PDA

View Full Version : GOP on pace to 3x the all time record of Senate obstruction...


jAZ
07-21-2007, 03:16 PM
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/homepage/v-print/story/18218.html

Posted on Fri, Jul. 20, 2007

Senate tied in knots by filibusters
Margaret Talev | McClatchy Newspapers
last updated: July 20, 2007 03:43:22 PM

WASHINGTON — This year Senate Republicans are threatening filibusters to block more legislation than ever before, a pattern that's rooted in — and could increase — the pettiness and dysfunction in Congress.

The trend has been evolving for 30 years. The reasons behind it are too complex to pin on one party. But it has been especially pronounced since the Democrats' razor-thin win in last year's election, giving them effectively a 51-49 Senate majority, and the Republicans' exile to the minority.

Seven months into the current two-year term, the Senate has held 42 "cloture" votes aimed at shutting off extended debate — filibusters, or sometimes only the threat of one — and moving to up-or-down votes on contested legislation. Under Senate rules that protect a minority's right to debate, these votes require a 60-vote supermajority in the 100-member Senate.

Democrats have trouble mustering 60 votes; they've fallen short 22 times so far this year. That's largely why they haven't been able to deliver on their campaign promises.

By sinking a cloture vote this week, Republicans successfully blocked a Democratic bid to withdraw combat troops from Iraq by April, even though a 52-49 Senate majority voted to end debate.

This year Republicans also have blocked votes on immigration legislation, a no-confidence resolution for Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and major legislation dealing with energy, labor rights and prescription drugs.

Nearly 1 in 6 roll-call votes in the Senate this year have been cloture votes. If this pace of blocking legislation continues, this 110th Congress will be on track to roughly triple the previous record number of cloture votes — 58 each in the two Congresses from 1999-2002, according to the Senate Historical Office.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., forced an all-night session on the Iraq war this week to draw attention to what Democrats called Republican obstruction.

"The minority party has decided we have to get to 60 votes on almost everything we vote on of substance," said Sen. Claire McCaskill, D-Mo. "That's not the way this place is supposed to work."

Even Sen. Trent Lott, R-Miss., who's served in Congress since 1973, complained that "the Senate is spiraling into the ground to a degree that I have never seen before, and I've been here a long time. All modicum of courtesy is going out the window."

But many Republicans say the Senate's very design as a more deliberative body than the House of Representatives is meant to encourage supermajority deal-making. If Democrats worked harder to seek bipartisan deals, Republicans say, there wouldn't be so many cloture votes.

"You can't say that all we're going to do around here in the United States Senate is have us govern by 51 votes — otherwise we might as well be unicameral, because then we would have the Senate and the House exactly the same," said Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz.

To which Reid responds: "The problem we have is that we don't have many moderate Republicans. I don't know what we can do to create less cloture votes other than not file them, just walk away and say, 'We're not going to do anything.' That's the only alternative we have."

Some Republicans say that Reid forces cloture votes just so he complain that they're obstructing him.

Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., called the all-nighter on Iraq "meaningless, insulting" and "an indignity." "There is no doubt that there are not 67 votes present to override a veto. There is little doubt that there are not 60 votes present to bring the issue to a vote."

Republicans also say that Democrats are forgetting how routinely they threatened filibusters only a few years ago when they were the minority, especially to block many of President Bush's judicial nominees. Back then, Republicans were so mad that they considered trying to change Senate rules to eliminate filibusters — but didn't.

"The suggestion that it's somehow unusual in the Senate to have controversial matters decided by 60 votes is absurd on its face," said Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky.

Although this year's Congress is taking it to a new level, the frequency of cloture votes has been climbing for decades — the result of more polarized politics in Congress and also evolving Senate rules and practices.

Associate Senate Historian Don Ritchie said that since the nation's start, dissident senators have prolonged debate to try to kill or modify legislation. The word "filibuster" — a translation of the Dutch word for "free-booter" or pirate — appears in the record of an 1840s Senate dispute about a patronage job.

From Reconstruction to 1964, the filibuster was largely a tool used by segregationists to fight civil rights legislation. Even so, filibusters were employed only rarely; there were only three during the 88th Congress, which passed the landmark Civil Rights Act of 1964 after two months of filibustering.

Filibusters were infrequent partly because the Senate custom of civility prompted consideration of minority views — and partly because they were so hard to overcome that compromises were struck. In 1917 cloture rules for ending filibusters were put in place, but required a two-thirds vote — so high it was rarely tested.

Post-Watergate, in 1975, the bar was lowered to three-fifths, or 60 votes, and leaders began to try it more often.

By the early 1990s, tensions between then-Majority Leader George Mitchell of Maine and Minority Leader Bob Dole of Kansas upped the ante, and the filibuster-cloture spiral has soared ever since as more partisan politics prevailed. The use of filibusters became "basically a tool of the minority party," Ritchie said.

The current Senate has two other complications: the 51-49 Democratic majority, which includes a pro-war independent and an absent Democrat recuperating from brain surgery, makes it harder to find 60 votes. And the presidency and Congress are controlled by opposing parties, which increases confrontation.

The Senate "has always been a cumbersome and frustrating and slow body because that's what the Constitution wanted," Ritchie said. The new majority's decisions are: "How often are you willing to lose on these issues? Would you rather campaign on the other side being obstructionists? What's a tolerable compromise? They're still working these things out."

Republican Senate leader McConnell said Friday in a news conference that when he became minority leader, "it was not my goal to see us do nothing. I mean, you can always use the next election as a rationale for not doing anything. But as you all know, we've had a regularly scheduled election every two years since 1788, so there's always an election right around the corner."

"A divided government has frequently done important things: Social Security in the Reagan period, when (Democrat) Tip O'Neill was speaker; welfare reform when Bill Clinton was in the White House when there was a Republican Congress. There's no particular reason why divided government can't do important things. We haven't yet, but it's not too late.

"And I think clearly the way to accomplish things is in the political middle, and I would challenge our friends on the other side of the aisle to step up and take a chance on something big and important for our country."

Of course, Democrats say similar things — but then neither side often compromises.

jAZ
07-21-2007, 03:28 PM
Even Sen. Trent Lott, R-Miss., who's served in Congress since 1973, complained that "the Senate is spiraling into the ground to a degree that I have never seen before, and I've been here a long time. All modicum of courtesy is going out the window."

....

Republican Senate leader McConnell said Friday in a news conference that when he became minority leader, "it was not my goal to see us do nothing. I mean, you can always use the next election as a rationale for not doing anything. But as you all know, we've had a regularly scheduled election every two years since 1788, so there's always an election right around the corner."
Yeah... ok.

"The strategy of being obstructionist can work or fail ... so far it's working for us."

