God Must Not Have Listened To Biden

This past year has been a tough one for Democrats. They had majorities in both chambers of Congress that were big enough not to need one Republican vote and they could not pass signature items. They have become frustrated with the lack of progress on their Socialization plan so they want to do a few things to give them the upper hand. They want to eliminate the filibuster and they want to invoke reconciliation, a budgetary procedure, in order to pass their the health care takeover bill.

When the Republicans were in charge, they too became frustrated with the Democrats for using the same procedures that they [Republicans] now employ. The Republicans were going to use the nuclear or Constitutional option to allow a simple majority to pass judicial nominees.

The left went nuts over this and talked about how the filibuster was important and how the Founders knew what they were doing and how Republicans in the Senate did not do what Senators throughout history have done [say no to a power hungry president]. Joe Biden said it all when he stated:

I pray God when the Democrats take back control we don’t make the kind of naked power grab you are doing.

God must have decided not to weigh in on Biden’s prayer because the Democrats are involved in the very kind of “naked power grab” Biden lamented over.

Go view the video compilation of Democrats [Breitbart TV] who weighed in on the issue back when they were the minority party and see how their attitudes differ from what they want to do today.

The word hypocrite comes to mind but decide for yourself.

Take particular note of then Senator Barack Obama. In fact, Obama, Clinton, Biden, and Dodd all had something to say and each ran for the presidency…

Big Dog

Gunline

If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.



Print This Post

If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.

31 Responses to “God Must Not Have Listened To Biden”

  1. Adam says:

    “This past year has been a tough one for Democrats. They had majorities in both chambers of Congress that were big enough not to need one Republican vote and they could not pass signature items.”

    Work on health care is moving forward still. They didn’t really try cap and trade too much because of health care. Other than that, which signature items did they not pass?

    On the contrary, it’s been a very successful first year for Obama and the Democrats in Congress. He took on a very ambitious agenda and he’s accomplished many pieces of it. Here are just a few that he and the Democrats accomplished:

    1. The stimulus passed and has created jobs and increased GDP

    2. Stricter emission standards for vehicles

    3. Credit card reform for consumer protections

    4. Reversed course on stem cell research

    5. Signed a law protecting and conserving millions of miles of land and thousands of miles of rivers

    These things are why I voted to put Democrats into office. I want consumer protections against credit card companies, predatory lending, etc. I want environmental conservation and regulation against pollution. I want leaders that acknowledge global warming. I want our tax dollars to invest in advanced medical research like stem cell research.

    So yeah, it’s been a damn good year for me I should say. The Democrats could lose big in November but they’ll have key accomplishments under their belt and that means something.

    For more on Obama, you can head over to politifact where they list 96 promises that Obama has kept so far.

    • Big Dog says:

      The stimulus passed and has not done much if anything. The GDP would have grown, and probably higher, without it. Let’s see if it keeps growing or was artificially inflated by Christmas and the C4C program that cost a lot of money.

      The emission standards were already good. raising them did nothing to help and hampers auto makers.

      Credit card reform can be undertaken by smart people who know how to read. There are already schemes being devised by CC companies to screw people by working around the rules.

      Stem cell research is good if we use adult stem cells which have shown more promise. Killing babies to take the cells is wrong.

      Protecting land from what? If you want to protect lans condemn DC.

      I understand you want protection. You were raised not to be able to protect yourself so it is only natural that you would look to government for this. It is a personal responsibility to not spend more than you have and to know what you are getting into when you get credit. But how do we expect people to know this when our government is the worst credit offender there is?

      People can save what they want but are obsessed with the idea that they must have it now. That is why credit card companies exist and the new rules is why there will be a zillion different fees that all of us, even those of us with great credit who do not spend beyond our means, will have to pay.

      • Adam says:

        “The GDP would have grown, and probably higher, without it.”

        Of course you offer no proof.

        “The emission standards were already good.”

        Obama’s changes were also about adding clarity to the regulations which the auto-industry supports. You sell it short simply because you couldn’t care less about it.

        “Killing babies to take the cells is wrong.”

        Let’s clarify. We kill animals in order to get their meat. We don’t kill babies in order to get their cells. I don’t know what you’re talking about.

        “Protecting land from what?”

        From regressives like yourself, of course.

        “I understand you want protection. You were raised not to be able to protect yourself so it is only natural that you would look to government for this.”

        Go ahead and roll out the insults. I forgot that big business has such a grand history of forgoing it’s own profits in order to protect consumers. How dare I believe the government may need to step in to protect our people and communities.

        Who needs clean things like clean water, right? We can all just switch from water to drinking Coca Cola and Pepsi instead like Mexico does. See, the free market does work…

        “It is a personal responsibility to not spend more than you have and to know what you are getting into when you get credit.”

