord of the Flies or something. I sure don't. Of course, mixed in your misdirected narrative is the piece on civilian position appointments which McConnell graciously offered to clear if Obama would not cram through recess appointments; Obama declined. The great uniter is as much behind the contention in Congress as anyone else. There are two sides to the story and you're only seeing one. As usual.

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

You're doing the same thing hyteckit is doing. Are those counting filibusters? No, they're counting cloture votes. Cloture votes have zero to do with filibusters. Again, there was no apparent problem or filibuster in the Senate when Reid filed cloture on 17 judicial nominees for example. In fact, they were not even brought up for debate. Cloture was used to subvert the Senate approval process of hearing the justices. This is what I'm trying to tell you. A motion filed, is a motion for cloture. The graph is misleading when it says; "use of filibuster". It should read, use of "cloture" which has increased since Reid entered office, but has nothing to do with a filibuster or Republican obstructionism as much as it has to do with subverting the Senate's advice-and-consent obligation, ending debate (read, not ending filibuster my friend -- ending debate) and shamelessly building a dog and pony show of (R) obstructionism for the public. More lower-court judges were approved in Obama’s first three years for example, 129, than in either of President George W. Bush’s four-year terms. Again, cloture hasn't been necessitated by filibuster since the mid to late 70's, regardless of your fake "quorum calls". Just to let you know how bad it is, Reid has filed cloture on his own bill. Why? Not to end a filibuster, to end debate.
Unless of course you remember a bunch of Republicans exhausting themselves on the floor, reading from Lord of the Flies or something. I sure don't. Of course, mixed in your misdirected narrative is the piece on civilian position appointments which McConnell graciously offered to clear if Obama would not cram through recess appointments; Obama declined. The great uniter is as much behind the contention in Congress as anyone else. There are two sides to the story and you're only seeing one. As usual.

There is another thread about the "Bring Jobs Home Act" that was filibuster just 3 days ago. Passed by majority vote of 56-42, but failed to end filibuster with cloture.

Number of Filibusters in July 2012 so far:


17-Jul S.3364 Bring Jobs Home Act Reid 19-Jul 56 - 42 No. 181 F

12-Jul S.3369 A bill to provide for additional disclosure requirements for corporations, labor organizations, Super PACs and other entities Reid
   motion to proceed 16-Jul 51 - 44 No. 179 F
   Vote No. 179 reconsidered 17-Jul 53 - 45  No. 180 F

11-Jul S.2237 Small Business Jobs and Tax Relief Act Reid 12-Jul 53 - 44 No. 177 F

11-Jul S.2237 Small Business Jobs and Tax Relief Act Reid 12-Jul 57 - 41 No. 176 F
   S.Amdt.2521

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

Huh, I could have sworn you said ...
Sounds to me like you trust the IRS to do it's job in Romney's case in a way that you didn't trust the Electoral Commission to do it's job in Obama's case.

Past precedent shows that the IRS is quick to investigate irregularities in reporting. I don't remember the Electoral Commission doing much of anything regarding the latter when there was evidence there might be a problem.

Regardless, you don't have to trust either if you chose not to. However, as I pointed out, only one of the examples there was any evidence of possible irregularity.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

There is another thread about the "Bring Jobs Home Act" that was filibuster just 3 days ago. Passed by majority vote of 56-42, but failed to end filibuster with cloture.
Number of Filibusters in July 2012 so far:
17-Jul S.3364 Bring Jobs Home Act Reid 19-Jul 56 - 42 No. 181 F

I'll hit this first one for the benefit of the forum:

There was no filibuster. There was no Republican exhausting himself on the Senate floor over this. The bill is sloppily crafted, worthless legislation and the cloture was filed to end debate on it. Why? The bill had two primary components; offer a moving expenses deduction as an incentive to move operations back to the US (NEWSFLASH: they already get one) and the removal of deductions on operating expenses incurred by moving jobs out. The Senate would include zero Republican amendments which is certainly not an example of bipartisan or compromise. For one thing, a 20% tax deduction for moving expenses does remarkably little for truly encouraging the return of overseas employment and was nothing more than a partisan move as it did not even remove the outsourcing deductions it was designed to. It only removes deductions on those who are trying to outsource now. Those who've been outsourcing continue to outsource with deductions and those who want to outsource now forego deductions until the following fiscal year... at such time they can file and receive their deductions. Bad law with no hope of having a positive outcome crammed through the Senate in another typical Reid ploy to make Republicans look obstructionist by merely debating the measure. *Hint; you don't have to pass a bill to know what's in it. You can actually read the bill and determine it's bad legislation before passing it. This is congress actually doing its job for a change.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

You're doing the same thing hyteckit is doing. Are those counting filibusters? No, they're counting cloture votes. Cloture votes have zero to do with filibusters.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filibus..._States_Senate

In recent years the majority has preferred to avoid filibusters by moving to other business when a filibuster is threatened and attempts to achieve cloture have failed.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Unless of course you remember a bunch of Republicans exhausting themselves on the floor, reading from Lord of the Flies or something. I sure don't.

Does it even work that way anymore?

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

There are two sides to the story and you're only seeing one. As usual.

Ooo, that's a bit low for you, eh?