--- Senate Minority Whip Trent Lott (R-MS), April 18 Roll Call (http://www.rollcall.com/issues/52_110/news/18024-1.html)

Ugly Duck
07-21-2007, 04:58 PM
But jAZ.... aren't these the same people that were whining & crying about "obstructionism" and "every bill deserves an up or down vote?" Republicans pride themselves on standing on principle.... they would just adopt a 180 degree position in diametric opposition to a position they just recently espoused.... would they?

patteeu
07-21-2007, 05:32 PM
But jAZ.... aren't these the same people that were whining & crying about "obstructionism" and "every bill deserves an up or down vote?" Republicans pride themselves on standing on principle.... they would just adopt a 180 degree position in diametric opposition to a position they just recently espoused.... would they?

OTOH, aren't you guys the ones who cheered for these tactics just a few months ago and criticized those who complained about them?

Even more interesting to me: Aren't you guys the ones who said that Bush had a Republican Congress and therefore any failure to achieve success (e.g. Social Security reform, permanent tax cuts, a more conservative legislative record) was the fault of the Republicans even though they didn't have a filibuster-proof Senate?

Calcountry
07-21-2007, 05:47 PM
When the Democrats broke with hundred year old traditions of NOT fillibustering Judicial appointments, well you can pretty much kiss getting any phuquing thing done in the Senate goodbye short of a 60 vote supermajority.

Don't bother impeaching the President either, we don't even want to look at the evidence. Not Guilty. You need 2/3rds to convict.

Get over it.


Even Bush doesn't own us, we own him. It is us hard core conservatives that demolished that amnesty bill. It is us, principled conservatives, who WILL NOT vote for somebody just because the party votes for him, that is putting Thompson in play, and scaring the shiot out of the democrat intelligencia.

jAZ
07-21-2007, 05:54 PM
OTOH, aren't you guys the ones who cheered for these tactics just a few months ago and criticized those who complained about them?
Let's speak accurately about the contextual facts here...


The Republicans only had to have a cloture vote 4 times in the 4 last 4 years of GOP control of the Senate. In the first 6 months of the Dem control, there been 13 cloture votes. As for the judicial nominees, Dems only blocked the 10 most radical out of 200+.

The Dems in the House, by contrast, have passed 239 seperate pieces of legislation.

The Dems in the last 4 years didn't use a strategy of "obstruction". The Reps are admittedly doing just that.

When Trent Lott is the voice of reason in the Senate, things are way out of whack.

jAZ
07-21-2007, 05:55 PM
Even more interesting to me: Aren't you guys the ones who said that Bush had a Republican Congress and therefore any failure to achieve success (e.g. Social Security reform, permanent tax cuts, a more conservative legislative record) was the fault of the Republicans even though they didn't have a filibuster-proof Senate?
4 cloture votes in 4 years.

Calcountry
07-21-2007, 06:00 PM
Let's speak accurately about the contextual facts here...


The Republicans only had to have a cloture vote 4 times in the 4 last 4 years of GOP control of the Senate. In the first 6 months of the Dem control, there been 13 cloture votes. As for the judicial nominees, Dems only blocked the 10 most radical out of 200+.

The Dems in the House, by contrast, have passed 239 seperate pieces of legislation.

The Dems in the last 4 years didn't use a strategy of "obstruction". The Reps are admittedly doing just that.

When Trent Lott is the voice of reason in the Senate, things are way out of whack.We want to keep W from vetoing things.

So, even if we let it go through, he would veto it, so WTF? Why bother.

You can't get 60 votes, much less 67, so quit your bitching.

Game over, you got nothing in 06 but a bunch of headlines and a little pork and a lot of face time for the broad and the bum that is the head of your caucus'

ChiefaRoo
07-21-2007, 06:34 PM
Jiz congratulations on creating another completely worthless and trivial thread. What can you say? it must be a gift.

patteeu
07-21-2007, 07:01 PM
Let's speak accurately about the contextual facts here...


The Republicans only had to have a cloture vote 4 times in the 4 last 4 years of GOP control of the Senate. In the first 6 months of the Dem control, there been 13 cloture votes. As for the judicial nominees, Dems only blocked the 10 most radical out of 200+.

The Dems in the House, by contrast, have passed 239 seperate pieces of legislation.

The Dems in the last 4 years didn't use a strategy of "obstruction". The Reps are admittedly doing just that.

When Trent Lott is the voice of reason in the Senate, things are way out of whack.

These are truly meaningless statistics. Anyone who understands how Congress works knows that these guys have a pretty good understanding of how many votes any given proposal can generate and they frequently don't even bother to make proposals that they know they can't get 60 votes for unless they are making a political point. And if there are 60 votes for cloture, the only time it comes to a cloture vote is if someone in the minority wants to make a political point by threatening a filibuster. The bottom line is that the number of cloture votes doesn't tell us much about the minority's devotion to obstruction.

patteeu
07-21-2007, 07:03 PM
4 cloture votes in 4 years.

I can't tell whether you're a failure as a political wonk because you don't understand how the system works or if you are an ambitious spinmeister who thinks he can trick people into believing this is meaningful.

Logical
07-21-2007, 08:40 PM
"You can't say that all we're going to do around here in the United States Senate is have us govern by 51 votes — otherwise we might as well be unicameral, because then we would have the Senate and the House exactly the same," said Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz.

OK now I know McCain is senile, the number of Senators per state vs. the number of representatives per state is what makes them different.

wazu
07-21-2007, 11:52 PM
They wouldn't have to filibuster if the Democrats would stop coming up with so many shitty ideas.

Ugly Duck
07-22-2007, 12:03 AM
4 cloture votes in 4 years.

And what was that "nook-you-ler option" thing the Republicans were threatening to deploy?

Mr. Kotter
07-22-2007, 12:03 AM
They wouldn't have to filibuster if the Democrats would stop coming up with so many shitty ideas.


:clap:

LMAO

Logical
07-22-2007, 12:26 AM
They wouldn't have to filibuster if the Democrats would stop coming up with so many shitty ideas.I guess I would like to see a list of the shitty ideas. The only idea that I am aware of that is being consistently filibustered is the withdrawal of troops ideas. Those are good ideas.

penchief
07-22-2007, 06:54 AM
OTOH, aren't you guys the ones who cheered for these tactics just a few months ago and criticized those who complained about them?

Even more interesting to me: Aren't you guys the ones who said that Bush had a Republican Congress and therefore any failure to achieve success (e.g. Social Security reform, permanent tax cuts, a more conservative legislative record) was the fault of the Republicans even though they didn't have a filibuster-proof Senate?

