it might be just my experience but the marines I have known are a bit different than the other branches and don't react to 'deal with it' very well. They seem to want to destroy or eliminate rather than deal.

see 'a few good men' no pun intended

Democrats have turned it on the GOP
 

The Democrats have turned the tables on the GOP, and Bernie Sanders is up there on the Senate floor, actually holding the floor and talking ... C-Span2 You go, Bernie. You even filibuster better than the GOP. At least you have the balls to actually hold the floor <g>

Update: He started at 10:30, and it's 3:30, five hours, and the old guy is still going. Good for him <g>

I'm sure the Dems will. The GOP will have to find a new way to be completely obstructionist when the Senate changes their parliamentary rules January 2011 to alter how the filibuster can occur ;) The GOP will have to grow up, take responsibility and put their public vote on the record, rather than preventing votes from even happening.

:D Seriously? Sarah Palin? Mitt Romney? Mike Huckabee? Newt Gingrich? Tim Pawlenty? The group of unelectables?

Newt is the one who should be elected, if the American people knew what was good for them.

Plus the House Representatives. Plus the Senate has 60 votes to change it, far more than the 51 they need. So it's a shame the minority GOP is preventing a vote on this by filibuster, holding the rest of the country hostage to their minority opinion.

The GOP can continue obstructing, and let the courts rule it unconstitutional, order immediate repeal (not good implementation for the military), or the President can simply executive order it into oblivion (which leaves it able to be re-implemented in the future).

So the GOP will get another chance to get their heads out of their butts, let the military control how it is repealed and implemented, and vote once more on this before this congress ends at Christmas.

Two ex-wives, one current wife, repeated adultery with the next while married to the first two, alcoholism, publicly saying people should do as he says, not as he does, and disastrously shutting the government down during Clinton years, angering the entire American populace. Unelectable.

I don't see them.

Documentable things like no arrests help. School records of being in trouble or not. Community service, volunteerism, etc.

School records.

They do. It's part of wanting to be a citizen. Earning it.

:eek: Nobody said that. They get no "preference" That's something you made up.

Your "preference" fear is completely false. You'll have to deal with the private and public colleges of the country regarding their admissions policies, if you don't care for them.

Because the plan is to encourage advanced education (continuing on to finish a degree) which tends to ensure a fairly contributing citizen to society. Or, they can do a little military service to give back to their country. Either way, if they want to stay here and earn their citizenship, they have to earn it. They can't just drop out of high school, or finish high school, and just stay here illegally.

(I'm reminded several countries require 2 years military service of all their young citizens)

Or, one can see it's making the children of illegals, who through no choice of their own were brought here, lived here throughout their childhood, speak English, grew up here, attended school here, know and have already integrated into our culture - a way to legally stay in their home country. Because we don't punish the innocent for crimes they didn't commit. If they want to stay here when they reach majority, they can do so, if they go through the path to citizenship. It's logical, it doesn't cost the government other than the paperwork, and it encourages productive, dedicated Americans.

it would be nice if those against it would come to the realization that gays have been and are now a part of the military. it hasn't been a problem and it won't be a problem.

oh good lord no.

lol
now, since it's the dems, filibustering is just peachy. :rolleyes: glad to see you're consistent.

You can laugh, but you fail to see the difference. He was speaking during debate. The bill wasn't filibustered from coming to the floor, nor was a vote filibustered. The bill was brought to the floor for debate. He talked for 8 1/2 hours during open floor debate. And at least he held the floor, too, talking about his position.

The GOP filibusters to prevent bills from even coming to the floor for discussion by the Majority Leader. They file an "intent to filibuster", then go home.

And "intent" forces the bill on the back burner until the majority can come up with 60 votes to even bring it to the floor. Takes at least a week. There is no standing on the floor and actually doing something, either.

And then, if the bill ever gets brought to the floor for discussion, they block debate, and then they block the ability to vote on it - as they have done this week alone with DADT, the Dream Act, the military appropriations bill, etc.

