I think the most interesting part of it is the speeches from Obama and Reid and Schumer opposing it when the shoe was on the other foot. Bunch of lying, unethical, hypocritical SOBs.

(11-21-2013 08:55 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I think the most interesting part of it is the speeches from Obama and Reid and Schumer opposing it when the shoe was on the other foot. Bunch of lying, unethical, hypocritical SOBs.

Manchin and Pryor vote to uphold Filibuster. They see the Train coming down the Track.

(11-21-2013 09:11 PM)WMD Owl Wrote:  

(11-21-2013 08:55 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I think the most interesting part of it is the speeches from Obama and Reid and Schumer opposing it when the shoe was on the other foot. Bunch of lying, unethical, hypocritical SOBs.

Manchin and Pryor vote to uphold Filibuster. They see the Train coming down the Track.

I like Manchin.

(11-21-2013 09:11 PM)WMD Owl Wrote:  

(11-21-2013 08:55 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I think the most interesting part of it is the speeches from Obama and Reid and Schumer opposing it when the shoe was on the other foot. Bunch of lying, unethical, hypocritical SOBs.

Manchin and Pryor vote to uphold Filibuster. They see the Train coming down the Track.

Pryor will likely lose his seat, Manchin might flip to Republican when they win the Senate, if he is offered the right committee chair. He holds many Republican positions Pro-Life, Pro-Gun, Pro-fossil fuel. He may possibly go Indy and caucus with the Republicans.

(11-21-2013 08:22 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  The Democrats haven't "finished themselves off" with this procedural change. Most people could care less. It will not be an issue in senate elections. The ACA might or might not be an issue that tips the scales. Things shift quickly.

What matters is that it's bad for the nation. I'm sure we realize our nation of retards won't care and that it likely won't affect the midterms. Everything isn't a political calculus. Some moves are bad regardless if anyone notices or not.

Positive Rep me and I'll vote for Obama in 2016

(11-21-2013 03:41 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  Oh, and we're not taking about Obamacare any more. It worked.

Yes and no... Barry did promise the site would be fixed by the end of the month..

But they are finding forms all over that site which are subject to SQL injection ad someone from the govt says it's only 60% built.

Were hitting mythical man month territory now...

So come the end of the month we are going to be talking about O-ae

(11-21-2013 04:22 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(11-21-2013 04:18 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  I have mixed feelings about this. There are legitimate, non-partisan reasons for believing that lifetime appointments to the federal judiciary should require a simple "50% + 1" majority in the Senate, and also for believing that a filibuster-proof super-majority should be required. I think, when it's all said and done, I'm more inclined to support the filibuster-proof standard. Obviously, when you've got a majority that's less than 60/40, that will be highly frustrating. But given the extreme power that the federal judiciary and the federal government overall now claims over our daily lives, I think it's justifiable to require a higher level of support in order to be confirmed.

But Reid and the Senate Democrats obviously see it differently, and that's their prerogative.

I'll just say this: since Democrats are so eager to switch to a system where 51-50 is enough to make things happen in the Senate, then they better be ready to deal with it when they are the ones with "50" and the Republicans have the "51". They won't like it, but because of today's action, they will be stuck with it.

Very good point but it never used to be that way. When did they come up with this "super majority " rule anyway?

That rule has been in place forever!

(11-21-2013 06:46 PM)BlazerFan11 Wrote:  

(11-21-2013 05:51 PM)john01992 Wrote:  when you abuse something ==> you lose it

So you'd support efforts to dismantle the NSA and strip Obama of his power to call for drone strikes?

hell yeah id support that

(11-21-2013 04:35 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(11-21-2013 04:31 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  

(11-21-2013 04:22 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  Very good point but it never used to be that way. When did they come up with this "super majority " rule anyway?

The filibuster has been a part of the Senate rules going back to the 1800s. In fact, it used to be that a 2/3 majority was needed to break a filibuster, and it was changed to a 3/5 majority only in -- IIRC -- 1975.

