JSt0rm
Lifer
- Sep 5, 2000
- 27,399
- 3,948
- 126
let me add the best thing in that article is this ad link
http://www.globalstockinvestor.../visitor.php?offer=303
ohh man this is scary funny stupid all rolled into one.
http://www.globalstockinvestor.../visitor.php?offer=303
ohh man this is scary funny stupid all rolled into one.
Thankfully, there were 14 realists (John McCain one of them) that blocked the Repubs from going 'nucular' when they held the reins years ago. Sorry, but the minority party needs to have a say too. It's this winner-take-all mentality that has to stop, in both parties.
Stupid idea and a stupid comment on your part. FAIL
And who decides what is important and what is not important legislation? I think that the filibuster is a good tool myself even though it does get in the way every once in awhile.
theeedude
Lifer
- Feb 5, 2006
- 35,787
- 6,198
- 126
NOT.
Voice, yes, veto, no. The Constitution does not provide a minority party in Congress with a veto, only the president. You so called "strict constructionists" should know that.
You are forgetting the flip side of the Gang of 14 compromise, which was that the Democrats would only use filibusters in extreme circumstances.
Nuclear option needs to be on the table for just this kind of leverage, in case the Republicans get too busy obstructing. American people have voted, elections have consequences.
UberNeuman
Lifer
- Nov 4, 1999
- 16,937
- 3,087
- 126
No... The "republicans" had nearly eight years to work with the opposing party, and chose not too..
Face it, your "republican" party is busted, morally as well in intent......
- Jun 27, 2005
- 19,216
- 1
- 61
Wow... Only one post to once again prove Whoozyer's Axiom: Politics is a team sport. Nobody gives a shit what their team does as long as they're winning.
And here we are...
Please take the time to look at what is being proposed here. It's not just taking away the tools to obstruct from the Republicans (something they GAVE to the Dems after it had been denied to them for decades) it's closed door committee hearings, Chairman proxy votes (one man effectively rules the committee and passes whatever he wants) no more committee chairman term limits (see previous) and no longer holding congress to the same legal standards as the rest of us... among other things.
This is not good. Will Pelosi actually DO all of this tomorrow? Maybe. Maybe not. But the fact that it's all on the table is unconscionable. I know my link is to a super-right wing blog but even Jhhnn's link doesn't deny these actions, and, quietly roots Nancy on.
I get your point. By all rights the Dems can write whatever rules they want to conduct the 111th congress by. They have the majority. They can write the rules. That's beside the point. The point is they are moving to take any transparancy out of the legislative process. They are moving to concentrate power into the hands of a very small minority in congress.
Do you really want congress to be able to pass anything they want without any kind of public review or internal debate? People accused Bush and the Rs of creating a rubber-stamp congress. Can you imagine what would have happened if these rules weren't in place? I don't care what party you're affilliated with, this takes the rubber-stamp concept to a whole new level.
This is the potential life of a bill in congress if these rules are repealed:
Proposed bill goes to committee. The guy who wrote it tells the chairman what's in it. (Plus he's owed a favor) Nobody reads it. Hell, nobody else was in the committee for that matter. He holds proxy for all his party-mates. The chairman rubber-stamps it through committee where it goes to the floor.
Noone in the general public complains about what's in the bill because he barred C-Span and the press from his chamber for the meeting with Mr X who presented the bill so nobody even knows there's a bill in the first place.
The majority whip tells everyone to vote for it. No debate, amendment, motion to recommit or alternate bill is allowed to be presented. It's passed and sent to the president where he signs it. Bang, it's law. It's law and nobody ever read it, debated it or subjected it to public review.
Do you really want that?
- Jun 27, 2005
- 19,216
- 1
- 61
Look up. Jhhnn posted a lefty blog from a few days ago talking about the same thing.
Guess we'll find out tomorrow. That's when the new rules are presented and voted on.
Yowsah... this is exactly the kind of stuff that hubris brings. Both sides always seem to quickly forget that 1) they won't be in control forever and 2) rules that give the minority a voice in the process are generally there to protect everyone, not just the minority party. The repubs did the same stupid things, only the "gang of 14" prevented the "nuclear option" from coming about.
Sad, I figured it would at least take a little while before these kinds of stupid moves would begin.
Sad, I figured it would at least take a little while before these kinds of stupid moves would begin.
GTaudiophile
Lifer
- Oct 24, 2000
- 29,767
- 33
- 81
Of course the mainstream media won't report this.
And yes, I agree with the person who says that DC needs an enema. But it's too late. We are Rome. We are burning. In 100 years, the USA will mean nothing.
<--- Glad he voted 3rd party!
And yes, I agree with the person who says that DC needs an enema. But it's too late. We are Rome. We are burning. In 100 years, the USA will mean nothing.
