DADT possible vote tonight!

[Danzig]

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.

[brianwspencer]

Originally Posted by Danzig

what i find so amusing is the suggestion that the dems are actually going to attempt to make the filibuster no longer allowed.

Of course not.

Originally Posted by Danzig

it's a convenient scapegoat to blame a party when something you want done doesn't happen.

I also don't think that it's necessarily scapegoating to point out obstructionism on a HUGE scale, compared to what it's historically been used for.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by brianwspencer

Of course not.



I also don't think that it's necessarily scapegoating to point out obstructionism on a HUGE scale, compared to what it's historically been used for.

it's a convenient excuse for failure to act by both sides. yet, when there's something both sides want, they somehow make a deal-such as unemployment extensions in exchange for continued tax breaks.

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.

[brianwspencer]

Originally Posted by Danzig

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.

I learn this more and more every year.

[Danzig]

i expect nothing from any of them. i'd rather be surprised than disappointed.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Danzig

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.

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.

they don't have the numbers to do that come january.

They most certainly do have the numbers. The filibuster is a Senate only thing, (it has nothing at all to do with the House) the Dems hold the majority of the Senate, plus the Vice Presidency.

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.

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.

Actually, I have, twice, but you've ignored it. The filibuster can only be changed on opening day of the Senate when parliamentary rules are established. It cannot be changed sometime during the two years. Yes, it was heavily discussed 2 years ago (changing the rules), but the Dems, being who they are, figured the GOP would not be able to be so obstructive with the Dem majority. They were wrong. The GOP got worse.