        Yes, because credit card companies don’t try to profit off of confusion and ignorance of their terms, do they? It’s not their fault at all. They try so hard to educate people so use cards responsibly even if it means it cuts down on their profits.

        This just in as well. Insurance companies really do care about our health and our financial well being.

        “…those of us with great credit who do not spend beyond our means, will have to pay.”

        Poor you. If you don’t like it exercise some personal responsibility and just get rid of the credit card. Problem solved.

        • Darrel says:

          ADM: “Who needs clean things like clean water, right? We can all just switch from water to drinking Coca Cola and Pepsi…”>>

          DAR
          Actually, Gatorade would be better. It has electrolytes. If you’ve seen the movie “Idiocracy” you will get this joke.

          D.

  2. Adam says:

    “They want to eliminate the filibuster…”

    Reconciliation on health care, yes. Changing the filibuster? Is there anything more than talk by the Democrats on this subject? I haven’t seen it yet.

    • Big Dog says:

      So when Dems talk about doing it and advocate for it then we are to assume they will NOT do it?

      Reconciliation is a budgetary process. Why are they using it on a non budgetary item (it will impact the budget but is not a budget bill)?

      • Adam says:

        “So when Dems talk about doing it and advocate for it then we are to assume they will NOT do it?”

        Again, I haven’t seen a serious proposal or attempt to do it. Of course some people are talking about it. That doesn’t mean anything unless you can show it was actually seriously considered or attempted.

        “…it will impact the budget but is not a budget bill…”

        For the same reason it’s been used so many times in the past. It doesn’t have to be a budget bill and it will indeed impact the budget.

  3. Big Dog says:

    So may times? 21 is not so many.

    And you support this because it is a bill you luke. If Republicans used it to pass a bill outlawing stem cell research (embryonic) you would rail as to the misuse (and you would be right).

    • Adam says:

      Never have I cared to complain about reconciliation even when it’s been used under Bush. Yes, I support this health care reform and I support ramming it through with reconciliation.

      • Big Dog says:

        Then you support doing something contrary to the customary way the Senate runs. You are saying the ends justify the means, like Alinsky and that is understandable given that liberals do not believe the rules are for them.

        The coverage part does not take place until after the next presidential election. Wouldn’t it be funny if your guys did this, lost big in November and then lost the White House only to see it repealed? It would be especially good if they repealed it using some ram it through method that pissed you off and had you screaming.

        Because then I would take glee in telling you to shut the eff up.

        Remember, you will not have the majority forever and if this gets rammed through there is no telling what will be done in a similar fashion that will impact you. And I will not listen to you whine about it.

        Yes, you support anything that accomplishes what you want. Anything to get what you want. Except enhanced interrogation. That is wrong but it is OK to skirt Senate rules to ram through something you think is great and that more people than not do not want. Yes, it is all about you and what you want.

        Typical liberal. Ignore the rules and it is all about me mentality.

        • Adam says:

          You’re freaking out a little aren’t you? It will be alright. There are no death panels and no communist takeover of medicine. Just breath.

        • Blake says:

          Actually, there will be panels that will “help” your Doctor “determine your optimal outcome”- which might mean that it’s not “cost- efficient” to get you that life- saving operation you need- that is a DEATH PANEL, no matter how you dress it up with politically correct speech- for once, I wish you progressives could actually bring yourself to say what you mean, and mean what you say, neither of which do you do now.

  4. Big Dog says:

    I’m fine. I am either keeping the health care I have or buying none at all so it matters not to me. I know too many doctors to worry about their plan.

    No, not freaking out. Just have a sense for the rules, something you are evidently OK with ignoring. I understand, you are a government dependent.

    • Adam says:

      You sound fine from all the personal attacks and insults you keep writing. I’m sorry that you’ve swallowed so much partisan spin on health care that you have to treat anyone who supports the plan as a fool or a radical or a government dependent.

    • Adam says:

      And I still haven’t found any serious talk about the “nuclear option” from the Democrats but we have seen a ton of conservatives today using that Breitbart clip to blur the line between the Democrats’ lack of support for the “nuclear option” under Bush and their new found support for reconciliation.

  5. Darrel says:

    Maybe Bigd should think about these talking points before he regurgitates them?

    The roast:

    Rachel Maddow Calls Out Republicans and the Media for Conflating Reconciliation with the Nuclear Option.

    Excerpt:

    “Rachel Maddow calls out the Republicans for saying that Democrats passing the health reform bill through reconciliation is the same as the nuclear option. And as she notes, they are more than well aware that they are lying since they constantly threatened to use the nuclear option and change the rules of the Senate when they wanted to get Bush’s judicial appointments confirmed.

    Maddow: What’s going on here is a deliberate attempt on the part of Republicans to define nuclear down — to conflate these two totally separate things to demonize the way that Democrats have to pass health reform right now. By calling it the nuclear option even though the nuclear option is a real thing in the Senate, and this isn’t that — it has nothing to do with that. Perhaps the reason that Republicans are so unwilling to call this what it is, reconciliation is because they have a really long record of using reconciliation.”