<--- Glad he voted 3rd party!
Specop 007
Diamond Member
- Jan 31, 2005
- 9,454
- 0
- 0
Baby steps.
Thats step #4.
First take control of the House.
Ban guns then confiscate
Stomp on freedom of speech
Ban opposing political parties.
PROFIT!
But I'm waiting for some more reliable info too. Frankly, this seems like a bit of an overstep even for the power hunrgy Obamawhacko terrorist Pelosi.
At this point, it's really difficult to tell if the proposed rule changes would have the kind of effects those on the Right are raving about, or if the changes would merely prevent outright obstructionism on their part. They are fond of obstructionism, let's face it, particularly when the political winds shift against them.
Repubs have put themselves in a very bad position. In the past, they've used wedge issues and emotionalism to bridge the huge ideological gulf between themselves, their radicalized base, and more moderate voters. It gained them total dominance in 2002 and again in 2004, which they used to implement policies of total gluttony, deceit, and fantasy. They burned that bridge right to the ground, revealing themselves as liars, looters and worse. If they attempt to change, they'll lose that base and the funding base of ultra-wealthy rightwing ideologues as well. If they don't, they'll not be able to bridge the gulf with their usual methods given the justifiable skepticism on the other side, relegating themselves to minority status for a very long time to come...
I think they'll opt to keep what they've got- it's still a money making enterprise, and that's all they ever cared about, anyway...
Repubs have put themselves in a very bad position. In the past, they've used wedge issues and emotionalism to bridge the huge ideological gulf between themselves, their radicalized base, and more moderate voters. It gained them total dominance in 2002 and again in 2004, which they used to implement policies of total gluttony, deceit, and fantasy. They burned that bridge right to the ground, revealing themselves as liars, looters and worse. If they attempt to change, they'll lose that base and the funding base of ultra-wealthy rightwing ideologues as well. If they don't, they'll not be able to bridge the gulf with their usual methods given the justifiable skepticism on the other side, relegating themselves to minority status for a very long time to come...
I think they'll opt to keep what they've got- it's still a money making enterprise, and that's all they ever cared about, anyway...
Lemon law
Lifer
- Nov 6, 2005
- 20,984
- 3
- 0
As we saw in the previous congress, the real game is in the Senate. And it was GOP stalling and foot dragging that prevented the democratic Congressional majority from getting anything done.
Basically GOP stalling sent Congressional polling ratings into the sewer, nothing got done, more importantly, the American people sent the GOP a very clear message from the voting booth in 11/08, and we should be thinking these actions by Pelosi are simply telling the American people that the GOP is going to have a far harder time slowing or stopping needed legislation.
The GOP has plenty of ways to take their case to the American people, but there is only so much time in a year for public debate on the house floor, and if each of the 180 or so GOP house members offers 15 minutes of fame niggling amendments on every bill, that better than a weeks open house floor time on every bill. These things are supposed to be resolved in committee.
Basically GOP stalling sent Congressional polling ratings into the sewer, nothing got done, more importantly, the American people sent the GOP a very clear message from the voting booth in 11/08, and we should be thinking these actions by Pelosi are simply telling the American people that the GOP is going to have a far harder time slowing or stopping needed legislation.
The GOP has plenty of ways to take their case to the American people, but there is only so much time in a year for public debate on the house floor, and if each of the 180 or so GOP house members offers 15 minutes of fame niggling amendments on every bill, that better than a weeks open house floor time on every bill. These things are supposed to be resolved in committee.
First
Lifer
- Jun 3, 2002
- 10,518
- 271
- 136
I question your shrewdness Whoozyerdaddy if you seriously think Dems are trying to get rid of C-SPAN based on the word of a wingnut web site, or even more ludicrous the notion that Dems (or any party) is going to ban the process of open debate or amendment in either house. Come on.
I was using exaggerations to make the point that senseamp seems to support the letter of the law and not the spirit of it. The Constitution has measures in an effort to prevent one entity from gaining too much influence in government. The rules that are in question do the exact same thing, yet since they are not in the constitution he seems to think that it is ok. It's basically like arguing that the president should be able to do anything he wants with executive privilege and signing statements because the constitution does not forbid it, when we all know that he would never support that argument. It's hypocritical and a blatant display of partisanship being justified because "they were asking for it". Senseamp represents exactly what is wrong with American politics.
ProfJohn
Lifer
- Jul 28, 2006
- 18,161
- 7
- 0
This is the same Nancy Pelosi that adjourned the house and then turned the lights out because she was afraid the Republicans were going to force a vote on the drilling ban.
Pelosi has a history of ignoring past precedence and democratic principles to get her way so I wouldn't be to surprised at what she does in the future.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 24K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter