Yup. Blame the Republicans for a Democrat President, with a Democrat majority in both houses when nothing gets done. You really are Uncommonlydense.

"Upset that Congress can't seem to get anything done? Blame the Republicans."

upset? . . . shit, most of the country is clamoring for LESS government

Republicans fillibuster 70% of legislation

So why didn't the democrats use that tool to stop legislation that they now blame for the current economic mess we are in? Is CS saying that the Democrats had the tools to stop bad legislation, but didn't use them? I would say that makes them as much to blame for the country's current problems as the republicans. Failure to act to stop something wrong when it is in your power to do so makes you as guilty as the perpetrator.

More horseshit hypocrisy from the party of "up and down votes".

most of the country is clamoring for LESS government

Of course they say that, it sounds good.

Problem is that when you cut education, teachers and families are against it.

When you cut medicare, seniors are against it.

What the country is clamorin for it LESS government only if it does not effect their lives personally.

Problem is that when you cut education, teachers and families are against it.

I believe he meant cut the waste in government when he said cut the government.

Are you serious? When have you ever seen the Democrats to fight for ANYTHING? They won't even stand with their own president.

"I believe he meant cut the waste in government when he said cut the government.
#6 | Posted by goatman at 2010-01-26 08:41 AM"

Possibly, but that's just a truism. After all, who wouldn't be against waste in government?

So..., what (specifically) qualifies as waste in government?

So..., what (specifically) qualifies as waste in government?

Well, starting at the lowest level, the four guys leaning on a shovel watching a fifth fix a pothole.

#9 | Posted by goatman at

Riiight.

So what you are saying is "I've got nuthin."

An unprecedented amount of obstructionism from the Party of No?

Instead of offering argument, debate and possible compromise solution they only offer contradiction and knee jerk obstructionism.

Fer folk fond of calling Obama an "empty suit" they've certainly shown themselves to have less substances than a soap bubble.

Be Well.

How do you filibuster with 40 votes in the Senate? I'm all ears.

"So why didn't the democrats use that tool to stop legislation that they now blame for the current economic mess we are in? "

because the precedant wasn't there.

but now it is..

don't you guys realize this D vs R thing is hurting us, the american people...

those guys keep their jobs and perks until they die.

so now we're going to have nothing ever get done in congress cause the precedant is to immediately filibuster everything the other side does.

so when the republicans have a majority in congress, 80% of their bills will be filibusters and it will go back and forth until the filibuster is just standard practice for all bills.

"How do you filibuster with 40 votes in the Senate? I'm all ears."

so you think we should only legislate when there is a super majority in congress.

the second its more of an equal split nothing should get done?

uhmm what happened to both sides compromising... wasn't that what congress was created to do?

#12 | Posted by JOE at

Are you serious? When have you ever seen the Democrats to fight for ANYTHING? They won't even stand with their own president.

#7 | Posted by NoGov4Me at

So..., what (specifically) qualifies as waste in government?

#8 | Posted by TrueBlue at 2010-01-26 09:04 AM | Reply | Flag:

For openers ....

The Department of Energy

The Department of Education

The Department of Commerce

Housing and Urban Development

Department of Labor

So what you are saying is "I've got nuthin."

No, I didn't say that. I showed an example of where to start. Things start with baby steps. The Wright brothers didn't fly a 787 at Kitty Hawk.

Since your imagination isn't the keenest, I'll give an example of waste at the highest level: Lobbyists, wars, ineffecient welfare and entitlement system. But as I said, baby steps.

Think you can fill some blanks in between, or do you need help with that as well?

#17 | Posted by goatman at

He asked you for a specific example, you tossed out a figment of your imagination, I'm the one with the problem though. LOL

"Problem is that when you cut education, teachers and families are against it."

The federal government has almost no business in education (the exception, maybe, being higher education on a limited basis)

Education should only be managed from the county and state level.

Ted Kennedy's No Child Left Behind has cost hundreds of billions of dollars. What has it accomplished? (other than letting W. claim to be 'an education president.')

"They won't even stand with their own president."

hence the dilemma with american politics.

i like obama, but i hate most democrats.

i like the republican philosophy on paper, but in practice they have too much of a "moral" agenda and i'm not a fan of their politicians either.

so i'm stuck in the middle and unfortunately i feel the frustration of Obama, and any other democratic president.

a moderate democrat CAN win the presidency, but the ultra left wing of his party can't get along with the centrists and conservatives in the party and thus they can't do anything.

The republicans are united but they elect ultra right wingers. You can't be a moderate republican or you get called a Rhino and can't win the presidency.

sad state affairs for those with reason.

because the precedant wasn't there.

