:tro::tro::tro:

You mean like yesterday's filibuster by the GOP, routine funding of the Pentagon? Preventing it from being brought to the floor for a vote?

The Democrats were elected in an overwhelming majority, and after the 2010 election, still hold the majority. They are entitled to do what the majority of Americans elected them to do.

It's not the same thing. The letter you speak of is just a straw poll of the Democratic caucus, it was taken today, showing 53 House Dems don't like the Obama-McConnell pact. But that cannot physically block the vote from coming to the floor as a filibuster can. It just says how they are going to vote, and hopefully the bill won't be brought until amended, if the President wants a positive vote.

The filibuster exists as an extreme obstructionist tactic. The Senate rules of debate, amendment, majority vote are supposed to rule the business of the day.

The GOP has a standing filibuster on bringing topics to the Senate floor. Not debate and discussion, not voting, but simply against the elected majority bringing topics to the floor to discuss. THEN the GOP also block debate, and block votes. Their whole point the past two years was to gum up the works of the Senate, including routine business, so the Dems couldn't pass anything, and it's worked very well.

There were 53 votes in the Senate to pass the tax extensions without extension of tax cuts for those over 1 million. That would have "passed" in any other Senate, and it "passed", according to the Constitution which states simple majority rules in the Senate.

Except the GOP filibusters every single thing, and that changes the rules (which is why they do it) now requiring a special vote of 60 votes to pass. Thus virtually everything that has passed in the Senate over the past two years - including the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act - even when on party had the majority in the Senate, elected by the public, had to get, and got, at least 60 votes. Not the majority required by the Constitution for Senate votes.

And that's why the filibuster rules will finally be amended. Filibuster has never been abused to such an outrageous degree.

And they fumble. And fumble. And fumble.

The Dem House caucus straw polled their dislike of the Obama-McConnell bill today, we'll see what happens. I doubt the GOP will budge, they never do and don't have to because Obama caves to them. The House Dems are nuts if they block that stimulus, but I agree it has to be paid for, at least a little.

what the "majority of Americans" want, is not always best for the country. for cripes sake, the "majority of americans" dont even keep up with current events. thank goodness for the Philly Cheese steak. ooops, meant Phillybuster.

I'm waiting for the Tea Party to come out against this huge deficit bill. They have been strangely quiet, hiring long-time Washington insiders to be their chiefs of staff for the new Congress.

Pretty sure Palin has.. saw it on Cnn.com today

but she's also against life, liberty and the pursuit of redistribution.

I'd like to see a chart with the fillibuster as a percentage of Bills brought to the floor. There are many more bills put out than ever so of course there will be more fillibusters.

www.senate.gov look up the roll call votes for each session. Below is for the current Senate. Every time you see the word "cloture", that was a filibuster by the GOP (the cloture, if agreed to, is the end of filibuster). They can filibuster the Majority Leader bringing a bill to the floor (introduction), debate, and voting. Any one Senator can filibuster.

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LI...menu_111_2.htm

All those guilty comments - the Senate impeached a Federal Judge yesterday.

Twenty years of comparative Senate history: http://www.senate.gov/reference/reso...comparison.pdf

DADT fails in spite of having a majority in favor in Senate
 

In spite of having overwhelming public support, in spite of having already passed the House, in spite of having 57 votes in favor of repealing DADT in the Senate, a number deemed by our Constitution more than sufficient to pass a bill in the Senate; due to the GOP filibuster requiring that the measure now gain 60 votes (a supermajority) to even be brought to the floor and voted upon: Don't Ask, Don't Tell has been filibustered to death, thus has failed and is done in this session of Congress.

Thanks, GOP. You obstructive hypocrites suck. You didn't even allow it to come to the floor for a vote.

Oh, yeah: and they still have to fund the Pentagon's routine business, they filibustered that, too.

And live caribou.

well that fucl<ing blows.

Fucl< you John McCain.

How about the completely hypocritical jackwads who said, "Oh, I'm in favor of repeal, I'll vote for that!" but just voted to not bring it to the floor so they could vote on it! Two-faced political suck ups. And Blanche Lincoln? Loser.

Let's be really clear what happened here: DADT needs 51 votes to be repealed. It had 60. But the GOP filibustered it, including Senators who said they would vote in favor of repeal (!) so the 57 filibuster break votes was not sufficient, so it could not be brought to the floor and repealed.

