DADT possible vote tonight!

[dellinger63]

Whatabout PFC Bradley Manning????

[Danzig]

filibustering won't be changed. the dems had a better hand the last two years then they've got now and didn't attempt to change the rules. they recognize that they might need the same powers one day. then the r's will be yelping that the d's are holding everything up.
and i'm doubting there won't be near the posts/threads about the evils of the practice when it happens.

[dellinger63]

Originally Posted by Danzig

filibustering won't be changed. the dems had a better hand the last two years then they've got now and didn't attempt to change the rules. they recognize that they might need the same powers one day. then the r's will be yelping that the d's are holding everything up.
and i'm doubting there won't be near the posts/threads about the evils of the practice when it happens.

Obama should finally man up and increase taxes. Like RIOT and the people who voted for him wanted. Renounce DADT, affirm DREAM, kick a soldier in the nuts then wish happy holidays while denouncing all religion and return to Hawaii. With the mayoral race in Illinois going on and the guy he said would make a good mayor not willing to put his kids in Chicago public schools while all other candidates promissed to do so is a sweet treat for Christmas!

[Riot]

Today the GOP filibustered simply opening discussion on giving seniors a $250 check as their Social Security hasn't had a COLA raise in 2 years.

The GOP isn't filibustering as they and the Dems both have in the past, averaging 40-50 per session (filibustering = parlamentary obstruction). The GOP have not reserved it for really important stuff, the votes on bills, etc.

The GOP has a standing filibuster on simply bringing stuff to the floor of the Senate.

The GOP has been blocking the Senates work - bringing topics (bills) up for discussion. A filibuster takes about a week to be taken off.

Let alone the GOP putting additional filibusters on voting, etc.

They have been, IMO, obstructing the Constitution, which requires a majority in the Senate - not a supermajority of 60 - to bring things up, do the normal business of the Senate, pass legislation and get stuff done. There has been historical inaction in the Senate. We all have to hope it will be changed. We elect leaders to discuss and vote on the issues of the day. The GOP minority has single-handedly blocked that.

And no, neither the Dems nor the GOP has ever done this before. "Both parties do it" does not apply here. What the GOP has done is exceptional.






What the data clearly shows is that he GOP is filibustering at twice the rate of what the Democrats did before, including what they did under Bush. So Republicans can't claim that Democrats did it too - they didn't. Not like this.

March 2, 2010: Another interesting data point: IN the last ninety years, there have been 1,195 cloture motions filed, and a874 cloture votes, per the Senate site. The Republicans in the last three years that they've been in the minority, have caused 215 of the motions to be filed, and 157 of those cloture votes. That means in just the past three years, the Republicans have been responsible for 18% of all filibusters recorded in the past 90 years.

[timmgirvan]

Originally Posted by Antitrust32

noooooooooooooooo, really?

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Antitrust32

noooooooooooooooo, really?

There is a difference between discussing and arguing politics in the abstract, because it's fascinating, and simply defending one's own political views. Not the same thing.

[timmgirvan]

Originally Posted by Riot

There is a difference between discussing and arguing politics in the abstract, because it's fascinating, and simply defending one's own political views. Not the same thing.

I'm a pretty mellow guy, but your pointed/slanted questions dont appear to me to be a discussion.......just sayin

[Riot]

Originally Posted by timmgirvan

I'm a pretty mellow guy, but your pointed/slanted questions dont appear to me to be a discussion.......just sayin

You mean you don't like that I strongly hold opinions that differ from your slanted/pointed opinions Do you think that during debate, people should argue their opinions, certainly, but do you think that factual inaccuracies matter? And if you really like debate, you could be perfectly happy debating stuff that personally, you may not agree with <G>

[timmgirvan]

Originally Posted by Riot

You mean you don't like that I strongly hold opinions that differ from your slanted/pointed opinions

Do you think that during debate, people should argue their opinions, certainly, but do you think that factual inaccuracies matter?

I know you have strongly held opinions...you're stuck in the clinic all day....and the cats won't talk to you....your frustration is understandable. See, you asked me 2 questions that framed your opinion of me before the dust settled in this forum. I'm impressed with facts...but you see them through the myopic scope of HuffPo and Mother Jones and other of their ilk. I can hardly answer correctly given your stance.....It's not CHESS...it's talking.

[Riot]

I know you have strongly held opinions...you're stuck in the clinic all day....and the cats won't talk to you....your frustration is understandable. See, you asked me 2 questions that framed your opinion of me before the dust settled in this forum.