Do you need the precedent of using the emergency brake to stop the car and keep from going over a cliff when the master cylinder fails?

goat.

"when the master cylinder fails?"

yes.
but then once the car is stopped, you fix the engine or it gets trashed.

the engine that is congress has been broken for a long time... and we continue to drive it down and are using the emergency brake too much and one of these days, thats going to fail too and we will go over the "kliff" haha

"when the master cylinder fails?"

yes.

I think you misunderstood my question, kliff. I don't think you would fail to use the emergency brake to save yourself simply because you had never used it before. BTW, no pun intended with the "cliff", but good catch on your part!

"Through the next few turbulent decades and into the 1960's the filibuster was used often by Southern Democrats to block civil rights legislation. The filibuster had been seen by the minority party as a tool to combat the potential "tyranny of the majority," but the frequent usage of the filibuster by the Southern Democrats became characterized as the "tyranny of the minority.""

Dionne: Republicans Filibuster 70% of Legislation

Posted by COMMONSENSE

Yep! Saving Americans from really bad decisions that will have to be fixed in the next Congress, and the next, and the next.

How do you filibuster with 40 votes in the Senate? I'm all ears.

#12 | Posted by JOE at 2010-01-26 09:17 AM | Reply

Take a civics course moron.

"So why didn't the democrats use that tool to stop legislation that they now blame for the current economic mess we are in?"

Simple, the Republicans threatened to use the nuclear option which is exactly what that pussy Reid should be doing. We should have called their bluff when the Republicans threatened to use it, instead Dems backed down to preserve some imaginary tradition of the Senate, be advised Democrats, if and when the Republicans are in the majority and the Dems filibuster they will indeed do the nuclear option so you may as well do it yourselves now.

I showed an example of where to start.

And the last time the POTUS announced he was cutting a program and it resulted in a few hundred million in savings the wing dings poo pooed it as "too little".

#16 | Posted by vernon at 2010-01-26 09:24 AM | Reply

Verm, he asked for specific examples. You return with generalities based on ill concieved notions. You got nuttin.

"Yep! Saving Americans from really bad decisions that will have to be fixed in the next Congress, and the next, and the next."

That' sort of wht they said after Social Security and Medicare was passed. Generally, once the voters realize that the Republicans are lying about the the evils of things like health care reform they like the results. Case in point, Massachussetts health care system has 80% of MA residents' approval and was partly to blame for Coakley's defeat.

so you think we should only legislate when there is a super majority in congress.

No, I don't think that - which is why I never said it.

I asked how you can filibuster with 40 votes in the Senate. If anyone wants to explain it, feel free.

Ted Kennedy's No Child Left Behind

Ahhh the wing ding moonbats are re writing history again.

The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (Pub.L. 107-110, 115 Stat. 1425, enacted January 8, 2002),[1] often abbreviated in print as NCLB and sometimes shortened in pronunciation to "nicklebee",[2] is a United States Act of Congress that was originally proposed by the administration of President George W. Bush immediately after taking office.[3]

What a moron you are Verm.

Take a civics course moron.

Sorry 726, please share your knowledge of civics with me and explain how you can filibuster a bill with 40 votes in the Senate. Thanks in advance for your help.

Joe,

Look it up yourself in the internets.

You can surely do that.

What Reid should do, is require an actual filibuster that would require the Senator to actually stand and talk for the duration.

I think that would cut the amount of filibusters down.

Does Joe ever stop kicking leftwing pant-pissing ass?
Jeez, between him, Sully, Goatman, and Pinche, I don't know who sets you fuckers straight most often.

We need less government, not more. We're already going to spend $1,400,000,000 more than we take in this year. How much more do the Democrats want?

The article I linked explains Rule 22 which originally required 67% of senators to vote to end debate (cloture) so legislation could move on to a vote. Prior to Rule 22, one senator could talk endlessly to prevent a vote as the Senate allows unfettered debate. The current rule requires 60% or 60 votes to end debate.

Brown hasn't been seated yet, are the dems missing a body?

(R)'s shouldn't be able to filibuster is all the (D)'s butts are in their seats....

Look it up yourself in the internets.

I already did. The internet told me that "filibuster" means "to delay or entirely prevent a vote on a proposal by extending a debate on that proposal," and the Senate Rules told me that three-fifths (or 60 votes) are needed to end debate.

So, again, I'm left wondering how a party with 40 votes could filibuster anything. Please share your civic knowledge with me and explain.

"require the Senator to actually stand and talk for the duration"

Second that. Let their votes be counted so that we know who to throw the next retirement party for.

"How much more do the Democrats want?"

