Quote (ChrisKz @ Oct 20 2014 08:09pm)
senate works very similarly to how the house works..... ..... ........................
No, it doesn't. The two chambers are honestly more different than they are similar in regards to how they procedurally operate.
That is simply a fact based on how each chamber has changed throughout history.
Quote (Thor123422 @ Oct 20 2014 10:59am)
I'm not going any route, I'm stating a fact that being on his desk doesn't mean being obstructed by him... and you can make up euphamisms to defend the republicans and confirm what I've been saying (fake libertarian, jump through hoops to defend Republicans) all you want, or you can read the statement.
At any rate it was rated half true for the sake of placing blame on both parties for obstructionism, else it would have just been rated false. I have a feeling it should be close to 80% false to reflect who's actually doing the obstruction as half-true is just more false equivilance bullshit.
Don't waste time trying to make sense of Politifact. When you've got shitty researchers, you get a shitty product.
Quote (Santara @ Oct 20 2014 04:48pm)
Don't know? But I thought you were such a INFORMED individual. But still, you did touch on it with your false equivalency bullshit in the bold. It's false because in the four instances you noted, a nuclear option was only threatened, not acted upon, like Dingy Harry did. Since he followed through, it's only common sense that retaliation via one of the few avenues left - denial of unanimous consent - is in order.
Obviously I'm informed of things that actually matter, in this case inarguable legislative history and Congressional record, and not whatever bubble-babble fantasy that you're pushing at any given moment that flies directly in the face of basic, agreed-upon facts.
And, no, your characterization of those examples is
completely untrue. Stupid or uninformed people might buy that bullshit because they don't know any better but you're obviously just wasting your time by trying to pass off a patent lie on me. And once again there's the nagging fact that can't be ignored, that no one (who expects to be taken seriously, at least) could credibly claim that
any action taken in 2013 could be used to justify behavior that predated it by 7 years and that persisted for the duration of that time.
This post was edited by Pollster on Oct 20 2014 09:26pm