Man, you're chronic denial is getting boring. Doesn't it strike you as grossly hypocritical for them to threaten the nuclear option to eliminate the fillibuster because "every vote deserves an up or down vote" and then turn around and use it more than the democrats ever did?

It's clear. The reason republicans get their way all the time is because they operate under a huge double standard. Republicans will do whatever is necessary (right or wrong, honest or dishonest, hypocritical or not), while dems are always sucking hind tit because they're too frickin' nice. Democrats simply aren't as willing to sink to the depths that the republican party does with regularity and indignance.

It doesn't matter what the people of this country want or what is right or wrong. Power is the only thing that matters to republicans. They are willing to go nuclear on everything. They are willing to be huge hypocrites.

I think the fillibuster has it's place. But these guys are ruthless. They have no sense of shame or fairness. When democrats were in, governmental transparency was the MOST important thing to republicans. Now that republicans are in, governmental secrecy is the most important thing.

IMO, to say that republicans don't operate under a gigantic double standard is to not have an ounce of objectivity.

Ugly Duck
07-22-2007, 08:41 AM
Doesn't it strike you as grossly hypocritical for them to threaten the nuclear option to eliminate the fillibuster because "every vote deserves an up or down vote" and then turn around and use it more than the democrats ever did?

Dood.... you're speaking to someone that is pleasantly surprised by the performance of GW Bush......

Dallas Chief
07-22-2007, 09:37 AM
Man, you're chronic denial is getting boring. Doesn't it strike you as grossly hypocritical for them to threaten the nuclear option to eliminate the fillibuster because "every vote deserves an up or down vote" and then turn around and use it more than the democrats ever did?

It's clear. The reason republicans get their way all the time is because they operate under a huge double standard. Republicans will do whatever is necessary, (right or wrong, honest or dishonest, hypocritical or not) while democrats are always sucking hind tit because they're too frickin' nice. Democrats simply aren't as willing to sink to the depths that the republican party does with regularity and indignance.
It doesn't matter what the people of this country want or what is right or wrong. Power is the only thing that matters to republicans. They are willing to go nuclear on everything. They are willing to be huge hypocrites.

I think the fillibuster has it's place. But these guys are ruthless. They have no sense of shame or fairness. When democrats were in, governmental transparency was the MOST important thing to republicans. Now that republicans are in, governmental secrecy is the most important thing.

IMO, to say that republicans don't operate under a gigantic double standard is to not have an ounce of objectivity.

That is the most incredibly naive thing i have read on here in a long time. I can't believe you actally said that. You don't really believe that, do you?

Adept Havelock
07-22-2007, 10:04 AM
We want to keep W from vetoing things.

So, even if we let it go through, he would veto it, so WTF? Why bother.

You can't get 60 votes, much less 67, so quit your bitching.

Game over, you got nothing in 06 but a bunch of headlines and a little pork and a lot of face time for the broad and the bum that is the head of your caucus'


Well, it certainly gave you a case of Sandy Vag to rival jAZ and Denise. Keep it up, it's very entertaining. ROFL

penchief
07-22-2007, 11:52 AM
That is the most incredibly naive thing i have read on here in a long time. I can't believe you actally said that. You don't really believe that, do you?

Did the democrats rail against the filibuster and want to permenantly eliminate it as one of our system's checks and balances just because they couldn't get their way?

No.

Have they ever done so is the manner that republicans did? By holding a gun to the head of the senate and the American people and threatening to consolodate power even more by eroding those checks and balances even more?

No.

The democrats understood that cloture and the fillibuster have their place. Republicans did what they always do. They bullied their way to another victory in the senate. Republicans are masters of extortion and their 'nuclear option' is a perfect example.

Democrats have shown that they would rather preserve those tools and the integrity of the senate for future generations while republicans have shown that they have no qualms about holding us hostage for political gain.

The hypocricy is clearly on the part of the republicans when it comes to the fillibuster. Have you heard any democrats calling for the nuclear option?

No, you haven't.

Those of you who act like there is no difference in the way the two parties conduct business crack me up. How can anyone look at the way this White House and the republican congress have conducted themselves over the course of the last few years and not see that they have far exceeded anything that has come before them?

Ugly Duck
07-22-2007, 01:19 PM
How can anyone look at the way this White House and the republican congress have conducted themselves over the course of the last few years and not see that they have far exceeded anything that has come before them?

You think thats bad.... digest this: There's just over one quarter of Americans that still support these jerks. We're talking 1 out of every 4 citizens. Wherever you go, there's a fair chance that you are walking among them. Pretty scary, eh?

patteeu
07-22-2007, 01:38 PM
Man, you're chronic denial is getting boring. Doesn't it strike you as grossly hypocritical for them to threaten the nuclear option to eliminate the fillibuster because "every vote deserves an up or down vote" and then turn around and use it more than the democrats ever did?

It's clear. The reason republicans get their way all the time is because they operate under a huge double standard. Republicans will do whatever is necessary, (right or wrong, honest or dishonest, hypocritical or not) while democrats are always sucking hind tit because they're too frickin' nice. Democrats simply aren't as willing to sink to the depths that the republican party does with regularity and indignance.

It doesn't matter what the people of this country want or what is right or wrong. Power is the only thing that matters to republicans. They are willing to go nuclear on everything. They are willing to be huge hypocrites.

I think the fillibuster has it's place. But these guys are ruthless. They have no sense of shame or fairness. When democrats were in, governmental transparency was the MOST important thing to republicans. Now that republicans are in, governmental secrecy is the most important thing.

IMO, to say that republicans don't operate under a gigantic double standard is to not have an ounce of objectivity.

From my pov, it looks just the opposite. Republicans are always getting their teeth kicked in by democrats who know how to play hardball. Republicans, like Bush, stand by and turn the other cheek while lesser men and women with d's beside their names slander him.

And no, I don't see any hypocrisy. The Republicans' so-called nuclear option was (a) never used and (b) only intended to eliminate the filibuster rule from cases where the Senate was called on to "advise and consent" to Presidential appointments, not for cases of legislation.

penchief
07-22-2007, 02:06 PM
From my pov, it looks just the opposite. Republicans are always getting their teeth kicked in by democrats who know how to play hardball.

That's why republicans keep getting their way and democrats keep getting their asses handed to them by republicans, right?

Question: Why aren't the dems threatening to use the 'nuclear option' now that republicans are hypocritically using the fillibuster at a rate three times more frequent than the dems ever did?

Answer: Because democrats don't believe in throwing out the baby with the bathwater, while republicans don't give a shit about anything but what it takes to obtain and maintain power.

Republicans, like Bush, stand by and turn the other cheek while lesser men and women with d's beside their names slander him.