In 1963/1964, the filibuster was the main reason why the Civil Rights Act was so slow to work its way through the Senate. But when it finally did, it was enacted by a vote of 73-27: a truly overwhelming and bipartisan vote, which helped the law to gain acceptance among some people who were unsure as to its wisdom. It's interesting to note that in the 1960s, there was very little support for changing the filibuster rules, because even the liberals of that era knew they wanted to use that rule themselves as political circumstances required. As I mentioned, it was eventually changed from 2/3 to 3/5, but I think the 3/5 rule has been beneficial to the country.

Well i've always known that it was required for really important stuff like changing the Constitution but I thought they rarely used it for meaningless stuff like Presidential appointments.

What I'm seeing here is you really have no earthly idea how the Constitution of the United States gets changed. You never learned. Typical Liberal Clown.

(11-21-2013 09:38 PM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  

(11-21-2013 04:35 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(11-21-2013 04:31 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  

(11-21-2013 04:22 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  Very good point but it never used to be that way. When did they come up with this "super majority " rule anyway?

The filibuster has been a part of the Senate rules going back to the 1800s. In fact, it used to be that a 2/3 majority was needed to break a filibuster, and it was changed to a 3/5 majority only in -- IIRC -- 1975.

In 1963/1964, the filibuster was the main reason why the Civil Rights Act was so slow to work its way through the Senate. But when it finally did, it was enacted by a vote of 73-27: a truly overwhelming and bipartisan vote, which helped the law to gain acceptance among some people who were unsure as to its wisdom. It's interesting to note that in the 1960s, there was very little support for changing the filibuster rules, because even the liberals of that era knew they wanted to use that rule themselves as political circumstances required. As I mentioned, it was eventually changed from 2/3 to 3/5, but I think the 3/5 rule has been beneficial to the country.

Well i've always known that it was required for really important stuff like changing the Constitution but I thought they rarely used it for meaningless stuff like Presidential appointments.

What I'm seeing here is you really have no earthly idea how the Constitution of the United States gets changed. You never learned. Typical Liberal Clown.

He must've been asleep in grade school and high school civics class and during Saturday morning cartoon commercials, he must've gotten up and gone to the kitchen to get more Cap'n Crunch thus completely missing Schoolhouse Rock.

(11-21-2013 10:05 PM)mptnstr@44 Wrote:  

(11-21-2013 09:38 PM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  

(11-21-2013 04:35 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(11-21-2013 04:31 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  

(11-21-2013 04:22 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  Very good point but it never used to be that way. When did they come up with this "super majority " rule anyway?

The filibuster has been a part of the Senate rules going back to the 1800s. In fact, it used to be that a 2/3 majority was needed to break a filibuster, and it was changed to a 3/5 majority only in -- IIRC -- 1975.

In 1963/1964, the filibuster was the main reason why the Civil Rights Act was so slow to work its way through the Senate. But when it finally did, it was enacted by a vote of 73-27: a truly overwhelming and bipartisan vote, which helped the law to gain acceptance among some people who were unsure as to its wisdom. It's interesting to note that in the 1960s, there was very little support for changing the filibuster rules, because even the liberals of that era knew they wanted to use that rule themselves as political circumstances required. As I mentioned, it was eventually changed from 2/3 to 3/5, but I think the 3/5 rule has been beneficial to the country.

Well i've always known that it was required for really important stuff like changing the Constitution but I thought they rarely used it for meaningless stuff like Presidential appointments.

What I'm seeing here is you really have no earthly idea how the Constitution of the United States gets changed. You never learned. Typical Liberal Clown.

He must've been asleep in grade school and high school civics class and during Saturday morning cartoon commercials, he must've gotten up and gone to the kitchen to get more Cap'n Crunch thus completely missing Schoolhouse Rock.

Close, but it was the pot and booze at age 11 that tipped the scales more.

(11-21-2013 08:22 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  The Democrats haven't "finished themselves off" with this procedural change. Most people could care less. It will not be an issue in senate elections. The ACA might or might not be an issue that tips the scales. Things shift quickly.

