First Official GOP President Announcement

Right, he avoided a default by slashing education and borrowing from the road fund to offset the 3 billion dollar deficit in 2010, and they're in the same boat again this year, with another 2 billion dollar deficit...

Revenues were up in the short-term, then fell below projections for the following 3 years, and they're still pushing their shortfalls into the future: Reaganomics.

You know who is a racist fearmonger? Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton.

I can buy the fearmonger to a very small extent.. I listen to Glenn Beck and there are those who accuse him of being a fearmonger(I don't buy that)

Tea Party is a Party of Constitutional Conservatives with a taste of Libertarian. All we want is a strict following of the constitution.. We also want the Government to back the F off. We push stuff like new amendments to the constitution (2 specifically, the Balanced budget amendment= budget MUST be balanced every year, and Term limits on Congress= typically the limit should be 12 years.)

We want Tax Reform. Abolishment of certain government agencies. so on and so forth.

The reason the Tea Party is so against Obama is at least 2 reasons: 1: Well truth be told he is democrat(liberal/progressive)
2: He LOVES his executive agreements.

I have no reason to budge on this, when he does, in fact, meet the conditions of filibustering, while you have provided nothing that can be examined otherwise.

Reid was wrong when he said it wasn't a filibuster, because Cruz met the requirements of doing so.

If there were reason to budge, or agree, I would do so, and have done so for other posters.

Try coming back to reality for a moment, and look at the actual definition that you grossly overlooked.

I looked at the definition....

By your definition all freaking congressman filibuster(without speaking) every time they go home for the damn night.

Lol no.

You seriously ignored half of the definition, to simply apply faulty logic.

I posted the definition of a Filibuster, which included intentionally delaying the decision by reason of talking it to a standstill.

But nice job ignoring reality yet again, because that is *not* my definition, but the applied definition to Politics.

Thank you for doing my research for me. I will use your own definitions against you if you want to insist on this.

-------------------

He didn't accomplish this, nor was it EVER his goal to do so.

By all means. Go for it, because as I said, they are not *my* definitions, but those used by politics and politicians.

You still haven't even addressed the points you were blatantly wrong about, because you can't, and there is nothing to stand on that would allow you to do so in a reasonable argument.

Hell, you can't even use SEMANTICS to argue against it.

you are the one using semantics not me.

You are saying he has a filibuster because the Majority Leader changed the vote by a day or so.

No, you are saying because it was changed by a day or so, it doesn't constitute a filibuster.

What I am saying, is because he caused a delay by speaking at length, is that he created the requirements that ultimately ended up in the use of a filibuster.

You are under the illusion that because Reid said it wasn't, that it isn't. Truth is, it is a filibuster, and I explained why it is.

You have yet to address any of the points that prove this, let alone anything you were so sorely incorrect about.

I'm not using semantics, because I am using the term in the way it was defined - I'm not giving it any new definitions, nor is it *my* definition, as you are trying to portray.

Ok fine, let's do this your way. As long as we can agree that what you say was the only thing that gives it the qualification(that he forced a delay on the vote) His passionate speech did nothing to actually affect the vote itself(other than being 'delayed'). As far as his speech affecting the vote... maybe, just maybe, it inspired certain members.

Bottomline: he had nothing to do with the 'government shutdown'

Are we still arguing over whether or not it was a filibuster?

apparently you do, or you wouldn't have wasted your time replying^^


*** and no that argument had just ended before you posted

My argument wasn't about whether or not he affected, or had any involvement with the government shutdown.

But I will address this: The reason you fail to see me budging on certain issues, is that most of the time, the other side can not provide info, *or* a reasonable discussion, or interpretation of the information they do provide, that could persuade me to think my stance or thought on the issue could be swayed to think differently, or they ignore every counter-point made that destroys their argument.

Hoo boy. I'm a conservative like you and you're still going to get on my nerves; I can tell already.

Uh, he was a member of congress. You cannot say he had "nothing" to do with it, especially when he's considered a leader in the TP branch of the Republican Party, even if you're refusing to place any direct fault on him.


Lolwut? He talked about food and what bedtime stories he reads to his kids. It was the weakest "not filibuster" in history.

Sorry Rav, you're nothing like him.

You present, and address points that are made, in a reasonable manner.

My point is this: You get stuff on technicality.. and o.k. technicality is all it takes, so in that case you are right.

I see what he did as a passionate speech, not a filibuster(though as you have proved it is indeed a filibuster) I just do not see the objective of what he did to be what you say. He just wanted to get up and speak before it was passed, he knew nothing he did would stop it, so it was merely symbolic.

Thanks. I'm in a mood, though. Gotta watch myself before I say something stupid.

burn..... i had just come to agree with you bloodrose.. that was cold..

why? /sadface

I could be wrong. Everybody annoys me when I'm sleep-deprived. Back to the topic, I think Cruz is going to take some heavy hits due to his early announcement. I'm not sure it was a good strategy to be first.

Confirmation bias and ignorance of procedure :< Why are you arguing this again?

He would take heavy hits either way. So that is a poor excuse^^

Like you are going to invest in lottery tickets !

The origin of this debate was about him being responsible for the government shutdown as alot of naive people claim(some, but not alot on this site)

The only way he could be 'responsible' for it, is if his 'filibuster' caused it.. which it did not.

And ok, I take back something I said earlier.. that he had 'nothing' to do with it.. I admit that was too strong a word.. he is indeed a member of the senate, so he did indeed vote on it.

What is a poor excuse? I didn't make an excuse.

I couldn't think of a better word to use, sorry. I was talking about you saying he should not have come out early BECAUSE he would take heavy hits. I am saying he would take hits anyway, so coming out early does not change that.

-----
why i adore Ted Cruz.....

Everyone complains that republicans wan't to repeal Obamacare without having a plan to replace it with...

He has a plan...

Mass graves?

The plan is Republicare.