You have got to be kidding. You mean like the way Bush swiftboated Kerry? You mean like the way republicans pursued Clinton over issues that were not pertinent to good governance while condoning Bush & Cheney's questionable conduct that has been very pertinent to the conduct of policy, both international and domestic?

Clearly, the Rove/Atwater method has been successful for republicans because they have the lack of conscience to employ it. The reason Gore (the liar) and Kerry (the flip-flopper) were not up to the battle is because they saw the debate as one of policy, not one of personal character attacks.

Turn the cheek, my ass. I think you got the cheek-slappers confused with the cheek-turners. The reason Kerry and Gore are perceived as weak is because they didn't answer the character attacks by the republican party more effectively.

I can also see that you're into the neocon tactic of rewriting history, too.

And no, I don't see any hypocrisy. The Republicans' so-called nuclear option was (a) never used and (b) only intended to eliminate the filibuster rule from cases where the Senate was called on to "advise and consent" to Presidential appointments, not for cases of legislation.

But republicans blackmailed the senate and the country with the nuclear option just so they could get their way. Most of their obstructionism has blocked the will of the American people. Most of what they bullied through when they were in the majority was against what the people wanted. It's a never ending story that continues to defy logic because republicans keep changing their ethics to suit their desire to push an agenda that is contrary to what the majority of Americans believe.

Can you honestly say with a straight face that republicans will not use the fillibuster when President Hillary Clinton nominates a liberal for the Supreme Court? And you accuse me of being naive......

Republicans have shown that they will do whatever is necessary. Whereas, democrats have shown restraint and (at the very least) exhibited a decorum of respect for this country's political traditions.

ChiefaRoo
07-22-2007, 03:00 PM
ALL politicians from both partys use the same tools to get whatever advantage they can get to further their political beliefs and their own personal agendas. The reason the Dems lost the last two Presidential elections was because their candidates were weak because his ideas were weak. The reason the Republicans lost the Congress is because they became weak and abandoned their core values to keep power.

penchief
07-22-2007, 03:21 PM
ALL politicians from both partys use the same tools to get whatever advantage they can get to further their political beliefs and their own personal agendas. The reason the Dems lost the last two Presidential elections was because their candidates were weak because his ideas were weak. The reason the Republicans lost the Congress is because they became weak and abandoned their core values to keep power.

Dems didn't lose in 2000. But of course, you already know that. We don't know about Ohio yet because we can't get to the bottom of the Justice Department scandal, among other indications of electoral hanky panky.

That said, you're deflecting from the point. The reason dems lost the last two elections has much more to do with the politics of personal destruction than ideas or ideals. We all know what the republican formula is (fear and derision).

My God, look at how this country has spiraled downward in so many arenas. Things are unraveling slowly in almost every way (politically, militarily, economically, legally, our infrastructure, our unity, etc.) while too many people are oblivious to it. So many people feel safer clinging to the hope that George Bush will take away our fear when it should be so obvious that everything this administration has done thus far has rendered the people's government impotent and empowered the eco-political elite.

Republicans lost in 2006 because they were out of touch with the will of the American people. The modern republican always has been. It has nothing to do with their betrayal of core republican values (that's a cop out in the same vein as accusing the neocons for being liberal, imo). It has much more to do with being out of touch. Even the mechanisms of fear, deceit, and voter suppression could not prevent the outcome of 2006.

That is where this country is at. And Bush/Cheney should respect that. But they don't because they are not in it to serve The People. They are in it to serve the interests of Power.

ChiefaRoo
07-22-2007, 03:49 PM
Dems didn't lose in 2000. But of course, you already know that. We don't know about Ohio yet because we can't get to the bottom of the Justice Department scandal, among other indications of electoral hanky panky.

That said, you're deflecting from the point. The reason dems lost the last two elections has much more to do with the politics of personal destruction than ideas or ideals. We all know what the republican formula is (fear and derision).

My God, look at how this country has spiraled downward in so many arenas. Things are unraveling slowly in almost every way (politically, militarily, economically, legally, our infrastructure, our unity, etc.) while too many people are oblivious to it. So many people feel safer clinging to the hope that George Bush will take away our fear when it should be so obvious that everything this administration has done thus far has rendered the people's government impotent and empowered the eco-political elite.

Republicans lost in 2006 because they were out of touch with the will of the American people. The modern republican always has been. It has nothing to do with their betrayal of core republican values (that's a cop out in the same vein as accusing the neocons for being liberal, imo). It has much more to do with being out of touch. Even the mechanisms of fear, deceit, and voter suppression could not prevent the outcome of 2006.

That is where this country is at. And Bush/Cheney should respect that. But they don't because they are not in it to serve The People. They are in it to serve the interests of Power.

My God, here we go again. Listen, Gore lost fair and square in 2000 GET OVER IT!

The US is spiraling down?

1) The economy is stronger than it has ever been. Unemployment is less than 5% and Globalization is limiting the effects of cyclical downturns in all markets. The world economy is growing at a strong pace and the USA leads the pack.

2) Our military is the strongest on the planet and will continue to be so. We've lost less guys in Iraq in 5 years in a hostile environment than are lost in car wrecks in the state of Florida each year.

3) Legally? WTF are you talking about? If you mean Scooter Libby that was an inside the beltway witch hunt and it's over he got commuted which is the Presidents right. Overall, it's as good as it ever was which is to say it's a good system with flaws.

4) Infrastructure? WTF are you talking about? My local streets get repaired, the sewers work and the little white lines on the Hwy I drive get re-painted.

The Republicans lost because they have abandoned the values of conservatism set forth by By Ronald Reagan and enacted upon further when the Republicans took over the Congress in 1994. The US is fundamentally a conservative nation as has been proven over and over again in elections since the 80's and the advent of talk radio and the marketplace proves it. The Republicans lost 2006 because like all pols they began to care more about themselves than working to maintain the principles of conservatism. Almost all of the pretend Conservatives lost as they should have. That combined with people tired of hearing about the war and corruption of the incumbents (Duke Cunningham) led to their downfall. The Dems have been a complete disaster from the beginning. Lookit, the Congress' approval rating is lower than W's and they are a joke of a body. Harry Reid, Pelosi are absolute failures to this point. I'm actually quite happy with the Congress because they aren't doing shite right now which is to say they are not taking away more of my freedom by socializing the country. The only thing I get pissed off about is that the money isn't getting approved fast enough for the troops in Iraq and the fact we should be talking about expanding the size of our military.

Logical
07-22-2007, 04:37 PM
Though I disputed what Adam said, I think this thread topic is somewhat bogus, franky the Republicans are just helping the President having to avoid using his Veto power. There is no hope the Senate will over-ride a Bush veto. I may not like the results but both parties do this and that is a fact. I am not suprised we have heard nothing about the Nuclear option because unlike Judges the President would still have veto power over these issues.