Should Obama have just let the economy fall into depression RisR???
Much of the deficit was an attempt, most economists say a successful one BTW, to keep us out of a depression.
If Obama had done less you would be now criticizing him for that, let's be honest, no matter what he did you would be against it because it isn't about what's good for the economy or the country....it's about getting Democrats out of power so that the Republican war on the middle class can continue unabated.

Much of the deficit was an attempt, most economists say a successful one BTW, to keep us out of a depression.

Ecomists are like political scientist, for every "expert" you put forth saying one thing, I can present another who says the exact opposite.

"I asked how you can filibuster with 40 votes in the Senate."

They couldn't actually if Lieberman would vote with a united Dem majority but there isn't a bill being debated right now to filibuster that I am aware of. Health Care Reform is waiting for action by the House.

"I can present another who says the exact opposite."

I could say the same thing about doctors who treat cancer but if I had that disease I think I would go with a consensus of the most respected ones, and by that measure the stimulus and the bank bail out were considered responsible responses to the situation.

So, again, I'm left wondering how a party with 40 votes could filibuster anything. Please share your civic knowledge with me and explain.

#39 | Posted by JOE at 2010-01-26 10:16 AM | Reply | Flag

You only need one senator to fillibuster a bill.

I could say the same thing about doctors who treat cancer but if I had that disease...

really? doctors argue over whether or not you have, say......bone cancer?

one says..."she has bone cancer".

the other says..."no, she has a broken arm".

really?

bullshit. you don't the exact opposite opinion on stuff like that.

"really? doctors argue over whether or not you have, say......bone cancer?"

No but they sure do argue about how to treat it.

I think most economists agree we had a deep recession, but they may disagree on how to treat it.

I think most economists agree we had a deep recession, but they may disagree on how to treat it.

sure, and you agree with the "reputable" ones while disregarding the rest.

To do anything else would force you to question Obama.

emotionally you can't do that danni.

LOL

#39 | Posted by JOE at 2010-01-26 10:16 AM | Reply | Flag

You only need one senator to fillibuster a bill.

*Until the passage of senate rule 22 wherein 60 votes can end debate (debate period monopolization was the original filibuster).

They only need 60 votes to end debate, regardless of who's "filibustering".

They just don't have the balls to do it.

You only need one senator to fillibuster a bill.

so if there were a majority of 99-1 then the fillibuster is a tool to stop legislation you oppose?

-sure, and you agree with the "reputable" ones while disregarding the rest.

Yea! Go unreputable economists! Yea!

"They just don't have the balls to do it."

Balls?? That is a stupid comment.
They don't have the votes without the independent Lieberman and the conservative Democrats who are just don't always vote with their party.
We all know that but why do you righties feel the need to pretend that the Dems inability to vote cloture is anything except what it really is??
Why mischaracterize everything???
Why be such partisan shills???
Do you get points for it???
I can understand right wing pundits but none of y'all are pundits and you don't fool anyone here on DR. I think some of you actually think you do, I think some think their voices are important or something.

They don't have the votes without the independent Lieberman and the conservative Democrats who are just don't always vote with their party.

I know it's frustrating to have actual legislators who are more beholden to something other than their party. They all accept support from special interest groups but somewhere in there you might find a legislator who cares about their actual voters.

Danni hates them.

fuckers

That was an interesting read and illuminating. I did not realize so much was filibustered. The time has come for BOTH parties to really think long and hard about who it is they represent: the party or their constituents.

Once again dems react to the "threat" and group that with an actual filibuster. One would think if they had an ounce of conviction and felt their legislation was worthy, they would expose repubs and their criticism would have merit. Instead the dems prove they are weak and won't take a chance by allowing the repubs to actually make good on their threat. I think it says more about the leadership and the shit they try and pass. If it is such good legisaltion, get behind it and fight. Instead of whining after giving in.

So, its the little d's that are making the (R) filibuster's so effective?

Why are we lead to believe its all the R's fault? Get your ducks in a row Harry! There would be 0% filibusters without little d turncoats. I guess the only time that D's have been on the same page was when they were filibustering civil rights legislation.

Always with the projection on the left.

so if there were a majority of 99-1 then the fillibuster is a tool to stop legislation you oppose?

#50 | Posted by eberly at 2010-01-26 10:41 AM | Reply

Yes.

But just like any tool, it can be overused.

I wonder how much of the 70% has no opposition other than being obstructionist. The tone in politics has been ugly for a long time now. The Democrats are idealists if they beleive they will ever get any bipartisan cooperation from the party of no. I think the fillibuster has outlived it's usefullness.

Before a procedural rule change filibusters had to be actual speeches. I think Strom Thurman talked about a bill 24 hours straight in a filibuster.

So, its the little d's that are making the (R) filibuster's so effective?

Why are we lead to believe its all the R's fault?