I agree the filibuster rules are complete "inside baseball" stuff. I honestly doubt that there is anyone, anywhere in this country who will change their vote because of that. Strictly something for activists and bloggers to yak about.

ObamaCare (it's so precious the way Obama has stopped calling it that, after doing so for more than a year) will be the major political issue in the country unless and until one of two things occur: it is either repealed, or else a majority of Americans see that they are benefiting from the law in their own lives. Don't know which one it will be, but I'm positive it will be one or the other.

If the GOP wins the senate next November the dems will just change the rule back before the GOP takes over...

Best for the GOP to make this something they don't campaign on... Just bring it up in debates..

(11-21-2013 05:41 PM)MileHighBronco Wrote:  Get real. The dems were salivating at the prospect with packing the courts with yet more radicals. Now, they can.

As if the Republicans aren't looking to do the same. Very few moderates ever get nominated now... always the very left or right.

(11-22-2013 12:08 AM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  If the GOP wins the senate next November the dems will just change the rule back before the GOP takes over...

Best for the GOP to make this something they don't campaign on... Just bring it up in debates..

Agreed. Of course, what goes around comes around. That is why this is utter BS by the Democrats. The Republicans will be happy to use it on something else that is important and it will just screw over this country.

(11-22-2013 10:52 AM)mlb Wrote:  

(11-21-2013 05:41 PM)MileHighBronco Wrote:  Get real. The dems were salivating at the prospect with packing the courts with yet more radicals. Now, they can.

As if the Republicans aren't looking to do the same. Very few moderates ever get nominated now... always the very left or right.

The Republicans had that chance and passed. This is another black mark on the Democrats.

(11-22-2013 11:15 AM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  The Republicans had that chance and passed. This is another black mark on our country.

FIFY

(11-22-2013 01:17 PM)mlb Wrote:  

(11-22-2013 11:15 AM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  The Republicans had that chance and passed. This is another black mark on our country.

FIFY

No, just the Democrats. The Republicans aren't that radical.

The GOP just used the threat of the nuclear option. They were smart enough to know the implications of neutering the minority party.

Congrats, dems. You were all against this when you were the minority. Now, you're all for it. You just turned the Senate ("the greatest deliberative body in the world" - LOL) into just another House of Representatives.

(11-21-2013 10:10 PM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  

(11-21-2013 10:05 PM)mptnstr@44 Wrote:  

(11-21-2013 09:38 PM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  

(11-21-2013 04:35 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(11-21-2013 04:31 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  The filibuster has been a part of the Senate rules going back to the 1800s. In fact, it used to be that a 2/3 majority was needed to break a filibuster, and it was changed to a 3/5 majority only in -- IIRC -- 1975.

In 1963/1964, the filibuster was the main reason why the Civil Rights Act was so slow to work its way through the Senate. But when it finally did, it was enacted by a vote of 73-27: a truly overwhelming and bipartisan vote, which helped the law to gain acceptance among some people who were unsure as to its wisdom. It's interesting to note that in the 1960s, there was very little support for changing the filibuster rules, because even the liberals of that era knew they wanted to use that rule themselves as political circumstances required. As I mentioned, it was eventually changed from 2/3 to 3/5, but I think the 3/5 rule has been beneficial to the country.

Well i've always known that it was required for really important stuff like changing the Constitution but I thought they rarely used it for meaningless stuff like Presidential appointments.

What I'm seeing here is you really have no earthly idea how the Constitution of the United States gets changed. You never learned. Typical Liberal Clown.

He must've been asleep in grade school and high school civics class and during Saturday morning cartoon commercials, he must've gotten up and gone to the kitchen to get more Cap'n Crunch thus completely missing Schoolhouse Rock.

Close, but it was the pot and booze at age 11 that tipped the scales more.

I'll have you all know that I teach U.S. History so I know the Constitution better than you think.

How republicans used the filibuster is unprecedented and they will now suffer the consequences because of it.