Strangely, in light of your concern about "framing", that's not how I spend my day

Thought my smiley-face gave away that was a joke.

I'm impressed with facts...but you see them through the myopic scope of HuffPo and Mother Jones and other of their ilk. I can hardly answer correctly given your stance.....It's not CHESS...it's talking.

You seem to be confusing fact with opinion. One is generally indisputable, and the other is interpretation of the first. I can assure you I form my own opinions. You?

[timmgirvan]

Originally Posted by Riot

Strangely, in light of your concern about "framing", that's not how I spend my day

Thought my smiley-face gave away that was a joke.



You seem to be confusing fact with opinion. One is generally indisputable, and the other is interpretation of the first. I can assure you I form my own opinions. You?

It is indisputable that you form your opinions....it's the disposition of the truth
that is your "Waterloo"

[Riot]

Originally Posted by timmgirvan

It is indisputable that you form your opinions....it's the disposition of the truth
that is your "Waterloo"

You still seem to conflate opinion with fact

The current GOP in the Senate have obstructed more business via filibuster than any other Senate before them. Do you think that's truth, or fiction?

Obama is a Kenyan-born non-citizen of the US. Truth, or fiction?

[timmgirvan]

Originally Posted by Riot

You still seem to conflate opinion with fact

The current GOP in the Senate have obstructed more business via filibuster than any other Senate before them. Do you think that's truth, or fiction?

Obama is a Kenyan-born non-citizen of the US. Truth, or fiction?

The answer is yes to both questions, but I'm not familiar with the word "conflate"!

Now...."Don't FRAME" Me, Sis !!


p.s....there are "qualifiers" in that answer

[Riot]

Geesh. Let the bills come to the floor, debate them, then vote on them. Filibustering being able to vote on the bill, one Senator preventing all from addressing a topic with their vote, is simply obstructionist, unconstitutional BS on the part of the GOP (yeah, that's opinion

WASHINGTON -- The Dream Act, a bill that would allow some undocumented young people to gain legal status, narrowly passed the House Wednesday evening, 216-198.

The bill's passage by the lower chamber was applauded by President Barack Obama, who called it "an important step" toward comprehensive immigration reform.

But the fight isn't over -- the Senate's version of the bill is set to come up for a vote tomorrow and faces a steep climb to get past a cloture vote.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by timmgirvan

The answer is yes to both questions, but I'm not familiar with the word "conflate"!

Now...."Don't FRAME" Me, Sis !!


p.s....there are "qualifiers" in that answer

Sorry, "confuse" will do. And you are entitled to your qualifiers 'cause that's where the FUN starts <G>

[SOREHOOF]

Originally Posted by Riot

Today the GOP filibustered simply opening discussion on giving seniors a $250 check as their Social Security hasn't had a COLA raise in 2 years.

The GOP isn't filibustering as they and the Dems both have in the past, averaging 40-50 per session (filibustering = parlamentary obstruction). The GOP have not reserved it for really important stuff, the votes on bills, etc.

The GOP has a standing filibuster on simply bringing stuff to the floor of the Senate.

The GOP has been blocking the Senates work - bringing topics (bills) up for discussion. A filibuster takes about a week to be taken off.

Let alone the GOP putting additional filibusters on voting, etc.

They have been, IMO, obstructing the Constitution, which requires a majority in the Senate - not a supermajority of 60 - to bring things up, do the normal business of the Senate, pass legislation and get stuff done. There has been historical inaction in the Senate. We all have to hope it will be changed. We elect leaders to discuss and vote on the issues of the day. The GOP minority has single-handedly blocked that.

And no, neither the Dems nor the GOP has ever done this before. "Both parties do it" does not apply here. What the GOP has done is exceptional.






What the data clearly shows is that he GOP is filibustering at twice the rate of what the Democrats did before, including what they did under Bush. So Republicans can't claim that Democrats did it too - they didn't. Not like this.

The chart shows that the Dems are introducing unconstitutional, partisan, Nation changing Legislation at historic rates. I'm just glad someone's trying to stop them or at least slow them down. What if they just voted on DADT without all the other BS tacked on? Collins votes with the Dems most of the time anyway. There is lots more to this than meets the eye.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Riot

Today the GOP filibustered simply opening discussion on giving seniors a $250 check as their Social Security hasn't had a COLA raise in 2 years.

The GOP isn't filibustering as they and the Dems both have in the past, averaging 40-50 per session (filibustering = parlamentary obstruction). The GOP have not reserved it for really important stuff, the votes on bills, etc.

