|
|
 |
|
|
|
#1
12-11-2010, 11:53 AM
|
||||
|
||||
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 
|
|
#2
12-11-2010, 07:04 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
 
__________________
“To compel a man to furnish funds for the propagation of ideas he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.” Thomas Jefferson
|
|
#4
12-12-2010, 02:34 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.
|
|
#5
12-12-2010, 08:41 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
|
|
#6
12-12-2010, 10:13 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
|
#7
12-12-2010, 10:55 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
don't get me wrong, i am in no way defending the republicans actions. i just think it's ironic that only now is the filibuster viewed as an evil...but when the other party uses it, it's a necessary tool-depending on one's point of view of course. me, i think they all suck, and would never depend on one side or the other to attempt anything trully meaningful or to put their constituents first. they are in it for themselves and the party. nor do i trust them at all, as all pols are cut from the same cloth. just some are on one side of the debate, and the others are on the other side. it would be like thinking a chevy salesman is taking care of the customer, while the ford salesman is not-or vice versa. the salesman, or pol, isn't in it for the customer/taxpayer. they'll tell you what they think you want to here, in order to sell you their product. but since some are convinced that the dems really, truly want to tackle how to fix the filibuster....could you tell me why they're going to do that now, as opposed to sitting on their hands in that regard the last two years? i haven't seen anyone address that point yet.
__________________
Books serve to show a man that those original thoughts of his aren't very new at all. Abraham Lincoln
|
|
#8
12-12-2010, 02:27 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
 Why do you keep misstating "no longer allowed"? Nobody, including me, including the Dems in news on the subject, ever said the filibuster would be eliminated. I've even posted - several times - what changes are being discussed. None are elimination.Quote:
The filibuster an in-house-decided parliamentary rules thing that is established, lead by the majority party, opening day of each Senate. And they certainly do intend to change it, due to record historical obstruction by the GOP in the last 2-4 years. Quote:
__________________
"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 02:37 PM.
|
|
#9
12-12-2010, 02:31 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 02:41 PM.
|
|
#10
12-12-2010, 02:42 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
|
|
#11
12-12-2010, 02:48 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/0..._n_453223.html
http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/can...r-should-they/ The other side of the coin, of course, is that the filibuster rule has withstood previous challenges because both the majority and the minority recognize that the tables can turn very easily, and that they may want to use the procedural tools they now complain about when they are in the minority. Senate Democrats seemed to recognize that reality back in July when it became clear that they lacked the votes to eliminate the filibuster even with a caucus of 59 members:“It won’t happen,” said Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), who said she would “probably not” support an effort to lower the number of votes needed to cut off filibusters from 60 to 55 or lower. Sen. Daniel Akaka (D-Hawaii) echoed Feinstein: “I think we should retain the same policies that we have instead of lowering it. “I think it has been working,” he said. Sen. Mark Pryor (D-Ark.) said he recognizes his colleagues are frustrated over the failure to pass measures such as the Disclose Act, campaign legislation that fell three votes short of overcoming a Republican filibuster Tuesday. “I think as torturous as this place can be, the cloture rule and the filibuster is important to protect the rights of the minority,” he said. “My inclination is no.” Sen. Jon Tester, a freshman Democrat from Montana, disagrees with some of his classmates from more liberal states. “I think the bigger problem is getting people to work together,” he said. “It’s been 60 for a long, long time. I think we need to look to ourselves more than changing the rules.”
__________________
Books serve to show a man that those original thoughts of his aren't very new at all. Abraham Lincoln
|
|
#12
12-12-2010, 02:51 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
You don't accurately relay my "belief", however, by separating it starkly along party lines as you do. Yes, I actually do believe that some (yes, very few) politicians actually have their constituents interests at heart. Regardless of party. You think I was supporting Bernie Sanders beliefs as he was talking for 8 1/2 hours on the Senate floor? No (he's an independent who calls himself a Socialist) but I was darn proud that a 69-year-old man stood up on the Senate floor for 8 1/2 hours and relayed his opinion in a factual, intelligent, educational way. Even if I didn't agree with most of it. The GOP right now - I can't think of one politician in that party that puts constituents before Mitch McConnells political games, and unfortunately it looks like the Tea Baggers are already going right there with them. At least the ones in the Senate now are. Yes, I've watched the GOP change alot, and move far, far right over the past 10 years, and they are not the Grand Old Party of their past successes any more. The Republicans are in reality (have turned into) the party of big, dictatorial government who want to legislate to death what people can and cannot do and even think - even regarding religion and their own bodies! They tolerate no dissent from their views. They have a religious view they want incorporated into our government. They have a clearly more aggressive, nasty and violent rhetoric. They are intolerant of differences in religion, skin color, social mores, etc. They clearly and repeatedly show they think they should not be subject to the laws of the poor common man, and that the richest and most elite of the country are who they serve. Think about that for a while. Reagan wouldn't even recognize this GOP (and that's also according to Ron Reagan, Jr., he's writing a book about his father, placing his Presidency in context with the current incarnation of the GOP)
__________________
"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 03:02 PM.
|
|
#13
12-12-2010, 04:18 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
your second and fourth paragraphs are pretty interesting imo. you accuse me in the second of going along stark party lines, which is laughable since i lump them all pretty much into one broad category-useless. i have no use, no liking, for either party. two sides of the same coin. are there a couple bright spots, bright moments? sure, and then the party puts them back in line. you then, in your fourth paragraph, engage in the very behavior you attempt to take me to task for. i don't like either party, trust neither, and feel both do everything in their power to take care of their party first, the country third, after themselves of course being second. hell, maybe the country is fourth, with their lobbyists and special interests coming third. matter of fact, just the other day you agreed with me that the system was broken. of course you then only played blame one party for us being in the dire straits we're in. it's funny, once upon a time you most likely poured the same scorn on the dems that you now reserve for the reps. do you really feel that one is any better than the other? really? i have faith in my fellow man, i have none in the two parties. i'm in agreement with folks such as geo. washington and james monroe on that score. obama, newt, pelosi, palin, are dim bulbs compared to the luminaries this country once had in power.
__________________
Books serve to show a man that those original thoughts of his aren't very new at all. Abraham Lincoln
|
glad to see you're consistent.
Hybrid Mode