Dallas Chief
07-22-2007, 04:44 PM
Did the democrats rail against the filibuster and want to permenantly eliminate it as one of our system's checks and balances just because they couldn't get their way?

No.

Have they ever done so is the manner that republicans did? By holding a gun to the head of the senate and the American people and threatening to consolodate power even more by eroding those checks and balances even more?

No.

The democrats understood that cloture and the fillibuster have their place. Republicans did what they always do. They bullied their way to another victory in the senate. Republicans are masters of extortion and their 'nuclear option' is a perfect example.

Democrats have shown that they would rather preserve those tools and the integrity of the senate for future generations while republicans have shown that they have no qualms about holding us hostage for political gain.

The hypocricy is clearly on the part of the republicans when it comes to the fillibuster. Have you heard any democrats calling for the nuclear option?

No, you haven't.

Those of you who act like there is no difference in the way the two parties conduct business crack me up. How can anyone look at the way this White House and the republican congress have conducted themselves over the course of the last few years and not see that they have far exceeded anything that has come before them?
It's so funny that you think the dems keep losing becasue they are too nice. There could be no other legitimate reason, huh? Maybe the other guy's ideas are better, therefore more popular. No that couldn't be...

I won't begin to argue your points on the use of the filibuster because frankly I think the use of it is complete BS, on either side. These clowns are in DC to do the work of the people, not prevent it from being done. IMHO...

penchief
07-22-2007, 06:22 PM
It's so funny that you think the dems keep losing becasue they are too nice. There could be no other legitimate reason, huh? Maybe the other guy's ideas are better, therefore more popular. No that couldn't be....

Not at all. Dems are playing by the rules. Republicans have been acting like slimeballs ever since the Reagan Administration. They've been a bunch of ideologically driven Talibani-types who could care less what the rest of us hope for.

I won't begin to argue your points on the use of the filibuster because frankly I think the use of it is complete BS, on either side. These clowns are in DC to do the work of the people, not prevent it from being done. IMHO...

Because you know I'm right when I say that the republicans have been the hypocrites on this issue and not the democrats.

The republicans threatened to kill a crucial tool of the senate because they wanted that fifth vote on the Supreme Court so that their ideology could prevail within the justice system, as well. It didn't matter that Alito's philosophy was not in line with the majority of Americans, only that it satisfied the fundamentalists and economic opportunists within this country.

Meanwhile, even though republicans have been utilizing the fillibuster like a drunken whore, they're not hypocrites because why? Because they've never tried to say democrats were obstructionists for using the fillibuster?

Please explain.

Ugly Duck
07-22-2007, 06:26 PM
It's so funny that you think the dems keep losing becasue they are too nice. There could be no other legitimate reason, huh? Maybe the other guy's ideas are better, therefore more popular. No that couldn't be...

And.... maybe not:

http://pewresearch.org/assets/publications/434-2.gif

http://pewresearch.org/pubs/434/trends-in-political-values-and-core-attitudes-1987-2007

penchief
07-22-2007, 06:56 PM
My God, here we go again. Listen, Gore lost fair and square in 2000 GET OVER IT!

It's been proven that he didn't.

The US is spiraling down?

Yes. The fabric of our society is deteriorating. The social compact we have with each other and which the government has with us hase been eroded to the point that our infrastructure and the common good is being sacrificed for the benefit of the eco-political establishment. This administration is catering to those who want to control us, not serve us.

This country is being fleeced and Iraq is one of those avenues in which it is being accomplished.

1) The economy is stronger than it has ever been. Unemployment is less than 5% and Globalization is limiting the effects of cyclical downturns in all markets. The world economy is growing at a strong pace and the USA leads the pack.

The economic indicators are just as bogus as the unemployment figures. We're living in the 'money for nothing' age.' It's an investment economy. It's all about speculation and nothing about reality. Therefore, we're free game for those who want to manipulate our economy, such as the oil industry. Therefore, it's nothing but a funny money system. It's a big scam and we choose to buy the elitist mantra.

If we were to bring back the work ethic in favor of the free money ethic, we might actually have a Rennaissance in this country.

2) Our military is the strongest on the planet and will continue to be so. We've lost less guys in Iraq in 5 years in a hostile environment than are lost in car wrecks in the state of Florida each year?

What planet are you living on? I believe they have eroded our military preparedness to that point that I question whether it was intentional. Maybe someday Blackwater will be stronger than our own military. Maybe that's what the righties want (a private army).

If you're counting victory by the number of casualties we are experiencing, you are only proving to me that you don't understand war, politics, or what human existence is intended to be.

3) Legally? WTF are you talking about? If you mean Scooter Libby that was an inside the beltway witch hunt and it's over he got commuted which is the Presidents right. Overall, it's as good as it ever was which is to say it's a good system with flaws?

1. Torture
2. NSA domestic spying
3. Leaking classified information
4. Obstructing justice in the US Attorney scandals
5. Lying us into a war that we didn't want
6. Taking a humungous shit on the U.S. Constitution....

I could go on if you want me to. And you know I will. But we won't know the depth of this administration's betrayal until we are able to hold them fully accountable for anything and everything they've done in secrecy.

Right now it's merely a rising tide of evidence thanks to the oversight investigations currently going on. Still, the stonewalling and refusal to provide evidence has prohibited the people's congress from getting to the truth about matters of utmost importance to the people's business. Why is that?


4) Infrastructure? WTF are you talking about? My local streets get repaired, the sewers work and the little white lines on the Hwy I drive get re-painted.

Ahhh. But many are not. Electrical grids are deterioating. Environmental regulations are not being enforced because industry is exploiting this administration's blind eye. Food supplies are becoming tainted because the FDA is an arm of global corporatism instead of being a watchdog for our welfare. The ports and the borders are no safer than they were on 9/11 (and this is coming from an administration that deemed it more important to strip Americans of their civil liberties than protect those ports and borders). Unbelievable.

The Republicans lost because they have abandoned the values of conservatism set forth by By Ronald Reagan and enacted upon further when the Republicans took over the Congress in 1994. The US is fundamentally a conservative nation as has been proven over and over again in elections since the 80's and the advent of talk radio and the marketplace proves it. The Republicans lost 2006 because like all pols they began to care more about themselves than working to maintain the principles of conservatism. Almost all of the pretend Conservatives lost as they should have. That combined with people tired of hearing about the war and corruption of the incumbents (Duke Cunningham) led to their downfall. The Dems have been a complete disaster from the beginning. Lookit, the Congress' approval rating is lower than W's and they are a joke of a body. Harry Reid, Pelosi are absolute failures to this point. I'm actually quite happy with the Congress because they aren't doing shite right now which is to say they are not taking away more of my freedom by socializing the country. The only thing I get pissed off about is that the money isn't getting approved fast enough for the troops in Iraq and the fact we should be talking about expanding the size of our military.