That is like saying it is the rape victims fault because she could not fight off the attacker.

#52 | Posted by danni at 2010-01-26 10:47 AM

Isn't it ironic that you always seem to blame the blue dog or conservative dems, and somehow ignore the far left dems who are in charge? Maybe it is time to remove the leftist liberals out of the leadership and replace them with blue dog or conservative dems.

Simple Fact: There have been more Filibusters since Obama got elected then in all previous history of the Senate. That's more in 12 months than in 220 years.

Dear NOPers, you lost. I'm sorry.

Of course, if you noticed, now Obama is pushing through and highlighting legislation that speaks directly to independents. Filibuster might have backfired.

"I know it's frustrating to have actual legislators who are more beholden to something other than their party."

That comment is hilarious when you consider Lieberman's stated positions on single payer health care reform.

"Once again dems react to the "threat" and group that with an actual filibuster."

That is because of an agreement between both parties, I agree though, change that rule make them actually filibuster.

" I guess the only time that D's have been on the same page was when they were filibustering civil rights legislation."

Gosh you got to reach pretty far back and even then you know as well as I that it was a small group of southern Dems who filibustered a bill proposed by Democrats. To pretend that the southern Democrats of that era are similar to the Democrats of today is bull shit and you know it.

The filibuster is a vital tool of the minority and one of the ONLY weapons they have against the "Tyranny of the Majority," but it has been so misused since 2001 that it is now a WMD in the hands of partisan hacks who wish nothing more than the failure of the majority party. It should not be gotten rid of, but the rules surrounding it NEEDS to be re-examined.

Does anyone think repubs shouldn't have threatened a filibuster on HC reform? Especially after seeing how Harry led the Senate to pass it?

"Maybe it is time to remove the leftist liberals out of the leadership and replace them with blue dog or conservative dems."

Oh, you mean elect Republicans. No thanks.
I blame the Blue Dog Dems because they are the ones who refused to vote for cloture to end the Republican filibuster. Duh!

You only need one senator to fillibuster a bill.

LOL!

Per the senate rules, 60 votes to end debate will "end debate," and therefore end any one person "filibuster."

Take a civics class, retard. You're even dumber than I thought.

"The filibuster is a vital tool of the minority and one of the ONLY weapons they have against the "Tyranny of the Majority,"

I've heard that before but I am trying to think of when it really prevented anything that mattered.
Examples???

List of successful filibusters and the outcomes:

Patriot Act Stalls in Senate; Feingold Leads Successful Filibuster Against Anti-Terrorism Legislation

The filibuster is not there to "prevent" anything, it is there to stop a bad bill from being passed and to force debate to make it a good bill.

"Opposing the "surge"" Love that one, the Dems were certainly on the wrong end of history. Because of the surge Obama is now able to pull troops from Iraq. That seems like it matters.

Because of the surge Obama is now able to pull troops from Iraq. That seems like it matters.

Illusion of progress. The surge allows him to remove the troops added in the surge without actually changing anything in Iraq. Pre-surge levels are meaningless.

"Oh, you mean elect Republicans. No thanks.
I blame the Blue Dog Dems because they are the ones who refused to vote for cloture to end the Republican filibuster. Duh!"

Duh? You equate the statement of changing the left wing dems to more moderate or conservative dems who lead both Houses to electing republicans? You are a riot danni. But please continue to ignore who is leading your party back to the minority status, instead of opening your eyes and calling a spade a spade.

From the list and from the Feingold example it looks to me like the filibuster accomplished nothing. Most or all of the things filibustered finally passed anyway. The filibuster is not in the Constitution, it gives small states disproportionate power as has been the case with Ben Nelson and other conservative Democrats who held up health care reform. Jettison the filibuster and return to representative democracy.

"You equate the statement of changing the left wing dems to more moderate or conservative dems who lead both Houses to electing republicans?"

Little if any difference.

Most or all of the things filibustered finally passed anyway.

With changes and concessions. The filibuster is not supposed to kill a bill entirely, just to pause the process so a bad bill can be made good. It is a fundamental lack of understanding of the way it is intended to be used that has caused the problem, not the filibuster.

We have given a hand gun to a retard and are blaming the gun instead of the person using it.

as I linked yesterday

tom harkin has the answer to the dems' woes on this subject

do away with the filabuster...
ANOTHER sign they know whats coming next november.

"It is a fundamental lack of understanding of the way it is intended to be used that has caused the problem, not the filibuster."

You really think the Republicans don't "understand" how it was intended to be used???
I think it is not a lack of understanding but rather they are more interested in defeating Democrats than in governing the country. They want Obama's "Waterloo" and it wouldn't have mattered what issue was the opportunity to have it.