The minority of 40 prevented the overwhelming majority of 60 in the US Senate from passing a bill to repeal DADT.

yep... it makes sense to kick somebody out of the military who was willing to die for the USA, was the best man in his platoon, saved lives, took enemy life, was a fucl<ing hero... because some jealous person decides to out him.

yep, smart America at work. :zz:


arab translators are so over rated anyway.

they dont need to change the PhillyBuster rules.

The rule that needs to change is TERM LIMITS. 2 TERM LIMITS in the Senate.. 4 term limits in the house.

In the previous two years, all of the following had more than enough votes, Constitutionally, to pass into law, and were passed or passable by the House, but were filibustered by the Senate GOP so that those votes could not even be taken.

In the new Senate, where the Democrats still hold the majority, these bills would still pass.

Health care with a public option
Tougher financial reform
A more aggressive recovery package that actually would have lowered unemployment
The DREAM act
A climate and energy policy
Renewal of the nuclear START treaty
Repeal of DADT
A middle class-only tax cut

I want my country back. I'm in favor of our Constitution. I'm in favor of voting for a House of Representatives, and a Senate, and allowing them to vote on the issues facing our country.

A bit hypocritical no? Even for a former republican!

Hypocritical? That middle America co-opts a rightwing talking point? What's hypocritical about following our Constitution, and demanding our elected officials do the same? We have a small group working hard at blocking our governmental, Constitutional processes. Most of the issues, above, would pass, but I'm sure some would not. The point is, that our Constitution allows us to elect a House, and a Senate, and the Constitution says the important issues of our day get to be brought up, discussed, and voted upon by our elected representatives. The GOP is completely blocking our Constitutional processes. Enough is enough.

I highlighted the DREAM ACT and wanting your country back.

How does educating, giving citizenship and then employing ILLEGALS get the country back other than putting legals on the 3 yr unemployment plan? The illegals that sign onto the military are obviously taking the place of someone as we have no draft and I thought we (WE BEING LEGAL AMERICANS) have an unemployment problem?

But then again you agreed with the President saying we couldn't afford NOT to let the tax relief expire for those over 250K but now somehow have the money to not only continue the Bush plan for all but ALSO put in a payroll and SS tax reduction? What did we hit the lotto and I don't know it? :zz:

"This bill would provide certain illegal and deportable alien students who graduate from US high schools, who are of good moral character, arrived in the U.S. illegally as minors, and have been in the country continuously and illegally for at least five years prior to the bill's enactment, the opportunity to earn conditional permanent residency if they complete two years in the military or two years at a four year institution of higher learning"



yeah, like that is such a horrible thing. Del, get a grip.

This is just getting the foot in the door for later.

Adios amigos, maybe when things improve a little bit.

In my America, hardworking immigrants that want to become citizens - like my grandparents - are welcomed. Children of illegals are minors - they didn't make the conscious choice to be illegal, as their parents did. This is their home and, when they are adults, if they want to renounce their country of origin and follow the path to gain citizenship, more power to them. And I don't care if they are Canadian, Irish or German.

Did you miss where I have repeatedly said I am against that, as it is unfunded, and I want it funded? We can get rid of those ridiculous non-job-producing tax cuts for those earning over 1 million, that will fund half of it readily. I am for a payroll tax deduction, but against it coming from Social Security as it sets a precedence I don't like.

well i'm thrilled the dems turned on Obama and no worries a bunch of new energized faces will be in DC soon. It's too commonly used but this crew has done enough, in fact far too much.

Because personal dislike issues are more important to you than our massive deficit? I seem to recall you screeching about the cost of this. You are throwing out allies who agree with you simply due to your prejudice against Democrats? Do you have a consistent point of view, Dell?

Let me ask you this, too: are you for the party whose priority is catering to the wealthiest 2% of our country? Who voted down tax cuts for the middle class, who voted down tax cuts for all those who earn up to 1 million dollars, and held out for tax cuts for those richest that earn over 1 million dollars? The party who, for the first time in 48 years, failed to pass a defense appropriations bill, rather than let gay military servicepeople willing to die for their country not have to continue to lie? This is the party making choices you like?

I don't want what this or any other 900 billion dollar anything right now. I want a 900 billion cut. I also think everyone should be taxed at the same percentage (you know equal?). Shrink the government to meet the budget.

I'd also suggest rather than worrying about some illegal getting a degree and citizenship we put some of the unemployed maybe even a few who don't have far to go to get a degree back in school and get those people back to work.