The republicans lost because they are not doing the will of the American people. They are doing the will of the eco-political elite.

This country is conservative in the good way and progressive in the good way. This country is nothing like what you are saying. This administration does not represent the will of the American people no matter how much you want to believe it.

Ugly Duck
07-22-2007, 07:05 PM
This administration does not represent the will of the American people no matter how much you want to believe it.

(See above graph)

ChiefaRoo
07-22-2007, 07:08 PM
It's been proven that he didn't.



Yes. The fabric of our society is deteriorating. The social compact we have with each other and which the government has with us hase been eroded to the point that our infrastructure and the common good is being sacrificed for the benefit of the eco-political establishment. This administration is catering to those who want to control us, not serve us.

This country is being fleeced and Iraq is one of those avenues in which it is being accomplished.



The economic indicators are just as bogus as the unemployment figures. We're living in the 'money for nothing' age.' It's an investment economy. It's all about speculation and nothing about reality. Therefore, we're free game for those who want to manipulate our economy, such as the oil industry. Therefore, it's nothing but a funny money system. It's a big scam and we choose to buy the elitist mantra.

If we were to bring back the work ethic in favor of the free money ethic, we might actually have a Rennaissance in this country.



What planet are you living on? I believe they have eroded our military preparedness to that point that I question whether it was intentional. Maybe someday Blackwater will be stronger than our own military. Maybe that's what the righties want (a private army).

If you're counting victory by the number of casualties we are experiencing, you are only proving to me that you don't understand war, politics, or what human existence is intended to be.



1. Torture
2. NSA domestic spying
3. Leaking classified information
4. Obstructing justice in the US Attorney scandals
5. Lying us into a war that we didn't want
6. Taking a humungous shit on the U.S. Constitution....

I could go on if you want me to. And you know I will. But we won't know the depth of this administration's betrayal until we are able to hold them fully accountable for anything and everything they've done in secrecy.

Right now it's merely a rising tide of evidence thanks to the oversight investigations currently going on. Still, the stonewalling and refusal to provide evidence has prohibited the people's congress from getting to the truth about matters of utmost importance to the people's business. Why is that?




Ahhh. But many are not. Electrical grids are deterioating. Environmental regulations are not being enforced because industry is exploiting this administration's blind eye. Food supplies are becoming tainted because the FDA is an arm of global corporatism instead of being a watchdog for our welfare. The ports and the borders are no safer than they were on 9/11 (and this is coming from an administration that deemed it more important to strip Americans of their civil liberties than protect those ports and borders). Unbelievable.



The republicans lost because they are not doing the will of the American people. They are doing the will of the eco-political elite.

This country is conservative in the good way and progressive in the good way. This country is nothing like what you are saying. This administration does not represent the will of the American people no matter how much you want to believe it.


What color is the sky in your world? I think your a kook.

penchief
07-22-2007, 07:13 PM
What color is the sky in your world? I think your a kook.

I know you do. And you're saying so is how I know you don't get it. I can only hope that someday you will.

I believe that we should be walking together. Not divided for the benefit of those who want to exploit both of us.

banyon
07-22-2007, 07:21 PM
What color is the sky in your world? I think your a kook.

Hey, great reply. :rolleyes:

ChiefaRoo
07-22-2007, 07:35 PM
I know you do. And you're saying so is how I know you don't get it. I can only hope that someday you will.

I believe that we should be walking together. Not divided for the benefit of those who want to exploit both of us.


Ok, let right now strike a deal of unity right here. "I hereby publically declare that penchief and I are against the socialization of the USA and it's healthcare system and that Nationalising this part of our economy would be a disaster for all of us." I'm sure that's something we can agree on right?
If you agree just say you do and then I'll take you down to the drugstore where we can have a coke and talk about how if we could just talk to all the trouble makers in the world it would all work out and we could join hands together and sing songs of peace and love (que Dove release). Yes, what a wonderful world it would be.

penchief
07-22-2007, 07:45 PM
Ok, let right now strike a deal of unity right here. "I hereby publically declare that penchief and I are against the socialization of the USA and it's healthcare system and that Nationalising this part of our economy would be a disaster for all of us." I'm sure that's something we can agree on right?
If you agree just say you do and then I'll take you down to the drugstore where we can have a coke and talk about how if we could just talk to all the trouble makers in the world it would all work out and we could join hands together and sing songs of peace and love (que Dove release). Yes, what a wonderful world it would be.

I can't agree to that because I believe that our health care system is no system at all. I believe that human beings are open game for predators within the health care industry, insurance industry, and pharmaceutical industry. Aside from the banking, energy, and oil industries there are no more profitiable insdustries in this country. Why is that?

Why is this administration wed to the economic interests of the health care industry instead of the public welfare?

I simply don't believe that quality medical care is a privelege reserved for those who can afford it. That's unAmerican, IMO. Some things acutally do transcend the profit motive. And I think this is one of those things. A greed-based health care system is an oxymoron.

ChiefaRoo
07-22-2007, 07:53 PM
I can't agree to that because I believe that our health care system is no system at all. I believe that human beings are open game for predators within the health care industry, insurance industry, and pharmaceutical industry. Aside from the banking, energy, and oil industries there are no more profitiable insdustries in this country. Why is that?

Why is this administration wed to the economic interests of the health care industry instead of the public welfare?

I simply don't believe that quality medical care is a privelege reserved for those who can afford it. That's unAmerican, IMO. Some things acutally do transcend the profit motive. And I think this is one of those things. A greed-based health care system is an oxymoron.

I know you can't agree, that's why people who think like me have to vote in politicians who will defeat politicians who think like you.

ChiefaRoo
07-22-2007, 07:57 PM
I know you can't agree, that's why people who think like me have to vote in politicians who will defeat politicians who think like you.

By the way PC you sound like a socialist. Why don't you just move to a Socialist Country since you seem to think they all live in a state of Nirvana. Norway is nice and they have Socialized everything. You could go there pay 75% of your earnings in taxes and get free medicine and all the other joys of a non-productive, non-competitive socialistic economy. I'm sure since everyone shares the burden you will never find any crime, evil or any other maladies that plague the capitalistic democracies. Or you could just move to Vermont.

penchief
07-22-2007, 08:01 PM
I know you can't agree, that's why people who think like me have to vote in politicians who will defeat politicians who think like you.

But that has nothing to do with this administration stealing our rights and our privacy so that the establishment can control what we know and think, what we do and where we go, and how prosperous or outspoken we can be.

