Its about damned time. Just because someone has an objection doesn't mean they have an argument.
In a situation where both parties have exactly the same agenda (destroying actual democracy), inefficiency was the only thing the public could hope for. YMMV.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In a situation where both parties have exactly the same agenda (destroying actual democracy), inefficiency was the only thing the public could hope for. YMMV.
"...Government is staffed with mostly well-intentioned but incompetent people... Conspiracy theorists reverse this: They think government is evil-intentioned but supremely competent. That's crazy-talk, Count Chocula."
— Jonah Goldberg
Efficiency and competence are two entirely different things. It is quite possible to be highly competent, yet never manage to make a single decision, as well as highly efficient though completely incompetent. This last is a severely dangerous proposition.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
This will work for the Dems until the Repubs eventually end up in majority again.
Not very farsighted, that Harry Reid.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In 2005, Harry Reid said of the filibuster "It encourages moderation and consensus. It gives voice to the minority, so that cooler heads may prevail."
Oh, and "Now Mr. President, I will not stand here and say the filibuster has always been used for positive purposes."
Also, "Of course the President would like the power to name anyone he wants to lifetime seats on the Supreme Court and other federal courts. And that is why the White House has been aggressively lobbying Senate Republicans to change Senate rules in a way that would hand dangerous new powers to the President over two separate branches – the Congress and the Judiciary. Unfortunately, this is part of a disturbing pattern of behavior by this White House and Republicans in Washington."
And the kicker . . . "Some in this Chamber want to throw out 217 years of Senate history in the quest for absolute power. They want to do away with Mr. Smith coming to Washington. They want to do away with the filibuster. They think they are wiser than our Founding Fathers. I doubt that’s true. "
I'm as surprised as anyone that I find myself in agreement.
Efficiency and competence are two entirely different things. It is quite possible to be highly competent, yet never manage to make a single decision, as well as highly efficient though completely incompetent. This last is a severely dangerous proposition.
¿Por Que No Los Dos? Pretty sure there's equal amounts of evil and idiocy under both canopies.
The only thing that differentiates between the two, more often than not, is which side the person making the accusation is on.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
This will work for the Dems until the Repubs eventually end up in majority again.
Not very farsighted, that Harry Reid.
Its still a net win for the democrats.
Democrats are biologically hardwired to compromise. They'll put some of the republicans nominations through, instead of filibustering everything. Republicans have become obstructionist to the point of unreason, exploiting the golden mean fallacy by promoting more and more radical so that the compromise position between the two used to be right of center.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Democrats are biologically hardwired to compromise
Yeah I'm gonna need a cite on that.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Democrats are biologically hardwired to compromise.
I lol'ed.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
In 2005, Harry Reid said of the filibuster "It encourages moderation and consensus. "
And that's the problem: its not doing that anymore. Its encouraging republicans to say no for the sake of saying no.
Democrats are biologically hardwired to compromiseYeah I'm gonna need a cite on that.
Check your funnybone...
In 2005, Harry Reid said of the filibuster "It encourages moderation and consensus. "And that's the problem: its not doing that anymore. Its encouraging republicans to say no for the sake of saying no.
Translation: "The people I don't like are not letting the people I do like do things I like."
Perhaps a little wordy and repetitive and that could get confusing, so up for alternatives on that regard. But easily plugs into the conversation and is applicable regardless of who is talking!
Translation: "The people I don't like are not letting the people I do like do things I like."In 2005, Harry Reid said of the filibuster "It encourages moderation and consensus. "And that's the problem: its not doing that anymore. Its encouraging republicans to say no for the sake of saying no.
Translation: i can't argue with what you said so i'll make you say something else.
Don't do that.
Can you tell me what the possible rationale for filibustering Chuck Hagel was?
"We won, and it's not fair that we can't do what we want." My toddler doesn't whine as much as those guys do.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In 2005, Harry Reid said of the filibuster "It encourages moderation and consensus. "And that's the problem: its not doing that anymore. Its encouraging republicans to say no for the sake of saying no.Translation: "The people I don't like are not letting the people I do like do things I like."
Perhaps a little wordy and repetitive and that could get confusing, so up for alternatives on that regard. But easily plugs into the conversation and is applicable regardless of who is talking!
Orthos,
Fun fact: In the history of the Republic, there have been 168 Presidential appointments that have been fillibustered and blocked. 82 of those were nominated since Obama was elected. Kind of hard to say there hasn't been a little bit of partisan obstructionism going on when you consider that pretty much half of the fillibuster blocks ever have happened in the last 5 years, isn't it?
I probably could if I knew or cared who Chuck Hagel was.
I'm just here to riff. I have no real investment.
"We won, and it's not fair that we can't do what we want." My toddler doesn't whine as much as those guys do.
So wait...
Team A won the election.
Team B stops the people that won the election from doing anything.
And its team A thats whining like a toddler?
How on earth does that make ANY sense?
Can you tell me what the possible rationale for filibustering Chuck Hagel was?