We have given a hand gun to a thug and are blaming the gun instead of the person using it.

You really think the Republicans don't "understand" how it was intended to be used???

No I don't. They are doing this now to get even with the Dems for their doing to Bush. Funny how now getting rid of the filibuster is such a good idea once you are in the majority. You that confident you will stay there? The Republicans felt pretty sure they were going to as well when they wanted to get rid of it.

We have given a hand gun to a thug and are blaming the gun instead of the person using it.

LOL, did you think before you posted that? Does it matter if the RNC are thugs as you say or retards as I say, either way, we are blaming the tool and not the person using it. Go after the RNC and leave the filibuster alone.

We have given a hand gun to a thug and are blaming the gun instead of the person using it.

Interesting choice of words, considering what I believe your stance to be on gun control.

"LOL, did you think before you posted that?"

Seeing as she thinks changing the dems leadership to a more moderate environment is calling for electing repubs. She also thinks there is no difference between the left wing hacks running the dems and blue dogs. Laughable.

tom harkin has the answer to the dems' woes on this subject

do away with the filabuster...
ANOTHER sign they know whats coming next november.

#76 | Posted by afkabl2

Tom Harkin the guy who told everyone he was a pilot in Vietnam. I love that guy

"I think it is not a lack of understanding but rather they are more interested in defeating Democrats than in governing the country."

I don't know if you've been paying attention, Danni, but "defeating democrats" at this stage seems to be just what the majority of U.S. voters WANT them to do.

You only need one senator to fillibuster a bill.

LOL!

Per the senate rules, 60 votes to end debate will "end debate," and therefore end any one person "filibuster."

Take a civics class, retard. You're even dumber than I thought.

#65 | Posted by JOE at 2010-01-26 11:07 AM | Reply | Flag

You seem to lack some understanding. That's okay you are a wing ding so it is understandable.

It takes one senator to fillibuster a bill. It takes 60 to end cloture which is to end the fillibuster.

In the United States Senate, the Senate rules permit a senator, or a series of senators, to speak for as long as they wish and on any topic they choose, unless 3/5ths of the Senate (60 out of 100 Senators "duly chosen and sworn")[15] brings debate to a close by invoking cloture. According to the Supreme Court ruling in U.S. v. Ballin (1892), changes to Senate rules could however be achieved by a simple majority[16]:

Now how hard is that to understand?

Good what a freaking moron.

You seem to lack some understanding.

Actually it is you who has that problem.

It was wrong to assume you had enough brains to recognize that it meant fillibuster "successfully".

That is okay. You are a libtard, so it's understandable.

You only need one senator to fillibuster a bill.

LOL!

Per the senate rules, 60 votes to end debate will "end debate," and therefore end any one person "filibuster."

Take a civics class, retard. You're even dumber than I thought.

#65 | Posted by JOE at 2010-01-26 11:07 AM | Reply

Well retard answer this scenario...

1 senator fillibusters a bill, the majority cannot gather 60 votes to cloture debate... is the bill fillibustered or not?

but isnt the filabuster thing just a threat actually?
if one side called the 'bluff' if you will of the other..wouldnt they have to actually talk and shit like that?

spaeking of talking

gibbs...one and a half million jobs saved or created

axelrod...two million jobs saved or created

jerret...thousands and thousands of jobs saved or created..

yeah right..........

It was wrong to assume you had enough brains to recognize that it meant fillibuster "successfully".

Don't hurt yourself moving the goal posts.

Retard.

So now I am supposed to be clairvoyant enough to interpret this....

How do you filibuster with 40 votes in the Senate? I'm all ears.

to "mean" this....

How do you successfully filibuster with 40 votes in the Senate? I'm all ears.

It's okay, you are a wing ding, you will learn someday. Words have meanings. That is why they are put into sentences.

but isnt the filabuster thing just a threat actually?

Mostly. Nowadays the Senator seeking to fillibuster a bill will tell the senate leader and the leader will move other business ahead of the bill unless there is 60 votes to end the fillibuster.

I would like to see someone actually try a filibuster one day. They should call the bluff of the threat.

Words have meanings. That is why they are put into sentences.

good grief. we all understand the fillibuster specifics 726. you tried to dumb it down so much for yourself and tried to drag us down with you.

sorry, I don't need someone put this into a sentence for me "Wednesday follows Tuesday".

apparently you need it written in a sentence in order to learn that.

many of us don't.

I would like to see someone actually try a filibuster one day. They should call the bluff of the threat.

#92 | Posted by kanrei at 2010

just rent mister smith goes to washington....
(stewart at his 'everyman' best)

we all understand the fillibuster specifics 726. you tried to dumb it down so much

Just trying to help you out. Sorry you did not understand.