That's exactly where we're heading and that's exactly what you're condoning.

The next time you see your beloved president or the noble Dick Cheney on television, watch them with a discerning eye and be honest with yourself. What do you really see?

Better yet, try to see them through my eyes. See if you can recognize the phoniness. See if you can see through the rhetoric instead of buying the farm. Honestly compare the rhetoric to the reality instead of swallowing it hook, line, and sinker.

Then get back to me.

patteeu
07-22-2007, 08:02 PM
That's why republicans keep getting their way and democrats keep getting their asses handed to them by republicans, right?

Question: Why aren't the dems threatening to use the 'nuclear option' now that republicans are hypocritically using the fillibuster at a rate three times more frequent than the dems ever did?

Answer: Because democrats don't believe in throwing out the baby with the bathwater, while republicans don't give a shit about anything but what it takes to obtain and maintain power.

Uh, didn't I just explain this to you? The nuclear option only applies to "advise and consent" situations. The Republicans never advanced an argument that would justify any equivalent of the nuclear option in legislative cases. If your democrats have a case to make on that issue, let them make it.

patteeu
07-22-2007, 08:05 PM
ALL politicians from both partys use the same tools to get whatever advantage they can get to further their political beliefs and their own personal agendas. The reason the Dems lost the last two Presidential elections was because their candidates were weak because his ideas were weak. The reason the Republicans lost the Congress is because they became weak and abandoned their core values to keep power.

Yep. Sounds right to me.

patteeu
07-22-2007, 08:08 PM
Dems didn't lose in 2000.

http://www.badmouth.net/graphics/WOW_1.jpg

penchief
07-22-2007, 08:12 PM
By the way PC you sound like a socialist. Why don't you just move to a Socialist Country since you seem to think they all live in a state of Nirvana. Norway is nice and they have Socialized everything. You could go there pay 75% of your earnings in taxes and get free medicine and all the other joys of a non-productive, non-competitive socialistic economy. I'm sure since everyone shares the burden you will never find any crime, evil or any other maladies that plague the capitalistic democracies. Or you could just move to Vermont.

You sound like a fascist.

Why don't you just move to a fascist country?

Oh, my bad. You're dream is installing fascism in this country.

FYI, I am a free-market capitalist that believes in a level playing field.

I am a free-market capitalist that doesn't believe in exploiting fundamental human needs for financial gain.

I am a believer in the kind of free market capitalism that advocates the will of the people and not the will of the monied few.

I am a believer in the kind of free market capitalism that understands its civic duties, its social responsibilities, and its contribution to mankind.

Just because I'm not a neocorporate-fascist doesn't mean I'm not an advocate of the free market. In fact, I don't think this administration really believes in the free market as much as they do a free hand for their benefactors.

ChiefaRoo
07-22-2007, 08:13 PM
But that has nothing to do with this administration stealing our rights and our privacy so that the establishment can control what we know and think, what we do and where we go, and how prosperous or outspoken we can be.

That's exactly where we're heading and that's exactly what you're condoning.

The next time you see your beloved president or the noble Dick Cheney on television, watch them with a discerning eye and be honest with yourself. What do you really see?

Better yet, try to see them through my eyes. See if you can recognize the phoniness. See if you can see through the rhetoric instead of buying the farm. Honestly compare the rhetoric to the reality instead of swallowing it hook, line, and sinker.

Then get back to me.


I don't think our rights or our privacy is being stolen by anyone. I think the Constitution and the Govt. is working just fine currently.

ChiefaRoo
07-22-2007, 08:18 PM
Patteau, take over until midnight. I've got to go out and crush Penchiefs freedoms for awhile. If you need me you can reach me via the secret communication chip that all of us fascists have implanted in ourselves to communicate. I'll be back online to relieve you around one and then you can go out and stomp some freedom yourself. HEIL, umm, whomever.

I'm out.

penchief
07-22-2007, 08:18 PM
Uh, didn't I just explain this to you? The nuclear option only applies to "advise and consent" situations. The Republicans never advanced an argument that would justify any equivalent of the nuclear option in legislative cases. If your democrats have a case to make on that issue, let them make it.

Uh, why don't you show me specifically where the republican senate said that at the time. I don't believe they did.

You are only moving the goal posts like you always do when you need to change the direction of the argument.

penchief
07-22-2007, 08:21 PM
I don't think our rights or our privacy is being stolen by anyone. I think the Constitution and the Govt. is working just fine currently.

Ummm. okay. I only wish I could be as gullible as you. My life would be more anxiety free. I commend you for your patriotic fervor and your willingness to fall in line. I wish I could be at peace like you. I wish I could appreciate where this administration has taken this country like you. I wish I could be content with being misled like you.

But I guess that's what makes you better than me. You're willing to overlook the little things in favor of those things that are really important.

banyon
07-22-2007, 08:23 PM
Patteau, take over until midnight. I've got to go out and crush Penchiefs freedoms for awhile. If you need me you can reach me via the secret communication chip that all of us fascists have implanted in ourselves to communicate. I'll be back online to relieve you around one and then you can go out and stomp some freedom yourself. HEIL, umm, whomever.

I'm out.

LMAO This is actually pretty funny.

penchief
07-22-2007, 08:25 PM
LMAO This is actually pretty funny.

I agree.

Dallas Chief
07-22-2007, 08:57 PM
Not at all. Dems are playing by the rules. Republicans have been acting like slimeballs ever since the Reagan Administration. They've been a bunch of ideologically driven Talibani-types who could care less what the rest of us hope for.



Because you know I'm right when I say that the republicans have been the hypocrites on this issue and not the democrats.

The republicans threatened to kill a crucial tool of the senate because they wanted that fifth vote on the Supreme Court so that their ideology could prevail within the justice system, as well. It didn't matter that Alito's philosophy was not in line with the majority of Americans, only that it satisfied the fundamentalists and economic opportunists within this country.

Meanwhile, even though republicans have been utilizing the fillibuster like a drunken whore, they're not hypocrites because why? Because they've never tried to say democrats were obstructionists for using the fillibuster?

Please explain.
Do you have a deficit of some sort? I just said the use of the filibuster anytime is complete BS. ANYTIME. That means even now. Or is this all about being you trying to be right? That's what I am taking from your responses.

As a Republican does it piss me off that they are doing this? Hell yes! But I know that given the same circumstances, the Democrats would do the same exact thing. You are delusional to think otherwise. This is not the business of being "nice" or "mean". It's cut throat at it's very core, at least it has evolved to be such. Wake up.

patteeu
07-22-2007, 09:06 PM
Uh, why don't you show me specifically where the republican senate said that at the time. I don't believe they did.