The GOP has a standing filibuster on simply bringing stuff to the floor of the Senate.

The GOP has been blocking the Senates work - bringing topics (bills) up for discussion. A filibuster takes about a week to be taken off.

Let alone the GOP putting additional filibusters on voting, etc.

They have been, IMO, obstructing the Constitution, which requires a majority in the Senate - not a supermajority of 60 - to bring things up, do the normal business of the Senate, pass legislation and get stuff done. There has been historical inaction in the Senate. We all have to hope it will be changed. We elect leaders to discuss and vote on the issues of the day. The GOP minority has single-handedly blocked that.

And no, neither the Dems nor the GOP has ever done this before. "Both parties do it" does not apply here. What the GOP has done is exceptional.






What the data clearly shows is that he GOP is filibustering at twice the rate of what the Democrats did before, including what they did under Bush. So Republicans can't claim that Democrats did it too - they didn't. Not like this.

you're right that numbers are higher now. your assertion that the "Republicans can't claim that Democrats did it too - they didn't. Not like this." is not exactly correct. the volume may be different, the practice remains the same. and like i said before, there's a reason the dems didn't attempt to make any changes when they may have been able to do so. they know damn good and well that they may need to employ the same tactics in future.
it's not as tho the electorate shows a clear, clean cut leaning of this country in one direction. our form of govt was set up in a way to always enable the minority groups to have a say in the process. are the reps abusing it? perhaps. is there potential for the same in future? of course. you're fastened on this particular subject as a way to put the republicans in a bad light. no doubt there are other, better examples of what they've gotten wrong-such as keeping the tax cuts on the wealthiest.

[Danzig]

interesting:


Reps. Peter DeFazio (D-OR), Jim McDermott (D-WA) and Jay Inslee (D-WA) are crafting a letter to share with the House Democratic Caucus that would try to prevent the Speaker from bringing the tax bill to the floor.

They hope to get 60 signatures on their letter (which is still being drafted) and then force a vote in the caucus. DeFazio says he thinks that if a majority of House Democrats are against this compromise, they shouldn't bring it to the floor.

In other words, they are seeking a majority of the majority to move this and a senior House democratic source indicates they don't know if they have a majority of democrats, saying they haven't whipped this yet.

In an interview with Fox, DeFazio criticizes the president and says a majority of the House Democratic Caucus does not support the tax rate compromise. "There does not seem to be a majority of the Democrats who support the deal negotiated by Vice President Biden," DeFazio said. "So we want to have a record vote in the caucus on a resolution that says this resolution should not go to the floor without a majority of Democratic votes."



there are a variety of ways both parties attempt to block legislation. but somehow, i bet this instance won't be quite as horrifying as it would be if republicans attempted it.

[dellinger63]

There's 30 seconds left in the half and the Dems have the ball. The Reps are just trying to stop any scoring drive and go to the locker-room knowing they get the ball and a whole slew of fresh players for the second half. So far they're knocking down those hail mary's. Hopefully the Dems fumble and end up losing the chance to kick the GOP tax field goal with all that crap attatched to the ball.

[hoovesupsideyourhead]

Originally Posted by Riot

Today the GOP filibustered simply opening discussion on giving seniors a $250 check as their Social Security hasn't had a COLA raise in 2 years.

The GOP isn't filibustering as they and the Dems both have in the past, averaging 40-50 per session (filibustering = parlamentary obstruction). The GOP have not reserved it for really important stuff, the votes on bills, etc.

The GOP has a standing filibuster on simply bringing stuff to the floor of the Senate.

The GOP has been blocking the Senates work - bringing topics (bills) up for discussion. A filibuster takes about a week to be taken off.

Let alone the GOP putting additional filibusters on voting, etc.

They have been, IMO, obstructing the Constitution, which requires a majority in the Senate - not a supermajority of 60 - to bring things up, do the normal business of the Senate, pass legislation and get stuff done. There has been historical inaction in the Senate. We all have to hope it will be changed. We elect leaders to discuss and vote on the issues of the day. The GOP minority has single-handedly blocked that.

And no, neither the Dems nor the GOP has ever done this before. "Both parties do it" does not apply here. What the GOP has done is exceptional.






What the data clearly shows is that he GOP is filibustering at twice the rate of what the Democrats did before, including what they did under Bush. So Republicans can't claim that Democrats did it too - they didn't. Not like this.

wow..are these fatcharts..