The Levee's Gonna BreakFollow

Well, americanprogress.org is clearly an objective source, right? Lol!


Of counting? Yes, I'd imagine so. Seems it would be trivially easy to dispute the numerical values in question that make this, once again, the most obstructionist opposition in history. Which was the point in question, correct?

Not an explanation for why that hinges on Obama as a mustachioed villain plotting his long term political gain by nominating communist party members and NAMBLA founders with full knowledge they could never be confirmed. I'll ignore that part of your post.

Incidentally, this is just appointments, the numbers on actual legislation are far worse, and again, just math. The whole debt ceiling nonsense, etc. etc. It's provable and easily so that this opposition is the most obstructionist....ever. If you'd like to agree that the current opposition's entire strategy is not to govern at all and to oppose all attempts to, but then rationalize why that's a good idea, that's fine.

If you want to argue against something that's simple to prove and factually based, I'm afraid you're going to have to provide the same hallucinogenics you're currently using to the rest of us.

Then why is it that I have to continually explain to Joph that he's completely wrong about what my position is and why I hold it?

You don't.

He's not.

You play pretend after the fact. Transparently. I'm not sure why. No one, I mean ABSOLUTELY no one, believes anything but that you (poorly) attempt to adjust positions that appear hypocritical with logical fallacies children would laugh at.

There's no mystery. You're not confused or befuddled why anyone would think you're a hypocrite. No one is, it's because you're a hypocrite. I'm certain you know this. The pathology of the disorder that makes it impossible to acknowledge it is something else, entirely. I don't know enough about your particular mental illness to diagnose there.

Yes. Wonderful. I'm sure the folks at the website in question can count. You'll note that unfortunately for your little strawman, my response had nothing to do with counting, and not even with counting the numbers of blocked appointments, but had everything to do with there being an explanation for why Obama has had so many of his appointments blocked other than "The GOP are just a bunch of poopyheads!".

But heaven forbid you actually address the key issue of *why* he has such an abysmal confirmation rate. That's just crazy talk. I mean, it's not like it's not the presidents job to work with congress to get his nominations passed or anything, so it's not like a low rate can reasonable be said to be the fault of said president and his staff or anything. Oh wait! Both of those things are true!

Are they?

Can you please list the judicial nominees that have been blocked that were unreasonable and why? Maybe I missed it and they really shouldn't have been nominated. I mean these should be obvious flaws, right, that could easily have been found and then used to avoid these nominations, correct? It should be obvious that your argument isn't particularly compelling at the moment with it's complete and utter lack of any non abstract information. Please provide the names and reasons so that we can all come around to the point of view you've taken here. Given your certainty, I'm sure it won't take long. Just kidding. Let's just both pretend I didn't ask.

I know gbaji doesn't get his news from anywhere, so he's probably not aware that the GOP has instituted a policy since Obama's first election to flat out block anything he does.

I love this post, and it's pretty much all I hear in my head whenever reading a Gbaji post since I came to this forum.

Because dragons.

Really, once you break it down that way, it suddenly all becomes so clear.

Except for all the stuff that they didn't block though, right? So why some and not all? Clearly you're missing something here and things aren't as bumper sticker simple as you're making them out to be.

No. See, cause it's the guy claiming that the GOP has a "block everything Obama does" policy that has his head buried in the sand

If the GOP was simply blanketly filibustering every single Obama appointment, that number would be zero, right? It's not. Therefor, they aren't just blocking every appointment Obama attempts, are they? I mean, heaven forbid we actually use facts to support our claims. That would be crazy!

All that stuff they didn't block, like anything defense related. I can't imagine why they didn't block that stuff...

Or maybe it's just a hint that it's just not true where just matters of justice are justly concerned, and the GOP would find it hard to justify just saying no again and again to a bunch of justice candidates that are just great.

That link doesn't really contradict what I said, but if it makes you feel warm and fuzzy on the inside you go right ahead with your usual missing the point shtick.

I read it twice.

Given that what you said was posted after (and presumably in response to) the link I posted, then it's not really about whether there's a contradiction, but whether your post addresses at all what was in the link. It doesn't. Cause the link was about a large number of successful judicial appointments, and you responded with some garbage about the GOP not blocking defense related stuff.

That may very well be true as well, but that's not really the issue, nor does it address at all what I posted.

See, the real problem is that people think they know what other people mean when they say things, and they don't actually know what those people mean when they say those things.

At least, some people don't.

Know what I mean?