Your argument was regarding the 2009 fiscal year. Since when was 2008 under Bush ever an issue, since Obama wasn't sworn in till January of 2009? Terrible arguments?? Why don't you actually stick to one instead of hopping and flopping all over the place.
You are throwing a fit about the 2009 fiscal budget, which if you bothered reading what I cited, was written by the Democratic Congress and passed almost unanimously by Democrats, then signed by Bush in mid 2008. I don't have the time to give you a complete education on government, for that I'd suggest a class since you know so little, and evidently Google and Wiki can't teach you fast enough.
If that to you is all over the place, I'd suggest popping a Ritalin and/or Xanax so you can calm down and focus.
Passive-Agressive?? I don't think anyone would characterize me as passive in my aggression against the stupidity of your arguments. I know you're a tea-bagger you don't have to hide behind your sarcasm to make it evident, some truths, such as your 'baggerness are self-evident....and we hold this truth as such.
Nope, no teabagger here. I know, however, being wrong won't stop you from perpetuating myths, and I also know that disagreeing with you leads to you throwing a hissy fit.
You're out to lunch on the supermajority argument as well. Did you look into what was happening for those 6 months? And what they were focusing on with the brief time they actually had that majority in play??
Like I said, Republicans didn't even need a supermajority during Bush's term to get done the things they wanted. Maybe you won't fault Democrats for not taking advantage of their opportunities, or, well, faulting them for anything else, but I love reading these excuses like Democrats needed a plurality of sorts in order to get anything done because the evil minority Republicans were in their way. They got their 2009 fiscal year budget which Bush signed, oh wait, Bush's fault.
Oh wait, Obama, having 8 months into fiscal year 2009, to Bush's 3, decided to spend all of what Bush (and especially his own party's Congress) appropriated, then spend more, oh wait, Bush's fault.
Sen. Franken wasn't sworn in until July 8th, 2009 because the Republicans tied him up for nearly 8 months in recounts and delays. Only then, July 8th, did the Dems have 60 seats, needed for a 'super-majority'.
6 weeks later Sen. Kennedy died, but that doesn't matter because the Senate was in Summer Recess from August 8th to September 7th.
So, the 'super-majority' was technically intact for about 4 weeks in that period....as Sen. Kennedy was dying while battling cancer.
A replacement for Kennedy was appointed on September 25th, 2009, when Sen. Kirk was appointed as a seat filler for approx. 4 months....while an election was going on, which ended the 'fillibuster-proof' super-majority.
In that time, the Dems used the super-majority to get Obama's signature 1st year program passed even while facing every procedural obstruction the Republicans could throw at them, to finally get the bill passed on Christmas Eve, which was barely enough time to get the biggest health care legislation passed in American history, in generations.
Keep swinging that knife 'bagger, eventually you'll cut your own throat.
Or maybe you'll make enough excuses for Democrats that you'll back yourself off a cliff? You are doing some serious backflips and playing dumb to boot.
Waiting for something more innovative than calling me a teabagger.
Edited by zaibatsu, 16 August 2012 - 11:55 AM.