I don't need someone put this into a sentence for me "Wednesday follows Tuesday".

Sure that is exactly like asking "how can one senator fillibuster a bill". Of course.

When you get an answer to a question that you don't like, it is only fair that you change the question and call the other person stupid. Standard wing ding operating procedure.

Nowadays the Senator seeking to fillibuster a bill will tell the senate leader and the leader will move other business ahead of the bill unless there is 60 votes to end the fillibuster.

which is spineless. They should force the fillibuster. Put in all networks for everybody to see it.

NEWS FLASH

PENCE...r from IN..

announces he wont run for relection...

looking at senate...or higher perhaps???

"But after Democrats retook control of Congress in 2006 and Republicans found themselves in the minority, it soared to 70 percent."

With a filibuster proof senate why did Harry cower to a mere "threat"????

Too bad the threatened or actual filibusters number wasn't 95% (this assumes a generous 5% was actually meaningful, non-social/progressive engineering legislation). A lot of money would have "BEEN SAVED OR CREATED".

When you get an answer to a question that you don't like, it is only fair that you change the question and call the other person stupid. Standard wing ding operating procedure.

#96 | Posted by 726 at 2010-01

tell me you didnt actually write this.
not with the history of leftists radicals staring you in the face.
NO SIDE name calls more than the left.

just add them up on our little site.

With a filibuster proof senate why did Harry cower to a mere "threat"????

#100 | Posted by 3853177z at 2010

because no matter how bad of a senate leader he is, he isnt stupid..
he knows that the gop will be in charge someday sooner or later.

"Interesting choice of words, considering what I believe your stance to be on gun control."

I will only say that your assumptions is wrong, I've posted quite a few times on it and I am not a big advocate for more gun control laws but by the same token I'm not a gun nut either. I've even thought of buying one myself and I might one day.
If unemployment keeps rising we may all need them.

Problem is that when you cut education, teachers and families are against it.

When you cut medicare, seniors are against it.

What the country is clamorin for it LESS government only if it does not effect their lives personally.

#5 | Posted by 726

And this is exactly why things like government run health care need to be stopped. All it does is give government more power and control which it will never relinquish. Any steps taken by our government to gain more power and control should be stopped in their tracks. They must be stopped.

What Reid should do, is require an actual filibuster that would require the Senator to actually stand and talk for the duration.

I think that would cut the amount of filibusters down.

#35 | Posted by 726 at

Are you serious? When have you ever seen the Democrats to fight for ANYTHING? They won't even stand with their own president.

#7 | Posted by NoGov4Me at

What Obama needs to do is call Reid in for a meeting and simply say "This is what you WILL do, or I WILL take your fucking legs off."

"We need less government, not more."
Given the complexities of running a country of three hundred million people, anyone who uses that simplistic phrase should be immediately dismissed as a hopeless idiot.

joe you're getting to the idiocy of the babbler. your question was answered. get back to studying for the bar fella.

I don't know if you've been paying attention, Danni, but "defeating democrats" at this stage seems to be just what the majority of U.S. voters WANT them to do.

#84 | Posted by jestgettinalong at 2010-01-26 11:40 AM

No, The "majority" of Americans are not Republicans, and we do not "want" the "defeat" of the Democrats. We want a responsible government that actually serves the people, not special interests, corporations, of party politics.

that should be idiocy level of the babbler

What Obama needs to do is call Reid in for a meeting and simply say "This is what you WILL do, or I WILL take your fucking legs off."

#105 | Posted by NoGov4Me at 2010-01-26 01:15 PM | Reply
U R a fucking moronic IDIOT ...ever heard of seperation of powers? What you want is a king not a president.

"We want a responsible government that actually serves the people, not special interests, corporations, of party politics."

Yeah???? Try it and you'll immediately be labeled a socialist. Doesn't matter if you are or not but the corporate media defends the corporate monopoly because of profit.

What Obama needs to do is call Reid in for a meeting and simply say "This is what you WILL do, or I WILL take your fucking legs off."

#105 | Posted by NoGov4Me at 2010-01-26 01:15 PM | Reply

That is exactly what he needs to do, but if he does will be blasted by the right for doing so.

It is a lose lose situation.

The problem with the Dems is that they think the Congress still operates under the congenial rules that existed before the contract on america. They still think that a person's word is good.

It isn't. They have not learned their lesson from 2000-2008 and they are paying a heavy price for it.

The rule should be, if you want in a nice high profile committee like national security, then you tow the party line. That way the likes of Liebermann (who wants to caucus with the Dems when it benefits him personally but tells them to fuck off repeatedly) could not hold the Senate hostage.

