|
|
 |
|
#101
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. 
|
|
#102
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.
|
|
#103
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
|
|
#104
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
|
|
#105
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.
|
|
#106
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
|
|
#107
12-12-2010, 08:13 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Danzig --
The best part of your last several posts was when you posted a link to Newsmax. LOL, that's like quoting WorldNet Daily as a news source. I'm not saying that any of the info in that particular article was way off base (perhaps a first for Newsmax, I'll have to look into it), but if people give Riot sh*t for quoting liberal sites, you should get the same for quoting the conservative equivalent of Huffington Post on the greatest steroids on the planet 
|
|
#108
12-12-2010, 09:08 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
Well, I don't happen to, "believe in the democratic party". Now you say you don't like any party. Good for you. So I must assume you have an issue with anybody who supports anybody in one of the political parties? You've ignored all I said about crossing party lines. You keep bringing it back to separate parties. Better to have an issue with the "issues", and not with the "people". Yes, I do blame the current GOP for obstructing this country attempting to move forward out of this recession. I've watched politics for decades, I've supported the GOP for decades, I've given lots of money to the GOP over time, and this is a pretty disgusting stand the GOP in it's current incarnation has taken. As far as I am concerned, the GOP is up against a policy wall, embracing the extremist right wings of the party, that is killing the party. This wing has always been there, but it's never run the party (even though it's tried before in the 60's and 70's). I want nothing to do with the GOP in this incarnation. Quite happy to support a non-GOP politician and hope they do better. I have no apologies at all for my political views. I have no apologies for supporting a candidate of my choice from any party. If you don't believe in supporting any politician of any party, fine. In contrast, I do. We have a political system and I think it can work. I find some political individuals quite worth supporting.
__________________
"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 09:21 PM.
|
|
#110
12-12-2010, 10:10 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
and yes, i do absolutely have a problem with both parties right now. they both have good ideas, and bad ideas-but no one seems to really want to budge on anything, as no one wants to lose any power. it would be nice if the country would be put first, rather than worrying about election and poll results. i'm not holding my breath for that. another reason i support neither party is i don't agree with either of them enough to do so. i'd imagine most 'middle grounders' are the same way. i voted for some dems and some reps the last election. as many as i can remember having voted in actually.
__________________
Books serve to show a man that those original thoughts of his aren't very new at all. Abraham Lincoln
|
|
#111
12-13-2010, 07:11 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
__________________
Quote:
|
|
#112
12-13-2010, 10:45 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
|
|
#113
12-13-2010, 12:29 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
I'm talking about the two times Newt Gingrich shut down the government. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_...utdown_of_1995 In addition to that, ethically and morally Newton is unelectable. He's a serial adulterer, aside from being an alchoholic. Newt committed adultery with younger women while his wives were ill - he did that to wife number 1 and wife number 2 - and he's on wife number 3 now.
__________________
"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
|
|
#114
12-13-2010, 01:00 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Vote on Tax Cut bill this afternoon
For political junkies, the Senate is scheduled to vote on the tax cut bill this afternoon www.cspan.com live on C-Span 2
__________________
"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
|
Linear Mode
