Liberal Forum

1. Republicans won elections in 2010 and 2012.2. They won control of the house in 2010 and maintained that control in 2012.3. The constitution gives the President control of the military and control of the executive branch. The senate has the power to advise and consent on executive appointments, represent the interest of their states, etc. And the house has the power of the purse. All spending and revenue generating bills are supposed to start in the house. It is called seperation of powers and was done deliberately.4. There are two types of bills. An authorization bill which gives the authority for a program or department. The other is an appropriations bill which funds a department or program. Two separate bills with two separate votes. Just because a bill was authorized does not mean, in theory, it will be funded. Keep in mind things like immigration with Reagan and bush. Sure, many things were AUTHORIZED, but they were not funded.5. So your spiel about winning is inaccurate. They have own elections. And those elections have consequences. As a matter of fact the 2010 election were historic. A complete overturn in the house. 680 or so state legislative seats. 30 or so governor seats. A complete turn around in the amount of state legislatures controlled by repubs and in states where they control all 3. 6. Those elections are direct democratic votes where majority wins. The presidential election is not. So it seems the conservatives can win elections.Actually in the last election, more people voted for Democrats in the House than for Republicans, but thanks to gerrymandering there are very few swing districts left.I stand by my statement.You don't get to repeal a law if you only control 1/2 of 1/3 of the government.You change a law by winning elections and taking control of the legislature and the White House.

Actually in the last election, more people voted for Democrats in the House than for Republicans, but thanks to gerrymandering there are very few swing districts left.I stand by my statement.You don't get to repeal a law if you only control 1/2 of 1/3 of the government.You change a law by winning elections and taking control of the legislature and the White House. 1. Gerry meandering? You guys are all on the same page aren't you. Fortunately, districts control that vote. So your excuse is Gerry meandering? Explain the historic 2010 vote prior to the census. 2. I stand by my statement, the house controls the purse, that is constitutionally mandated. 3. The republicans won the house, if you want appropriations bills passed your team has to win the house,

1. Gerry meandering? You guys are all on the same page aren't you. Fortunately, districts control that vote. So your excuse is Gerry meandering? Explain the historic 2010 vote prior to the census. 2. I stand by my statement, the house controls the purse, that is constitutionally mandated. 3. The republicans won the house, if you want appropriations bills passed your team has to win the house,It's not gerrymeandering, it's gerrymandering.Although many district lines do seem to follow a winding course. LOLIn 1998 there were 164 swing districts.There are currently only about 90.It seems like voters don't get to choose their reps any more, the reps are choosing their voters.The republicans won the house, if you want appropriations bills passed your team has to win the houseAnd those bills still have to pass the Senate and be signed by the President.The House does not get to decide how much or what gets appropriated on their own.Republicans put what they knew was a poison pill into the CR.It would be like the Senate attaching gun control legislation to their budget.That would be a non-starter to Republicans.Explain the historic 2010 vote prior to the census.For one thing the sitting President's party usually loses seats in a midterm election.The rest was attributed to the continued economic recession, as well as President Obama's controversial stimulus and health care reform bills.

I stand by my post. I like your last answer, yup, the republicans won elections to overturn unpopular spending programs. And they won the house that controls the purse, Ps. If you wish to nitpick spelling errors I suggest you carefully check every single post you make.

I stand by my statement. You don't get to repeal a law if you only control 1/2 of 1/3 of the government. The government wasn't shut down by Democrats for "repealing" anything. There was a one-year delay of two parts. You change a law by winning elections and taking control of the legislature and the White House. Count on it.

I stand by my post.I like your last answer, yup, the republicans won elections to overturn unpopular spending programs. And they won the house that controls the purse,Once again, you don't seem to understand how things work.The House drafts funding legislation, which then gets reported to the Senate, then they work together to come up with something they agree on and it goes to the President for his signature.Ps. If you wish to nitpick spelling errors I suggest you carefully check every single post you make.Sorry. I just thought the whole 'meander' thing was funny considering how districts are drawn.

I completely understand how things work. Shall I post the section of the constitution to you? Maybe you can show me exactly where it states the house is supposed to be subservient to the executive branch and the senate? I missed that part. As far as how things work I will also point out we are not a democracy. We are a representative republic. Federal law is not drafted on the will of the mob. It is drafted by the representatives of the constituents who put them there. And that is what the house is doing. They were sent to Washington with a purpose. And they are following it. As far as the meandering thing I offer my apology for a snarky reply. It is funny.