Obama needs to decide what he wants to do and sell it to the people. If he gets the people behind him the Congress will follow. FDR did not create the New Deal by appealing to Congress, he sold it to the people who then demanded it of Congress.
As long as Obama allows Congress to act as the leader he will fail.

I asked how you can filibuster with 40 votes in the Senate. If anyone wants to explain it, feel free.

#31 | Posted by JOE at 2010-01-26 10:03 AM | Reply | Flag:

Are you serious? You're simply being obtuse, right?

Does Joe ever stop kicking leftwing pant-pissing ass?
Jeez, between him, Sully, Goatman, and Pinche, I don't know who sets you fuckers straight most often.

#36 | Posted by 101Chairborne at 2010-01-26 10:10 AM | Reply | Flag:

Whine-Oh-Whine,

We know it's never you who sets anyone straight. You yourself realized that sometime back and gave up on even trying. At least you know your limits.

Please explain how he kicked anyone's ass?

The Demowussies don't use this threat, and that's what it is, because they put country before party. Rethuglicans rarely if ever, do that, because to them money and power always come first. They hold no other value.

The Demowussies are such wussies that all it takes is a threat of a filibuster and they cave to unreasonable demands. There wasn't even one actual filibuster last year. Make them do it, see if they have the guts and procedural know how. Its not easy. My bet is the chickenhawks Rethuglicans would never succeed. But so far they haven't had to.

Would this lying liar explain how the Republicans can filibuster when the Democrats have a filibuster proof majority.

Or is he simply apologizing for Obama's overreaching?

"Would this lying liar explain how the Republicans can filibuster when the Democrats have a filibuster proof majority."

You can explain things to these people over and over and over yet they still ask the same stupid questions and make the same stupid comments.
Must have sucked for their poor teachers when they were back in school. Some folks just can't learn.

"As long as Obama allows Congress to act as the leader he will fail."

Maybe it's the leaders of Congress who are failing Obama. Which he deserves seeing as he had four years of working with them, and still trusted them to carry his water.

Take a civics course moron.
Sorry 726, please share your knowledge of civics with me and explain how you can filibuster a bill with 40 votes in the Senate. Thanks in advance for your help.

#33 | POSTED BY JOE

you can't it requires 41..The whole concept of a super majority in the senate sucks balls.

And this is exactly why things like government run health care need to be stopped. All it does is give government more power and control which it will never relinquish. Any steps taken by our government to gain more power and control should be stopped in their tracks. They must be stopped.

#104 | POSTED BY EVERLONG

Says the prick with corporate paid for healthcare. Nevermind that most business's in the US are small or self employed..

#118 | Posted by danni at 2010-01-26 05:32 PM | Reply | Flag:

Maybe the same question is being asked because the 'xplainer is recognized as being full of shit and is being asked the same question repeatedly because it is obvious to the askers than the 'xplainer has no real answer other than to point blame at the minority party even though the majority party has enough seats to override any filibuster attempt by the minority party.

"As long as Obama allows Congress to act as the leader he will fail."

I guess the step up from community organizer to congressional organizer was more than the little O expected.

#121 | Posted by Legio at 2010-01-26 06:11 PM | Reply | Flag Wants others to pay for his failure to provide for himself. Wasted too much time partying, mocking those college boys.

After the obstructionists-of-progress Party kill America's Healthcare after already ALL refusing America's Reinvestment act in anger
(in other words, America LAST)....

Dems must realize that Obama and their Party will become lame ducks after only 1 year as the obstruction of progress party will reject every single bill that actually dares to help Americans and not just Corporates and record profits as they demanded and rubber stamped in full goose-stepping unison for the past 8 years to the tune of $9,000,000,000,000 trillion dollars in generational theft with nothing to show but world and national devistation and carnage

So with nothing else Left, backed into a corner; the only remaining answer, combined with the millions of new Bush emails and proof that his FBI was breaking laws, is to

DEMS - SHUT down the Govt and START the years long BUSH / Cheney / Republican Corruption and War Crimes trials
as the filthy Repug Neocons did with Clinton over a single harmless consensual private good time

By the time the Dems finish the Arrests, Trials and CONvictions ->
No filthy scumbag corporate lackey Republicans will get elected for years, Hurray!!!

Would this lying liar explain how the Republicans can filibuster when the Democrats have a filibuster proof majority.

Or is he simply apologizing for Obama's overreaching?

#117 | Posted by midtowncowboy at 2010-01-26 05:09 PM | Reply | Flag:

It's only Filibuster proof is they use the Nuclear Option to override the Filibuster.

Dems will have to make the Nuclear "option" a 70% norm to counter the RepubliCon's abusive escalation of the Buster

Just like the Chimp escalated "signing statements" to disallow any Congressional Law at record levels higher than all previous Presidents - combined!