  6. Big Dog says:

    Mad Cow is wrong as usual. The Republicans addressed reconciliation in respect to the health care bill and addressed the separate issue of the nuclear option which Democrats have expressed a desire to use. They want to end the filibuster so they do not have to have 60 votes and the issue is separate from reconciliation which they want to use in health care. They have made it clear and have not confused the two issues as Mad Cow has.

    I heard reconciliation today during the dog and pony show.

    The filibuster is a different issue. You and Mad Cow would do well to pay attention.

    Excerpt:
    Mr. Harkin and Ms. Shaheen announced today that they are introducing a resolution that would reform Senate rules to create a kind of sliding scale for the filibuster. Under their plan, when a bill came up for consideration, 60 votes would be required at first to break a filibuster. But after two days, the threshold would drop to 57; two days later, it would drop to 54; and after another two days, only 51 votes, a simple majority, would be required.

    This is a different issue. Try to keep up.

    Adam, this should end your incessant whining about not being able to see anyone seriously considering ending the filibuster (nuclear option, not to be confused with the health care reconciliation Darrel) as they are introducing legislation. That, Adam, would seem to be serious talk about it.

    • Adam says:

      Yes, asking for you to back up what you are arguing is just incessant whining. Right. You’re so unhinged on this issue that you can’t lay off the insults and attacks and at the same time you just cannot get your facts right. Your own source says:

      Even the Senate Democratic leader, Harry Reid of Nevada, sounded dismissive of the idea.

      Right, that sounds like a serious attempt to me. They don’t have major support from Democrats or the Senate leadership behind the idea and they sure don’t have the votes from Republicans if they did.

      You are wrong as usual.

      • Big Dog says:

        No, asking me to back something up is not whining. Whining is what you have done all along to force people to pay for someone else’s health care.

        Whining was what you did for 8 years (at least three of which, including the last two when things tanked were run by Democrats).

        Bush this, Bush that. The same whining we here from the whiner at the White House.

        Too bad libs can’t man up and carry on. No wonder very few join the service. They might get sand in their panties and whine about it forever…

  7. Big Dog says:

    Introducing the thing is a serious attempt. Reid was dismissive because, as he said, it would take 67 votes to do (unless they figure another way to use the simple majority).

    So REID was dismissive, or not serious, that does not mean the two who introduced it are not. Others have expressed desire to do it.

    It might never pass BUT they are just as serious as were the Republicans who talked about this.

    However, it meets your demand to show ANY Democrats serious about it.

    • Adam says:

      You’ve cried and spread fear about legislation for the last few years that most of the time wasn’t even out of committee and now you’re doing the same over the filibuster. When anything serious about changing the filibuster actually comes up let us know.

      • Big Dog says:

        If they introduce legislation then they have intent to do it. The way to stop it is when it is in committee. When they are doing the final vote it is too late.

        Insults? Now you whine about them.

        Look at how they tried to screw CIA agents by sneaking wording into a bill that would have put some of them in jail for doing their jobs. Fortunately, some Democrats could not even go along with that.

        When they write bills that are thousands of pages they can slip stuff in. The stimulus paid for 3 million dollars worth of bike racks in a community where the average house costs 1.5 million dollars. Wasteful spending by all concerned is what got us here and stupid legislation infringes on our lives.

        You can live subservient to the government if you want to but I know they work for me and intend to make sure they are reminded of that at every turn.

  8. Big Dog says:

    So Adam, when they introduce it then it is not serious enough for you?

    Will you oppose such action?

    I seem to remember a lot of you libs crying about the draft being reimposed. You all said the nasty Republicans were trying to reinstate the draft (a Democrat introduced the legislation) and that had the college kids in a tizzy.

    Have we had that draft yet?

    • Adam says:

      “I seem to remember a lot of you libs crying about the draft being reimposed.”

      I’m sorry. Is liberals being wrong in the past an excuse for you being wrong right now? You’re wrong. Accept it.

      “So Adam, when they introduce it then it is not serious enough for you? … Will you oppose such action?”

      They can introduce whatever they want, just like the draft. Most of the Democratic party, the Senate leadership, and the Republican party are all opposed to it. It’s not happening. You are wrong.

      • Big Dog says:

        How can I be wrong for saying they want to end the filibuster when they have talked about it and it has been introduced?

        I did not say all of them or that it would pass, only that they wanted to do it.

        Since they want to do it I fail to see how that is wrong.

        • Adam says:

          I asked if there was anything more than talk. You showed two Democrats seriously working on it. That’s fair. I countered by saying that the party in general isn’t behind them and the party leadership isn’t either. I don’t know what is left to argue about on this. The Democrats are not getting rid of the filibuster.