You are only moving the goal posts like you always do when you need to change the direction of the argument.

If you'd pay a little more attention to what is actually going on instead of imagining all kinds of ways in which Republicans are out to get you, you wouldn't need my help with this.

The ‘Nuclear Option’ (http://www.cfif.org/htdocs/legislative_issues/federal_issues/hot_issues_in_congress/confirmation_watch/nuclear_option.htm)

...

Now, 28 years later, it might be the Republican majority that exercises its constitutional prerogative to "determine the rules of [Senate] proceedings" by employing the "nuclear option" to remove the executive calendar — business sent to the Senate from the White House, such as treaties, executive nominees and judicial nominees — from the purview of Rule XXII, thus ending the ability of a Senate minority to indefinitely obstruct confirmation votes on judicial nominees who have secured the necessary majority support.

...

As usual, when you think the goal posts are being moved it's really just a case of someone piercing your self-delusion bubble and exposing you to a glimpse of reality.

penchief
07-22-2007, 09:10 PM
Do you have a deficit of some sort? I just said the use of the filibuster anytime is complete BS. ANYTIME. That means even now. Or is this all about being you trying to be right? That's what I am taking from your responses.

As a Republican does it piss me off that they are doing this? Hell yes! But I know that given the same circumstances, the Democrats would do the same exact thing. You are delusional to think otherwise. This is not the business of being "nice" or "mean". It's cut throat at it's very core, at least it has evolved to be such. Wake up.

You're missing the gist. Obviously, the democratic minority had used the fillibuster, albeit much less than the new republican minority.

However, the difference is this. Even though the republican minority is using the fillibuster three times more often than the democrats did, the democrats are still not railing against it. Nor are they advocating eliminating it from our political system as the extortionists in the republican party did.

If you don't think that's a difference in how the two parties operate, then I guess you're incapable of discerning differences.

penchief
07-22-2007, 09:18 PM
If you'd pay a little more attention to what is actually going on instead of imagining all kinds of ways in which Republicans are out to get you, you wouldn't need my help with this.



As usual, when you think the goal posts are being moved it's really just a case of someone piercing your self-delusion bubble and exposing you to a glimpse of reality.

Thank you. But I'm still not convinced. I'm sure that surprises you.

And please don't use one instance to prove that every time you post something that you're right and every time I post something I'm wrong. I'll admit when I'm wrong. And you do have a habit of moving the goal posts. It's one of your specialties. You resort to minutia in an attempt to dilute the argument.

We'll see how republicans respond when it's a liberal nominee. Where is your money?

Calcountry
07-23-2007, 01:43 PM
But that has nothing to do with this administration stealing our rights and our privacy so that the establishment can control what we know and think, what we do and where we go, and how prosperous or outspoken we can be.

That's exactly where we're heading and that's exactly what you're condoning.

The next time you see your beloved president or the noble Dick Cheney on television, watch them with a discerning eye and be honest with yourself. What do you really see?

Better yet, try to see them through my eyes. See if you can recognize the phoniness. See if you can see through the rhetoric instead of buying the farm. Honestly compare the rhetoric to the reality instead of swallowing it hook, line, and sinker.

Then get back to me.That would be impossible, you're blind.

Amnorix
07-23-2007, 03:01 PM
I don't see any of this as a problem.

What ought to happen due to filibuster rules, is more compromise. Instead, the radicals toe the line and nothing ahppens.

So be it.

The filibuster is the only tool to slow down an insane and runaway majority when theyc ontrol botht he WH and both houses of Congress, and served the Democrats well for the last few years. They shouldn't really complain about it now, especialy since anything they pass would just get vetoed anyway.

ChiefaRoo
07-23-2007, 03:11 PM
I don't see any of this as a problem.

What ought to happen due to filibuster rules, is more compromise. Instead, the radicals toe the line and nothing ahppens.

So be it.

The filibuster is the only tool to slow down an insane and runaway majority when theyc ontrol botht he WH and both houses of Congress, and served the Democrats well for the last few years. They shouldn't really complain about it now, especialy since anything they pass would just get vetoed anyway.


Yep.

Amnorix
07-23-2007, 03:14 PM
Yep.
Please don't agree with me. It makes me doubt my position...





:p

penchief
07-23-2007, 03:25 PM
I don't see any of this as a problem.

What ought to happen due to filibuster rules, is more compromise. Instead, the radicals toe the line and nothing ahppens.

So be it.

The filibuster is the only tool to slow down an insane and runaway majority when theyc ontrol botht he WH and both houses of Congress, and served the Democrats well for the last few years. They shouldn't really complain about it now, especialy since anything they pass would just get vetoed anyway.

I don't think democrats are complaining about it. I think Jaz brought it up to highlight the hypocricy. I think the fillibuster is an important tool. I was concerned when republicans wanted to shitcan it, though.

Amnorix
07-23-2007, 07:40 PM
It's been proven that he didn't.


Really? All I've seen is that a recount in Florida would've resulted in him getting the most votes, even if it had been allowed by the SC.

If Nader hadn't run, Gore probably would've won. But he did, and Gore lost, and I haven't seen a darn thing that tells me otherwise.

And nothing in Ohio is sufficiently substantiated.

Amnorix
07-23-2007, 07:43 PM
I don't think democrats are complaining about it. I think Jaz brought it up to highlight the hypocricy. I think the fillibuster is an important tool. I was concerned when republicans wanted to shitcan it, though.

He wanted to highlight the hypocrisy of who?

Politics is hypocrisy. It's the ability to take Position X today, arguing that Position Y is crazy, not in the best interests of the country, and just plain WRONG, and then, when you've lost/gained the majority, you pick up Position Y and see the other side take up Position X in your place.

Both sides are hypocritical on this issue. Because, as they say, "that's politics".

ChiefaRoo
07-23-2007, 09:03 PM
Please don't agree with me. It makes me doubt my position...





:p

When you're right you're right.

ChiefaRoo
07-23-2007, 09:04 PM
Really? All I've seen is that a recount in Florida would've resulted in him getting the most votes, even if it had been allowed by the SC.

If Nader hadn't run, Gore probably would've won. But he did, and Gore lost, and I haven't seen a darn thing that tells me otherwise.

And nothing in Ohio is sufficiently substantiated.

Yep.

ChiefaRoo
07-23-2007, 09:04 PM
He wanted to highlight the hypocrisy of who?

Politics is hypocrisy. It's the ability to take Position X today, arguing that Position Y is crazy, not in the best interests of the country, and just plain WRONG, and then, when you've lost/gained the majority, you pick up Position Y and see the other side take up Position X in your place.

Both sides are hypocritical on this issue. Because, as they say, "that's politics".


and for a third time.... yep.