|
|
 |
|
|
|
#1
12-10-2010, 01:03 PM
|
||||
|
||||
Democrats have turned it on the GOP
The Democrats have turned the tables on the GOP, and Bernie Sanders is up there on the Senate floor, actually holding the floor and talking ... C-Span2 You go, Bernie. You even filibuster better than the GOP. At least you have the balls to actually hold the floor <g>
Update: He started at 10:30, and it's 3:30, five hours, and the old guy is still going. Good for him <g>
__________________
"Have the clean racing people run any ads explaining that giving a horse a Starbucks and a chocolate poppyseed muffin for breakfast would likely result in a ten year suspension for the trainer?" - Dr. Andrew Roberts Last edited by Riot : 12-10-2010 at 03:35 PM. 
|
|
#2
12-10-2010, 07:48 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
now, since it's the dems, filibustering is just peachy.  glad to see you're consistent.
__________________
Books serve to show a man that those original thoughts of his aren't very new at all. Abraham Lincoln
|
|
#3
12-11-2010, 12:53 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
The GOP filibusters to prevent bills from even coming to the floor for discussion by the Majority Leader. They file an "intent to filibuster", then go home. And "intent" forces the bill on the back burner until the majority can come up with 60 votes to even bring it to the floor. Takes at least a week. There is no standing on the floor and actually doing something, either. And then, if the bill ever gets brought to the floor for discussion, they block debate, and then they block the ability to vote on it - as they have done this week alone with DADT, the Dream Act, the military appropriations bill, etc. The GOP hasn't voted bills down. They have prevented the entire Senate from voting on bills. The GOP is simply obstructive jerks. Well, two can play that game, and the Dems are going to take away their parliamentary ability to do that. There will still be a filibuster, but the minority won't be able to hold the majority hostage, and circumvent the Constitution, anymore.
__________________
"Have the clean racing people run any ads explaining that giving a horse a Starbucks and a chocolate poppyseed muffin for breakfast would likely result in a ten year suspension for the trainer?" - Dr. Andrew Roberts
|
|
#4
12-11-2010, 08:04 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
 
__________________
“To compel a man to furnish funds for the propagation of ideas he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.” Thomas Jefferson
|
|
#6
12-12-2010, 03:34 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
Just because Riot said it doesn't make it untrue. You may be as tired of all this stuff as anyone, but I know for a fact personally that you're far from dimwitted enough to fail to understand the difference. Nascar? I'll give him a pass for lacking the basic function to see the difference. But you? Pretend Riot didn't say it. Then the difference is obvious. Doesn't make an ounce of difference or change in the long-run, but they're hardly the same thing as far as filibusters go.
|
|
#7
12-12-2010, 09:41 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
in terms of numbers, i already said there'd been a difference. what i find so amusing is the suggestion that the dems are actually going to attempt to make the filibuster no longer allowed. they don't have the numbers to do that come january. they didn't do it the last two years when they may have had the numbers. and the reps are stonewalling on everything right now because this is a lame-duck session, and they don't want something going thru now before the new house can tackle it.
and i know that the term 'filibuster' isn't mentioned in the constitution. i also know that the phrase 'separation of church and state' isn't in there either. nor is 'all men are created equal'. as for the dems truly wanting rid of the filibuster-why would they get rid of something they've made use of in the past, and may want to use again? i won't hold my breath waiting for that to happen. it's a convenient scapegoat to blame a party when something you want done doesn't happen.
__________________
Books serve to show a man that those original thoughts of his aren't very new at all. Abraham Lincoln
|
|
#8
12-12-2010, 03:31 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
We are talking about the minority party literally preventing the routine work of the Senate. Preventing items even being brought up on the floor. Blocking the ability to vote via unprecedented parliamentary wrangling. Blocking the Senate from even voting when clearly the will of the people is to vote a certain way, straw polls of the Senate indicate a vote will follow the will of the people with a clear majority, and the minority party doesn't like the way that vote will go. Obstructing the Senate from their routine business of making law, obstructing the discussion of issues they were all elected to discuss. You have one party that has figuratively put a lock on the Senate doors for the past two years (and even the two before), saying, "We lost the election, we don't like what the majority is going to do, so we simply will not allow the Senate to function normally"
__________________
"Have the clean racing people run any ads explaining that giving a horse a Starbucks and a chocolate poppyseed muffin for breakfast would likely result in a ten year suspension for the trainer?" - Dr. Andrew Roberts Last edited by Riot : 12-12-2010 at 03:41 PM.
|
|
#9
12-12-2010, 03:42 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
all i'm really saying is don't hold your breath expecting the rules to change. my biggest issue with you on this and various subjects is that you actually believe in the democratic party. the reps let you down, so now you're pinning your hopes on the dems. guess what they're going to do?
one take on the filibuster being changed: http://www.newsmax.com/InsideCover/D...0/01/id/372258 or this:http://www.bestoftheblogs.com/Home/34969 note the last paragraph. do i like a complete standstill? no. i didn't like it when dems filibustered every nominee back when they were the minority, and i don't like the reps hamstringing every thing coming down the pike either. on the other hand, trading an unemployment extension for continued tax breaks are the kinds of things that absolutely should occur. our first leaders came to agreement thru compromise on a bicameral legislation, with a house based on population, and a senate with two members per state. that didn't just happen out of thin air. the compromise on the first national debt (hamiltons baby) with a trade of having the capital in the 'south' rather than in new york or philly. i know most people probably think that all the founders were in absolute agreement on everything, and that ben franklins lightning rod created george washington and our form of govt. that we won the war, wrote and agreed on the constitution and evrything was just peachy. that's not the case. there have been big egos and bipartisan fights since the get-go. the only difference is how those arguments and wants/needs get ironed out. why anyone thinks either party will vote for changes they'd have to live under in the future is beyond me.
__________________
Books serve to show a man that those original thoughts of his aren't very new at all. Abraham Lincoln
|
Hybrid Mode