Indifference to an Iran with nuclear weapons?
He's axing the defense budget to try to push more money over to failed social programs?He's a yes-man instead of focusing on what his responsibility as SecDef is supposed to be?
Gee, maybe some people think that a political hack in that job is a serious enough issue that his nomination should be filibustered.
I know, I know. "Democrats good, Republicans evil."
I know, I know. "Democrats good, Republicans evil."
Psssst....
In 1996, Hagel ran for the open US Senate seat created by the retirement of Democrat J. James Exon. Hagel's opponent was Ben Nelson, then the sitting Governor of Nebraska. Hagel won and became the first Republican in twenty-four years to win a Senate seat in Nebraska. Six years later in 2002, Hagel overwhelmingly won re-election with over 83% of the vote, the largest margin of victory in any statewide race in Nebraska history (see below or link to: United States Senate election in Nebraska, 2002).
He's not indifferent to a nuclear armed Iran.
Colin Powel disagrees with your assesment of his qualifications.
and he's not even a democrat.
So why on earth should I think that your opinion is anything but AstroTurf seeded anger and deliberate misinformation? For crying out loud either you got his party wrong or you can't see how that blatantly contradicts your " "Democrats good, Republicans evil" strawman.
Psst . . .
Political.
Hack.
I'm well aware Hagel registers himself as a Republican. He wasn't well-liked in the Senate. Probably because of the aforementioned hackitude.
Here's a better one. Why did Mitch McConnell (R-KY) filibuster his own, unamended bill on Dec 6, 2012 if the system hasn't been twisted beyond all utility and sanity?
Rules of the Senate. Reid has voted against his own bills in order to be allowed to bring them up again.
That's a reason I'm never going to be a Senator. I'd have to get all cozy with people who make my skin crawl. Kinda like going to GenCon and rubbing up against the guy who thinks he doesn't have to shower.
Psst . . .
Political.
Hack.I'm well aware Hagel registers himself as a Republican. He wasn't well-liked in the Senate. Probably because of the aforementioned hackitude.
Which is an insult, not an argument.
Can you tell me what the possible rationale for filibustering Chuck Hagel was?
Indifference to an Iran with nuclear weapons?
He's axing the defense budget to try to push more money over to failed social programs?
He's a yes-man instead of focusing on what his responsibility as SecDef is supposed to be?Gee, maybe some people think that a political hack in that job is a serious enough issue that his nomination should be filibustered.
I know, I know. "Democrats good, Republicans evil."
Axing the defense budget seems like kind of a good idea, doesn't it? We spent ourselves into a recession dumping money into Defense. The way we spend money is broken; those defense dollars aren't going to soldiers, they're going to defense contractors.
All of this angst over the "end of the filibuster" is overblown. The rules change doesn't apply to Supreme Court nominees, or legislation. All it does is prevent a minority party from obstructing perfunctory nominations out of sheer spite, which is why Republicans won't be undoing it when they get the Senate back (which, contrary to their belief, is unlikely to be in 2014...they kind of kneecapped themselves with that government shutdown silliness)
Which is an insult, not an argument.
Well, since I'm not filibustering anything, I'm perfectly comfortable in calling Hagel a political hack.
Go back and see Obama's, H Clinton. Kerry and Reid on the nuclear option when they were under Bush. Yesterday was a blunder on their part. 2014 it appears they will again be the minority .
Obamacare could set back liberalism for years!! Doubt me then check back when this monstrosity rolls out next year. Shutdown by republicans especially Cruz looks like a work of genius at this point.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This will work for the Dems until the Repubs eventually end up in majority again.
Not very farsighted, that Harry Reid.Its still a net win for the democrats.
Democrats are biologically hardwired to compromise. They'll put some of the republicans nominations through, instead of filibustering everything. Republicans have become obstructionist to the point of unreason, exploiting the golden mean fallacy by promoting more and more radical so that the compromise position between the two used to be right of center.
Given the way the Repubs, led around by the Tea Party wing, have gone b&$*$$* insane since the President-with-Extra-Melanin was elected, does anyone seriously believe that the Repubs wouldn't have done the exact same ploy if they they regained majority in the Senate in the last election?! They aren't interested in anything beyond scorched earth politics and they damn sure wouldn't have allowed any Dems to stand in the way of Romney's or whomever's appointments.
At least now the Whitehouse can get started vetting and the Senate confirming/rejecting non-Far Right candidates for all the open judge seats... some of whom a decade or two down the road will likely be considered to fill a Supreme seat.
Ah, and of course any sane Repubs are immediately labeled RINOs or hacks so they can be discredited and disregarded.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Obamacare could set back liberalism for years!!
The ACA isn't a liberal idea; it was cooked up by the conservative Heritage Foundation think tank during Nixon's years, and implemented by a Republican governor in MA. That anyone considers it or Obama (an Eisenhower Republican) liberal just shows how far Right the Repubs have shifted.
Single-payer would have been the liberal plan, but it was DOA under Obama.