The RepubliCon gang of criminals have no shame to blatantly act within their constant culture of corruption

"Maybe it's the leaders of Congress who are failing Obama. "

NOt really, it's not their job to lead, it's his.
He seems to have forgotten that.
Someone needs to tell Obama that he is the president of the United States.

#121 | Posted by Legio at 2010-01-26 06:11 PM | Reply | Flag Wants others to pay for his failure to provide for himself. Wasted too much time partying, mocking those college boys.

#123 | POSTED BY MIDTOWNCOWBOY

reading comprehension = browntowncowboy Fail

Nope..7 years, 3 degrees.. laughing all the way to the bank.

You can envy my lifestyle fuckup.

Just want equal access to PAY for health insurance. You retards can't understand we business owners don't want free, just affordable.

The more dysfunction in the Congress the better. Also, more and longer recesses should be mandated. A Congress which is gridlocked is the best as then they are not passing more laws to screw us.

What about the ones that help Americans?

A plethora of them have been passed the last year from credit card reform to mortgage relief.

When you have no ideas, then maintain that all ideas are bad.

Those who are defending the Dems failure to use the filibuster when they were in the minority goes to show that they would prefer to preserve/support "tradition" vs. actually doing their jobs - which is legislating. As Jon Stewart aptly said - in a recent episode - the Republicans did not enjoy this size of a majority during the Bush presidency- and yet they still got things done (whether you agree with what they did or not).

Anyway, Dems and their supporters need to stop blaming voters from MA, tradition, and the Tea Baggers for their problems. The biggest problem are those who represent the Dems in Congress. Is the reason that Pelosi has kept Rangel on the Ways and Means committee is out of "tradition" - allowing a Dem tax cheat to continue to create tax policy.

I love the fact that Dems and Independents who voted for "change" by voting for Obama voted in the same Congress that did nothing for the last four years. Realize it, you have no one to blame but yourselves for this mess.

BTW - Dems used the filibuster to block Bush's judicial nominees. I guess this is tradition ...

70% of legislation is pure shit and should not be passed.

"70% of legislation is pure shit and should not be passed."

Link, please.

#135 | Posted by Doc_Sarvis

Pork, Stimulus, TARP, Health Care, Cash for Clunkers, Cash for caulk, the proposed 'big' spending freeze bill that does nothing, just to name a few of larger bills.

However they they have a name change for the 'next' stimulus bill (you know how liberals love to change the name to reflect a more positive image...keyword here is image):

"However they they have a name change for the 'next' stimulus bill (you know how liberals love to change the name to reflect a more positive image...keyword here is image):"

Here is a convenient keylist to decipher the "progressives'" code. Shhhh...keep it quiet. We don't want them to know that they have finally become "transparent" and we are on to all their secret communications.

Yeah, like Clean Skies Initiative, No Child Left Behind, Clean Waters Initiative, Patriot Act, Job Creation and Worker Assistance Act of 2002, Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002
Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002, Healthy Forests Restoration Act

where was your fauxrage when bush was naming laws lies

#16 | Posted by vernon at 2010-01-26 09:24 AM | Reply

Verm, he asked for specific examples. You return with generalities based on ill concieved notions. You got nuttin.

#29 | Posted by 726 at 2010-01-26 10:03 AM | Reply | Flag:

Eliminating those department will save trillions of dollars and assist the federal government in focusing on the real job

The only reason we still have HHS is the existence of public labor unions

Republicans are lying about the the evils of things like health care reform they like the results. Case in point, Massachussetts health care system has 80% of MA residents' approval and was partly to blame for Coakley's defeat.

#30 | Posted by danni

Danni, Danni, Danni,

Health Care Reform is not evil, ObamaCare is evil. Let's get this straight!

You need to speak the truth in order to keep your credibility, which is very low now.

Oh BTW, can you link to something that says that MA redidents are ok with their plan?

Either way, the fact that MA voted against the Kennedy legacy and voted in a Republican is not working for you.

"You need to speak the truth in order to keep your credibility, which is very low now."

You talk about my credibility and use the term Obamacare in the same post, clue to Eddie, Obama did not write the Senate bill. He didn't write the house bill. That is why they are referred to as "the Senate bill" and "the house bill" everywhere except on Faux News. You should expand your horizons so the talking points wouldn't be so easy to spot, makes you look like a parrot.

-clue to Eddie

Hope you have a really big hammer.

DEMS had 60 votes in the Senate and a super Majority in the house. No way to filibuster - Dems could just vote it down.

But they always need someone else to blame....watch Obama blame Bush tonight.

Only 70%, I would prefer that be about 89 to 95 %. dysfunction is a good thing when it's in the Congress.