The GOP hasn't voted bills down. They have prevented the entire Senate from voting on bills. The GOP is simply obstructive jerks.

Well, two can play that game, and the Dems are going to take away their parliamentary ability to do that. There will still be a filibuster, but the minority won't be able to hold the majority hostage, and circumvent the Constitution, anymore.

:wf:wf:wf

:tro:

oh, now it's unconstitutional?! lol yeah, good luck with that.

There really is a difference.

Just because Riot said it doesn't make it untrue.

You may be as tired of all this stuff as anyone, but I know for a fact personally that you're far from dimwitted enough to fail to understand the difference.

Nascar? I'll give him a pass for lacking the basic function to see the difference. But you? Pretend Riot didn't say it. Then the difference is obvious.

Doesn't make an ounce of difference or change in the long-run, but they're hardly the same thing as far as filibusters go.

in terms of numbers, i already said there'd been a difference. what i find so amusing is the suggestion that the dems are actually going to attempt to make the filibuster no longer allowed. they don't have the numbers to do that come january. they didn't do it the last two years when they may have had the numbers. and the reps are stonewalling on everything right now because this is a lame-duck session, and they don't want something going thru now before the new house can tackle it.
and i know that the term 'filibuster' isn't mentioned in the constitution. i also know that the phrase 'separation of church and state' isn't in there either. nor is 'all men are created equal'.
as for the dems truly wanting rid of the filibuster-why would they get rid of something they've made use of in the past, and may want to use again? i won't hold my breath waiting for that to happen. it's a convenient scapegoat to blame a party when something you want done doesn't happen.

Of course not.

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

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

don't get me wrong, i am in no way defending the republicans actions. i just think it's ironic that only now is the filibuster viewed as an evil...but when the other party uses it, it's a necessary tool-depending on one's point of view of course. me, i think they all suck, and would never depend on one side or the other to attempt anything trully meaningful or to put their constituents first. they are in it for themselves and the party. nor do i trust them at all, as all pols are cut from the same cloth. just some are on one side of the debate, and the others are on the other side. it would be like thinking a chevy salesman is taking care of the customer, while the ford salesman is not-or vice versa. the salesman, or pol, isn't in it for the customer/taxpayer. they'll tell you what they think you want to here, in order to sell you their product.

but since some are convinced that the dems really, truly want to tackle how to fix the filibuster....could you tell me why they're going to do that now, as opposed to sitting on their hands in that regard the last two years? i haven't seen anyone address that point yet.

I learn this more and more every year.

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

:zz: Why do you keep misstating "no longer allowed"? Nobody, including me, including the Dems in news on the subject, ever said the filibuster would be eliminated. I've even posted - several times - what changes are being discussed. None are elimination.

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

The filibuster an in-house-decided parliamentary rules thing that is established, lead by the majority party, opening day of each Senate. And they certainly do intend to change it, due to record historical obstruction by the GOP in the last 2-4 years.

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

You don't think it borders on unconstitutional for elected officials to deliberately obstruct our government from functioning? Nobody is talking about differences of opinion among elected officials here. Nobody is talking about votes against or for.

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"

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.

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.”

I'm sure alot of people disagree with your broad general assessment of politicians, and alot agree. If you don't like that people "believe" in the Democratic party, that's not my problem, that's yours. And that is separate from discussing the issues pro and con.

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)

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.

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 :D

I can only go by what you say. You were the one that said your "biggest issue with me was that I believe in the democratic party."

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.

no, i don't have an issue with anyone supporting anything.

i asked google a question, and those links i posted were some of the results from that search. since i don't generally read many things i link, i haven't a clue as to what their 'slant' is supposed to be. i did find it interesting tho that they all pretty much said nothing will change, which i believe will be the case.
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.

so you think 1994-1999 were years of failure for america?

I think she's talking about the time they actually shut down the government, not what you're saying.

No.

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.

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