Which is an insult, not an argument.
Well, since I'm not filibustering anything, I'm perfectly comfortable in calling Hagel a political hack.
That you are perfectly comfortable launching baseless,vague, vacuous, unspecific unsupported and unsupportable insults and then using that baseless,vague, vacuous, unspecific unsupported and unsupportable insult AS an argument is exactly WHY they needed to circumvent the filibuster.
You really think it was Romneys idea and not Ted Kennedys? History would say it was not romneys idea to begin with. The speaker of the house Dimasi really pushed it through and fter Romeny left there were tighter controls encacted
Republicans could have used nuclear option and didnt (People should find the sound clips from Reed, Biden, Kerry etc on why there opposed it it.. Mconnell came out yesterday and said they would change it so that when the republicans have the majority it wont be used
The single payer was DOA under Obama because even he didnt have the cache to implement it and clearly it would have been a disaster. Its a disaster either way. Many indepenednts and demococrats will vote republicn in 2014
Or, compromise.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Or, compromise.
Under bush
Republicans: Here's a list of people, including some real whackos.
Democrats: Well we're half the government, so we're going to hold up 10% of them.
Republicans: Obstructionist jerks! We're going to go constitutional on you!
Democrats: ok ok ok.. you can have 95% of your nominees
Republicans: glad we're compromising!
Under Obama:
Democrats: here's a moderately left of center proposal..
Republicans: NO!
Democrats: Ok, here's someone from your own party. Here's your own bill that you wrote
Republicans: NO!
Democrats: Seriously?
Republicans "NO!"
Just because two people are fighting doesn't mean that one of them isn't being reasonable.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Anyone who doesn't realize that this whole thing is the Democrats' plan to stack the courts with pro Obamacare judges for the coming avalanche of lawsuits just isn't paying attention.
At the moment they aren't paying much attention to the reality that if Republicans take the Senate, they'll use the same tactic against Democrats. And that will open the doors to a slew of possible undoing of decades of liberal achievements.
But these days it's all about the next election.
Oh, and just for historical purposes, rejecting a judge based on the filibuster isn't called "Borking" for no reason.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Tell yourself whatever makes this power grab palatable to you jeff. I'm sure you'd say the same if it had happened with Bush as President and the Senate in Republican hands.
These things tend to come back around, and this one likely will. If Obamacare continues on it's current trajectory, 2014 is likely to be a bloodbath for Democrats.
And if we wind up with a Republican President in 2016, don't be surprised if he/she chooses to enforce only the laws they want to enforce, just as Obama has been doing.
This is no longer a country of laws. It is a country of pure unadulterated ideological power grabbing. While both parties do it, one party is certainly much more practiced and skilled at it.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Tell yourself whatever makes this power grab palatable to you jeff. I'm sure you'd say the same if it had happened with Bush as President and the Senate in Republican hands.
Power grab? What power grab? The ability for the party that won the government election to... govern? The ability to put in judges as the constitution said? Were you an adult for the bush years? If I had a dollar for every time i heard "Up or down vote!" I could afford Obamacare...
The obstructionist democrats of that era were not remotely analogous to the obstructionist republicans of this one. Again, holding up 10% of the judges is one thing, holding up EVERY nomination is an entirely different animal. Its like saying my cat running around your yard is the same as your cat running around my yard when I own a Siamese and you have a Siberian tiger.
These things tend to come back around, and this one likely will. If Obamacare continues on it's current trajectory, 2014 is likely to be a bloodbath for Democrats.
Its pretty unlikely for the senate. Only 33 seats are open and at best for the republicans only 4-5 of them are real contests.
In all likelyhood the website will be running in 6 months, and by the time next november rolls around it will mean as much to the average voter as teapot dome.
This is no longer a country of laws. It is a country of pure unadulterated ideological power grabbing. While both parties do it, one party is certainly much more practiced and skilled at it.
Exactly!...
Wait, why aren't you on my side then?
In the unlikely event that facts could possibly enter into it:
before this vote, senators representing a mere 11% of the population could block all presidential appointments and all legislation.From now on, senators representing a mere 17% of the population can block most presidential appointments; senators representing 11% can still block all legislation and all Supreme Court nominees.
The march of democracy.
What a f$@@ing scandal that institution is.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
LOL, the clearest proof of ideological zealotry is when you start utilizing absurd hyperbole to describe your opponents and claim with utter sincerity of belief that you are the "good guys" and don't do what the "bad guys" do.
Grow up.
Medicare Part D vs. Obamacare. Hm. Interesting.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
LOL, the clearest proof of ideological zealotry is when you start utilizing absurd hyperbole to describe your opponents and claim with utter sincerity of belief that you are the "good guys" and don't do what the "bad guys" do.
There are degrees man. The world isn't binary. You can engage in politics without selling your entire soul, you can change a position without being a complete etch a sketch.
Why is it utterly inconceivable to you that the two sides MIGHT be different, in degree if not in kind? Whats convincing you that the two sides must be equally to bad?