I'm sure you do that a lot at very inappropriate times, and for no particular reason.You must be such an embarassment to your family.Actually - no - I don't - I don't know what gave you that idea - bimbo...you know nothing about my family, yet express unsubstantiated drivel about them. Here - let me give you an easier way to achieve the same level of stupidity...

the republicans won elections to overturn unpopular spending programs. And they won the house that controls the purse, Once again, you don't seem to understand how things work. The House drafts funding legislation, which then gets reported to the Senate, then they work together to come up with something they agree on and it goes to the President for his signature. "How things work" is that the House has four times passed full funding for the entire government, with two delays in the collapsing Obamacare fiasco in those bills. Given that Obama himself has illegally delayed parts of his own bill, it's obvious that Democrats are keeping the government shut down for political gain.

I completely understand how things work. Shall I post the section of the constitution to you? Maybe you can show me exactly where it states the house is supposed to be subservient to the executive branch and the senate? I missed that part.I never said they were subservient. I merely pointed out that the House in and of itself cannot pass any bills into law.You made it sound like they can.As far as how things work I will also point out we are not a democracy. We are a representative republic. Federal law is not drafted on the will of the mob.It is drafted by the representatives of the constituents who put them there. And that is what the house is doing. They were sent to Washington with a purpose. And they are following it.One could say the same for the Senate and the President.They were also sent to Washington with a purpose.I find it curious how the House Tea Party Republicans seem to think they speak for all Americans.They don't. They only speak for their districts.

I never said they were subservient. I merely pointed out that the House in and of itself cannot pass any bills into law.You made it sound like they can.One could say the same for the Senate and the President.They were also sent to Washington with a purpose.I find it curious how the House Tea Party Republicans seem to think they speak for all Americans.They don't. They only speak for their districts. I had no intention of making it sound that way, I simply pointed out that the constitution gives specific powers to each body. Do you know why? The house got the power of the purse because they are the most direct link to the people. The senate is/was supposed to represent the states interests that they were appointed and then later, elected from. That is why they get things like advise and consent. Yes the house republicans speak for the districts that elected them. There just happens to be more of them this time around. The system is working exactly as advertised.

I find it curious how the House Tea Party Republicans seem to think they speak for all Americans. They don't. They only speak for their districts. They stand for the Principles of small government on which the country was founded and for the Constitution. Neither of which the liberal-left does.

Yes the house republicans speak for the districts that elected them. There just happens to be more of them this time around.And you don't think that gerrymandering has anything at all to do with that?In the last House election Democrats got 54,301,095 votes while Republicans got 53,822,442.What saved the Republican majority wasn't the will of the people but the power of redistricting.

And you don't think that gerrymandering has anything at all to do with that?In the last House election Democrats got 54,301,095 votes while Republicans got 53,822,442.What saved the Republican majority wasn't the will of the people but the power of redistricting.First, there are too many factors. District size for one. Hell, a democrat in Brooklyn can and will get a hell of a lot more votes than a republican in VA. And could still lose. So no, that proves nothing. Hell, that isn't even 500,000 votes nation wide.God, you guys throw out that line that elections have consequences. Well yes, they do. Apparently you only believe that when you win.I had no intention of making it sound that way, I simply pointed out that the constitution gives specific powers to each body. Do you know why? The house got the power of the purse because they are the most direct link to the people. The senate is/was supposed to represent the states interests that they were appointed and then later, elected from. That is why they get things like advise and consent.Yes the house republicans speak for the districts that elected them. There just happens to be more of them this time around. The system is working exactly as advertised.

Smileys, emoticons and Gifs don't seem to be moving on my computer.I downloaded the latest version of Adobe Flash Player.I'm stumped.

As usual, not one single word from little Miss Marxist in response to this post of substance. Misty, on 04 Oct 2013 - 17:04, said: I find it curious how the House Tea Party Republicans seem to think they speak for all Americans. They don't. They only speak for their districts. They stand for the Principles of small government on which the country was founded and for the Constitution. Neither of which the liberal-left does.

As usual, not one single word from little Miss Marxist in response to this post of substance.At least she didn't call them "tea baggers" like so many other assholes on this forum....uh...even though she's till wrong...

And you don't think that gerrymandering has anything at all to do with that?Probably no more than the suppression of T.E.A. party campaign groups by the IRS that helped Slow get reelected.T!t for Tat, girlie.

As usual, not one single word from little Miss Marxist in response to this post of substance. At least she didn't call them "tea baggers" like so many other assholes on this forum....uh...even though she's till wrong... She has tried to smear them as racist and compared them to the KKK. Just one more example of her deeply ugly character.

Smileys, emoticons and Gifs don't seem to be moving on my computer. I downloaded the latest version of Adobe Flash Player. I'm stumped. Oh wow, a real tragedy. Meanwhile, stunning details about the Obamcare disaster emerge. 11,588,500 Words: Obamacare Regs 30X Longer Than Law... Bureaucracies in the Obama Administration have thus far published approximately 11,588,500 words of final Obamacare regulations, while there are only 381,517 words in the Obamacare law itself.That means unelected federal officials have now written 30 words of regulations for each word in the law. http://www.cnsnews.c...g-obamacare-law