BTW sorry RIOT, wasn't aware your ancestors snuck into the country but now understand how you feel the way you do. :)

That would be you having the fit over that ;)

:zz: I didn't say they were illegal, you fool, I said they were immigrants. You do know that immigration by foreigners is allowed and perfectly legal? Maybe we should concentrate on programs that teach folks how to read? And teach them some basic American history - such as we are a nation of immigrants? The whole melting pot idea? Think hard, Dell ... when did your "people" come to America? Because even if it was the Mayflower, that makes you just as immigrant as every other single American not American Indian.

hell will freeze over before the filibuster changes. the party with the majority has an easy excuse for stuff not getting done when the minority blocks it. but they know that when they in turn are the minority, they want that same power. these guys aren't going to do something that would end up hurting them down the road.
as for the dadt filibuster- i said weeks ago that the courts will overturn it, congress and the prez haven't got the guts. a significant portion of the country doesn't want it to change, and no pol is wanting to vote for something that might cost them re-election later. that's why they filibustered, so they wouldn't HAVE to vote.
makes you wonder how much of the stuff being 'bustered is done for a reason. those guys scratch each others' back all the time. look at rangel. hand slapped for his ethics violations, because no one wants to get hard time when it's their turn. why anyone expects anything from any pol, regardless of party, is beyond me. they don't put their country first, their constituents first, they put themselves and the party first.

You compared them as though they were the same as the illegals thus I thought they must have snuck in. I guess in your world bank robbers and bank patrons are all just 'people in the bank' :)

BTW My people came thru Ellis Island like a lot of people and they had to be 'sponsored' you know have a job and place to stay to start out? In fact their SS cards have the employer printed on the back. Not quite as exciting as scaling a fence or hiding in the back of a semi but it was legal.

LOL. Stop the whining, deal with it. The GOP said very clearly they would not deal with anything else until the tax cuts were taken care of. The Pres has a deal with them but the democrats cry and cry and cry and then cry some more when the GOP does exactly what they told them they would do. I'm sorry to alert you to the fact that gays in the military is slightly less on the minds of most Americans right now with a gigantic tax increase staring them in the face.

And since the GOP seems to have learned some lessons from their ass beating in 2008, you'd better get used to it.
At least you will have plenty to complain about for the next 10 years.

There are plenty of issues with it.
1. How does the gov't define "good moral character"?
2. How do you prove a minor has been in the country for 5 continous years?
3. Who exactly is going to pay for them to attend a 4 year college? And is it fair that illegals will get preference over citizens? As we all know colleges lie to have a "diverse" student population and what is more diverse than illegal ailens?
4. And why in the world do they have to only do 2 years at a 4 year school? Wouldn't a degree at a 2 year school be better than 2 years and out the door at a 4 year school?

I believe we need a much better immigration policy. But this is simply pandering to the latino voters

This is the truth. The first part is good. The second part is bad. The third part is just plain ugly. Why do liberals care about the deficit all the sudden? Where was this onslaught of frugalness when they were cramming through massive spending bills for the last 2 years? Everything is "unfunded" untill they TAKE the money from the taxpayers. It's past time for the Govt. (and a lot of Americans) to live within their means.

2/3rds of the country wants DADT to be changes... plus 70% of the military.

I agree and the number goes way up if you leave out the marines. If they could be left out DADT is repealed yesterday.

:tro::tro::tro:

DADT should be changed to WGAS .. Who Gives A Shi<t, we have mayny more pressing issues to get fired up about during this depression.

The thing is, I dont see why the right (i should call them the wrong instead) is against it. Its not like all of the sudden the marines is going to become the best gay club on the planet. and change to pink camo.

If a gay marine tries to improperly hit on a straight marine and makes the unit uncomfortable, he should be kicked out, or demoted, or whatever they do. Just like if a straight man improperly tries a straight woman (like exposes himself or something). he also should be kicked out, or demoted.

But to throw out people who are willing to die for their country, just because someone found out they are gay.. is pathetic and an embarrassment for our country and military.

The Repubs are so wrong they should be ashamed of themselves.

I think a good portion of the right is for repeal, especially those under 60. I also think the majority of Marines active and retired, are against it. Leaving the marines out could just be a compromise that gets 80% of the repeal done now and maybe in another 1/2 generation they'll be ready to come onboard.

I think the Marines need to deal with it. in about 1 week time after the repeal is done, they will realize it was like the smallest deal in the world and that nothing has changed for the worse.